StVier

Just wanna bring some attention to a game that I came across recently, and I am in no way affiliated with the company. From the developers that brought you Containment: The Zombie Puzzler, Deadrock Divide is a new game that just started its Kickstarter campaign. As quoted on the official website (http://www.bootsnake...deadrock-divide) "The game blends your favorite elements of video games like X-COM, FTL, Sid Meier's Pirates, Freelancer, with elements from your favorite board games like Merchant of Venus, Space Trucker, Eclipse, and Infinity" Some features which might grab your interest: - Fight in XCOM inspired turn-based tactical combat. Use lasers, turrets, grenades, and more to overcome your enemies. Destructible battlefields open the doors for huge variety in how you choose to fight it out. - Each ship is made up of a number of rooms. You can upgrade, change, and rearrange the rooms in your ship whenever you visit a hangar. Do you want to do some mining? You will need a drilling room. Do you want to carry more cargo so you can trade more at a time? Buy more cargo rooms. There will be over a dozen different types of rooms for you play around with. What’s really cool, as well, if you get boarded, you will fight on your ship in the layout of rooms you have created. Want help fighting off boarders? Buy a sentry room with turrets in it. Read more on the Kickstarter page: https://www.kickstar...deadrock-divide Demo gameplay (actual gameplay starts at 2:45): http://www.twitch.tv...booth/c/3407953

I like my Assault soldiers too, nothing beats 100% to hit with a shotgun to the back of an alien... except maybe two consecutive 75% shots for the more pesky ones. In any case, I wished I had Heavies. 6 months in and still no Heavies among the promotions, except for 1 that's been bugged in 'Wounded' status for more than 4 months.

Woo... in any case, I didn't finish watching the video either, was thinking it would be too much of a spoiler.

Alien base assault, anyone? (Bad link removed) Apologies if someone already posted it.

A gameplay video starting with UFO Interception and the subsequent mission at a desert where the UFO crashed. http://www.joystiq.c...-enemy-unknown/ Couple of things which I've only seen for the first time (maybe due to my own lack of update): - Actual Interception gameplay - Desert landscape - The Inside of the UFO - Smoke grenade! - Cool animation associated with the shotgun - The 'Outsider' alien

4:21 "Since the wound was healed right away, we can now move on...." Woot! Healing potions! Perhaps not quite, but quite misleading still... especially for those not familiar with the old 'bandage system'.

Absolutely love the last question... and the reaction.

Like splitting up the research of an alien into different phases? Phase 1: Recognition (Troop's sighting) Phase 2: Identification of general properties (resistances and weaknesses) Phase 3: Research into physiology and biology Phase 4: Identification of critical weaknesses (for extra damage) It would be nice to get regular updates about a research project into an alien upon completion of certain phases and then to decide if more effort be put into getting further knowledge from the corpse. Reminds me of a squad-based real-time strategy game called Alien Infestation whereby the properties of a weapon varies from mission to mission. For example, a big shiny gun that one-shot aliens in one scenario might actually cause the alien to multiply in another scenario, so there is a need to research a weapon whenever you find one in any given scenario.

Greetings everyone, I have always enjoyed the research aspects of X-Com and subsequent UFO-series but somehow there is this thirst for more, or wished there were much more to it. However, I think if anymore research paths were put into the games, one might have to select the role of a Head Scientist instead of the Commander of troops. After condensing similiarities between games like the UFO series and X-Com. I decided to illustrate the research aspect of these games into a simple diagram. Nothing original for sure, but I would think that there is great potential in what could be considered in future games. I would love to hear about your thoughts and add-ons in this open-ended topic. Let me start the ball rolling... One could simply randomise enemy (or human advanced armour) weaknesses and strengths between new games to generate replayability. For example Alien A in New game 1 could be resistant to laser but susceptible to armour piercing rounds but when you start another new game, Alien A might be resistant to both laser and armour piercing rounds, only taking substantial damage from fire or explosive rounds. The only problem I would see is in the associated text in the alien profile in the Ufopedia. General stuffs could be carried over between new games but the variables like such weaknesses and strengths will have to be appended as a separate section. http://www.xenonauts.com/components/com_agora/img/members/1627/Research-network.jpg

So.... he's still at the crash site now???

Just wondering how Azrael Strife got out of the fix with the proximity grenade...

RTwP do have their merits and their place in strategy games and it's kinda unfair to compare it with Turn-based games... Besides, the main purpose of games is to be enjoyable and in whichever way the market trend determines, not just a specific group of fans. I mean, look at all the FPS on the market and it's not difficult to see why the next X-Com game is an FPS. It's not about X-Com, it's about the market and X-Com just happened to be a name that's been used for the purpose. Take away the name 'X-Com' and we have a 'FBI agent Vs Alien' game, which I'm sure most of us here would look at it differently instead of defending X-Com so aggressively. Chill people... chill.

Some of the...err.... old-timers that grew up with X-Com over the years are pretty much resistant to any changes and will definitely be able to nit-pick just about everything off a new game. X-Com is an excellent game in the genre and trying to 'improve' the original is a daunting task. Even from the small step of changing from EU to TFTD, there has already been some noises from the community, although granted, the core formula of the game remains more or less the same and so there were no major complaints. Moving on to Apocalypse, with the introduction of new 'enhancements' like graphics among otheres, there was even more discomfort in the community as it strays away even further from the original. Following a long period of silence, all the other spiritual successors still get torn to shreds because they were simply 'not X-Com'. It's very confusing as to what exactly do they want? If they want the old X-Com, then why bother with the new games? If the company just 'fine-tune' the original game, and put it on the shelves as a full price game, will gamers be willing to buy it? I suspect most would but will there be enough sales? In addition, 'fine-tune' is a matter of perspective and to come to the point of satisfying every single person takes years of communication between developers and fans, that or a very dedicated modder. That said, I absolutely stand by the fact that long-time fans have a right to not see the name of their favourite game being tainted but if we were all to accept that the original X-Com was the best game ever made, perhaps we could lower the bar from 100% and look at games in the 90% regions on the level.

That's probably the worst case scenario but if it's gonna be like as NKF suggested, in a Deus Ex style of game, there could be some potential there? Whether to stay true to human side or cross over to the aliens, which could tie in with the story (if there is an intention to) of causing a full-blown counter-alien movement, being either the pivotal person to start up X-Com, or put the whole world on alert on the alien threat.

Hmm... I wonder if one of the most common feature of X-Com is gonna be in... one-shot kills at the beginning of the game, that would REALLY remind us what X-Com was all about. Perhaps this is more about what happens before the official organization X-Com was formed? Before X-Com went international, it could have been probably just a minor agency (hence the name difference: XCom) within the government in the earlier days and members were probably misfits (e.g The down-on-luck FBI agent). Anyway, just letting my imagination continue to run, if it is indeed casted in the 50s or so, Roswell could very well be a possible setting.

Perhaps we should focus on what is the most time-consuming factor in X-Com. To me, despite having a 'select next soldier' tab, it's still quite a chore to keep clicking until you get to the soldier you want to give orders to and imagine switching back and forth through the list. Another way I try to select the solider is to scroll the map to click on him/her, not too much a hassle but troublesome nevertheless, especially on big maps and last-alien situations. These days, the problem has been rectified more or less with soldier portrait so it's a one-click selection method with camera-zoom to selected soldier. Other than this, it's still the search and kill on the last alien which gets to me, especially when you have to individually select every single one of the 10 soldiers to move towards that last corner of the map. Tactical yes, but tedious too. Just another point to add is on route-plotting and execution. Letting the AI find their own way to an area you designated can go terribly wrong, and almost feels like I'm playing Starcraft where I simply select my Marines and right-click for them to go the top of the cliff so that I can ambush the enemies. However, more often than not, minor glitches like a unit being blocked by another soldier infront of him would for some reason take a detour thru the enemy's rank. Call me a control freak but I would want the soldier to run from cover to cover and not tell them 'that hill is your destination, go', so waypoints should be in but should prompt for new orders in the event of enemy/trap sighting.

Probably another reason why psi in the first 2 X-Com games were over-power was because one could just spread psi control like a disease simply by sight alone. Common usage is to control an alien, scout around with it, spot another alien, mind-control it and repeat. The blindspot in this system... is that you could effectively mind-control any alien that's spotted by any of your units or mind-controlled units. That, to me is a pretty horrible 'oversight' in the psi system. Imagine if Line of sight and effective range were fundamental prerequisite, meaning Soldier Tom can only attempt to mind-control Alien Dick because he has it in his sight but Soldier Harry can't mess with Dick because the alien is not in visual range of Harry. In addition, mind-control is and should be a 1-to-1 kind of ability with extreme vulnerability, in that since you are effectively taking over another body, you can only control the alien but not the soldier anymore unless he decides to cut the mind-link. Which means if he mind-controls an alien while standing in the open, his body is effectively a sitting duck after he shifts his consciousness to the alien. If he dies, obviously the mind-link is cut. With this, even though the 'hostage' might see other enemies but other than the basic motor functions, there should be no way to one can mind-control another alien nor 'jump' minds. Furthermore, unless the weapon the alien is holding on has been researched, there is no way a mind-controlled alien can use the weapon so it puts another dampener in the effectiveness of Psi abilities. Also, I see a stealth component to playing Psi since one would try to be hidden when attempting to use Psi for various reasons. With regards to implementing it into TB/RT, I supposed RT is straightforward enough so no need for me to explain it. In TB mode, I was thinking maybe a mind-control attempt take up a huge chunk of TUs (since it's effectively a highly and mentally taxing ordeal to focus and control another being), and that the mind-controlled enemy has zero TUs until the next turn (one can imagine taking a whole turn trying to adapt to the new body).

The concept of allocating more TUs for an aimed shot has been implemented in JA2: hovering the reticule over the enemy, you will see the current TUs required to fire a 'snap' shot; right-click and you dedicate slightly more and one final right-click again to fire an aimed shot. Relatively simple and straight-forward enough if I must say. In real-time mode, and I'm gonna cite the UFO series again, beginning from sighting an enemy, lifting the gun to do a snap shot takes for example 2 secs, to fire the gun in burst mode takes another 2 secs, after which correction of aim after recoil takes another 2 secs and the cycle repeats itself. In TB mode, to simplify things, one should group all these actions into 1 block costing a certain TUs. Naturally, in TB mode, after the set of actions, new orders are required so no problems there, but there isn't really an issue in RT mode as well since cancelling the current order to fire is a simple matter of pausing the game and asking all 10 guns shooting at the dead guy to stop. We should also bear in mind that burst fire and auto-mode is part of mechanism of the gun and is linked to 1 single depression of the trigger so obviously we can't stop the remaining 2 bullets from flying out of the barrel even if the first bullet kills, there is even less control over auto-mode since the time between one bullet and another is in micro-seconds and it would take a good number of bullets from 'knowing' the enemy is dead to stopping the spitting from the barrel. In any case, I think we shouldn't try to complicate things too much, just try to think in terms of firing rate and what is the equivalent of 1 TU in real-time, then TU usage on weapons, regardless of firing mode, can be relatively handled. Since the firing rate of a weapon is a constant, the only variable would come from time taken to aim (aim Vs snap shot) and the type of firing mode (Single Vs burst Vs auto) to determine how many shots are fired before 1 set of action is completed and requiring an input from the player. Not sure if any of that make sense but I just feel that no mater what, it's gonna be quite difficult to break away from the many successful features in previous games, unless one comes up with a truly innovative and unique formula or enhances these well-received system.

I supposed the type of missions could give rise to out-of-battle situations? I'm can't be sure but it's quite normal for developers to throw in variety of mission scenarios other than 'kill all hostiles' so Colonisation could jolly well such variety? However, mission types can spawn a whole new thread of discussion but generally, out-of-battle situations might find their place in there, probably just as a bonus rather than a focus. Escape AI is a good idea to do away with the hunt for that elusive bugger but caution should go into designing the escape AI... a mad dash for the exit is simply gonna give players the habit of hanging around the exit, assuming the exit area is fixed, unless it's a random teleport portal which is only known to aliens...

... which works perfectly well in the UFO series, and more or less improved along the series. The game pauses when enemy is sighted, when there's no more ammo, when soldier is down etc... important instances which require the player to make a decision. The situations in JA2 or Silent Storm is that 'real-time until enemy contact' has it's out of battle functions, though limited, like searching drawers and such for the additional med-kit or toolboxes. It really depends on the size of maps and what there is to do beside shooting at aliens and searching their bodies. Maps in X-Com games aren't that big but it's frustrating enough at times. With modern days capabilities, if developers want, they can very well just have 1 20-storey skyscraper with every floor accessible, but can one imagine going turn-based on this kind of maps? I have more or less been pampered with playing real-time with pause functions but I am still able to keep at it with the original X-com games, but if I were to cross maps between games, I can see that what might work for TB will work with RTwP but not always the case vice versa. X-Com: Apocalypse is still a prime example of an X-Com game attempting to cross the 2 gameplay options but it does have its flaws. I could never get into the Real-time mode back then because things can somehow get furiously fast and screen messy with civilians, agents and aliens running around and hiding and getting shot during a cross-fire, which I never wanted to happen but nevertheless ended before I could react... even at slow speed! In any case, the point I want to get across is both TB and RTwP has their own merits but to implement TB for nostalgia's sake or to win over the original X-Com fans, it's gonna be potential choke-point in terms of gameplay and really have to be well-thought out and balanced with RT gameplay... I'm merely echoing what other people have said.

I like this paragraph... would be wicked to include annual leave and family issues, somehow reminds me of the soccer managers game. Anyway, just a brief note about 'reactions', although not neccessary the case but rank should be consideration factor along with recklessness and bravery or other reaction-related stats. I can imagine a freshie requesting orders just about every step of their way but more prone to stupid mistakes should they act on their own, but a sergeant would make a more informed decision if left on their own. Does a soldier hiding behind a barrel come under fire shoot back or find better protection? How differently/similarly would a sergeant and a private react in the situation? It's almost like a RPG saving throw against recklessness/bravery that decides if a soldier tries to be Rambo or the enemy soldiers that jump out of cover to get shot by him.

Just a quick note about weapons then I'm off to continue playing X-Com 1... Probably you guys have thought of it but 'variety' comes from the different combinations of a) long-range/close-range b) single shot / burst / auto capability c) Projectile / Laser (or beam) / Advanced - Ion, particle or plasma etc. d) Specialization required to use weapon (like in UFO: Aftershock) e) Ammo type... but maybe not, because I personally find it quite tedious (and slightly redundant) to manufacture AP and JHP for 1 weapon, unless it's extremely linked to the next point... f) Most important of all: Enemy resistance, which would ensure some weapons do not become obselete in favour of advanced technology. Just by mixing a) and c), there are already 6 solid and functional types, which should cater to most style of playing. Miniscule differences between prototype A and prototype B such as 1 more point of damage but less 1m range should be avoided? Give players a true selection headache based on tactical play which, still is the heart of all X-Com combat.

It's certainly nice to hear another voice from the development team so thank you for taking the time to introduce yourself to us Larry! Here's another offhand comment from me: Was reading thru Veteran's earlier post about the research and development overhaul and it brings to mind the setting in X-Com: Apocalypse. Despite the relatively boring fights, I quite like the setting in X-Com: Apocalypse; a futuristic and artificial world, with the fundamental of an X-Com game still intact. There are several aspects which I like as well. The relationship of individual corporations with X-Com and with each other adds an interesting twist to gameplay as well. I vaguely remember an example, like if you irritate the transportation company (can't remember the name), you are no longer able to get more people into X-Com because the transport refuses to pick up X-Com personnel, or the refusal to sell X-Com any weapons if you did something to Marsec. In addition, there's the Cult to fend off every now and then as well. Also, I'm sure people have heard about the some of the intended gameplay that wasn't implemented in Apocalypse, for example (as far as I remember), they include abduction/protection of an important figure. Anyway, back to the R&D part. Veteran's idea of global effort falls partially along the lines of that in the first game of the UFO series, UFO:Aftermath, whereby individual sectors can be selected as either a research base, manufacturing base, a military base or a Biomass repelling base. Truth be told, I never liked that aspect of Aftermath, but Aftermath is a good example of a module I supposed, whereby the focus seemed to be introducing us to a more modern 'real-time with pause' idea in alien fighting. For some reason, I still prefer to do my own research within my own facilities but that's my own preference of course. The last thing I want to ask is: Would it better if the new game is away from Earth? I mean, comparing the first two X-Coms to Apocalypse, there seemed to be more freedom in playing around with the design of the game in Apocalypse without the constraints of Earth-related issues like conventional weapons. Even in UFO: Aftershock, reclaiming back Earth in 2059 still mostly gives us just AK-47 and Desert Eagle to use, with the introduction of warp and laser technology in late-game. From a modding and add-on point of view, it's an excellent but relatively unexciting idea. We (at least I) was happy with Laser Vs Plasma and Gauss Vs Sonic in the first two X-Coms, hundreds of choices still just boils down to that few better weapon to use.

Hmm... by venturing into the grunt AI issues, I can foresee a chain of problems. For example, in the '2 aliens at 5 metres and 10 metres scenario' that you brought up, what if in the event the alien at 10 metres away is the bigger threat (e.g. Chrysalids) or the one at 5 metres is wounded and unarmed? Would, and should the soldier be able to recognize the threat level of individual aliens? Or would a reckless soldier shoot the civilian that suddenly jump out of the dark? (This reminds me of something, I will go into it later) Ideally, the game should be as realistic as possible, well as realistic as human element in Sci-fi game should be anyway. However, by introducing squad AI, it might be a programming nightmare as well as not sitting well with players. For example, games like Majesty and Medieval Conquest (not the war strategy game), the player has no direct control over the heroes in the game but instead gives general orders to go there and kill this or to explore that area. Common issues such as pathfinding might come up, as well as praying the heroes do what you had in mind. Obviously, I do not think the X-Com game you have in mind is going to take such a hands-off approach but just a reminder that apart from the 'flight or fight' from the Bravery stat from the original X-Com games, any other instances of AI, especially multi-factor ones, might give you a headache when trying to design the game. Now back to the 'something' I thought of a while ago, fog of war. Please do not forget to include fog of war. In addition, you mentioning 'Awareness' gave me a scene in my mind about a soldier seeing something move in the distance but depending on his 'awareness' (or another related stat), he might or might not be able to identify the figure. A small point but it might give an 'alien in disguise' opportunity, like Chrysalid-impregnated civilian. Anyway, just something that crossed my mind.

Just a quick addition regarding the turn-based Vs real-time issue... I remember X-Com 3: Apocalypse giving you the option to choose between real-time or turn-based combat upon reaching the incident site. Although I have not touched X-Com 3 for an extremely long while, I still remember the usual suspense during the alien's turn, and the panic when I see a Popper appear and started running towards one of my guys. Obviously, being too aggressive most of the time, I do not leave any Time units for opportunity shot and so it's very likely one of my guys go boom. However, in real-time combat, Poppers rarely give any problems, unless one appears from a blind spot or none of my guys can make a decent shot at it. I believe this is somewhat of a good case study when trying to give players the option to go turn-based or real-time, especially taking into consideration Interrupt or opportunity shot. Personally, I still think UFO: Aftershock does a pretty good job when it comes to the way combat is handle in terms of "time management". Running from Point A to B is in real-time but game pauses when an enemy is sighted, giving you time to decide and issue the order to continue running or to take a shot before un-pausing the game. Similarly, during a firefight in slowed-time, if you see an enemy preparing a grenade, it gives you time to react and pause the game to issue orders to run if possible, but would otherwise be impossible to react if game was at normal-speed in real-time, especially if you have a relatively closely-packed group and you want to issue individual orders to each one for them to run from expected point of detonation. One more comparison before I wrap it up: It never fails to frustrate me when I have to search each and single cabin on the cruise ship for the last alien during a terror mission in TFTD, but in UFO, I could pre-planned the route and where to search and let my guys do their job while I oversee the action. So just some points to consider with regards to Turn-based Vs Real-time with pause: Opportunity shot and real-life reaction timing (if any), searching for that last hidden alien and also types of movement (which I didn't say much but if I want to crawl from A to B, I hope to reach B in reasonable time in real-life). We know talk is easy (which is what I have been doing mostly) and all the hard work is in the designing and implementation so a salute for dedicating time to create another game!