XCOM: Enemy Unknown - Strategy Game - Developed by Firaxis

Kannon wrote:

But no, any attempt to make the game actually playable to people besides those of us with way too damned much time and stubbornness on our hands, and it's magically dumbed down.

Not to be rude here... but that's exactly what it is. Dumbed down. Less complex. Approachable. Whatever you want to call it.

Firaxis is bringing back X-com and I AM happy about the fact. But in the process they are simplifying and condensing many of the game mechanics. And NOT just to conform the gameplay to a console control scheme. The more information we get about the new game, the more they seem to be changing things so much as to be completely unrecognizable. Its too early to tell the total extent. But you can only take things so far before the game ends up a pale shadow of the original. Related to it only in name.

I get why Firaxis is doing this, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. For a game to be deep and rewarding it often needs to shut out a portion of its potential audience. I think Men of War is a fantastic game, but to even learn the basic mechanics is an uphill climb. If you go all the way to the end of the spectrum you get something like Aurora. Where I see a Canadian space empire conquering the stars with giant laser cannons. Most people wouldn't be able to see the game that exists past spreadsheets and an air traffic control radar. Is it the fault of the game that some people don't like this level of complexity? Of course not.

But when you take a game and change it to be more inclusive to a wider audience. You lose some of what made it so great. Just imagine if Bioware announced tomorrow that they were making Tie Fighter 2 as a free to play console MMO.

Emergent narratives like the one Tamren related came out of the Xcom mechanics, but such incidents were few and far between.

If you can make a statement like that, that close shaves weren't an absolutely integral part of X-Com, and that your soldiers didn't come home with single-digit hit points on a regular basis, then I don't think you played X-Com very much. The only way I can imagine you holding that opinion is if you just didn't have very much time in the original game.

InspectorFowler wrote:

Wait, wait.

Forgive the skimming.

Can you name your troops?

If so, I'm in. If not, no dice.

Same. I'm giving them all GWJer names.

Malor wrote:

The only way I can imagine you holding that opinion is if you just didn't have very much time in the original game.

I would like to say that when a discussion of a number in a screenshot has reached this point, maybe it's not a productive avenue to explore anymore.

Who's to say you'll always be taking 5 points of damage? We have no idea of the sort of weaponry we'll be seeing in game. And none of that factors in damage reduction from armour, burst weapons that may hit multiple times, splash damage... and really, is a pistol all that different from a rifle, and a rifle from a laser or plasma gun? If you get slugged with a pistol at close range, you're probably going down. Unless you're wearing armour that negates the bullet that is (no damage!), or get hit in an extremity (3 points damage! You're now on 3 points of damage and will fall unconscious in 3 turns, assuming a similar bleed out system).

You could say armour will make early guns useless (which they are for the most part against late game enemies in the original anyway), but then if you get a lucky critical you could get around that. Or perhaps you're using armour piercing slugs, which don't do extra damage but rip through armour. This is already getting into deep levels of complexity that still allows for lucky saves and one-in-a-million shots, and all with 6 hit points. And it's about double that anyway from what I can see (and no doubt increases as your soldiers rank up, allowing your higher ranked soldiers even more granularity, as it should be).

It's all speculation on my part, but that's all we can really do at the moment. Assuming they don't have deeper systems in place and calling it dumbed down is premature.

Yikes, the conversation got ahead of me a bit...

Malor wrote:

Another way of putting it: say a pistol does 1 damage. There is no way, in this system, to make a weapon that is half again more damaging than a pistol. Either it's exactly the same, or it's at least twice as damaging.

Do you really need to have a less damaging weapon that a pistol? Assuming a 6 hit-point system, 1 hitpoint of damage is a non-threatening shoulder wound. Do you really need to map boo-boos smaller than that in a combat simulation?

As Malor said earlier, its a problem of granularity. When you simplify otherwise complicated mechanics to the point that the numbers involved have all been divided by 10. You greatly REDUCE the number of possible outcomes in a given fight. You end up with a system that is very "chunky" and doesn't allow for very close victories or very close failures.

Let me give you an example from one of my Goodjer XCOM games. I was assaulting an alien base. Manned by floaters if I remember correctly. Milkman and Cube had taken the long way around to get to the door of the command centre. To back them up I had Grubber and Khoram take a shortcut by cutting through the outer wall with their heavy plasma.

When I ended the turn a blaster bomb came down the lift.

As soon as I heard that sound I thought everyone was as good as dead. A blast at that range would kill them all. But luck was on our side that day. It exploded, the smoke cleared and I saw this:
IMAGE(http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/8250/milkmanssurvival.png)

The blaster bomb had flown through the hole cut in the wall by Khoram and exploded in the corridor outside. Grubber and Khoram barely survived because the wall absorbed just enough of the blast to keep them alive. When the bomb detonated a cone of debris shot back through the hole in the wall and hit Cube in the back, killing him instantly. If Milkman had been standing just one tile to the right, he would have died too.

The calculations used to determine the damage done by explosions are far too detailed to list out here. But you can check them out on the wiki page.

http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?t...

When you tally up the numbers involved. Things turned out so close that if Cube had been facing the blast he just might have survived it. Or the blast might have been so strong that it claimed Khoram and Grubber too, despite the very tough wall in between.

Now obviously the new game is very new and we know almost nothing about it. But its probably a safe bet that soldiers in XCOM will have about 6-10 HP. 6-10 degrees of survival is nowhere near 25-60, and even if you divide that by 5 it comes out to 5-12. Without enough variation in possible outcomes we won't be able to have stories like the one I told above.

Malor wrote:
Emergent narratives like the one Tamren related came out of the Xcom mechanics, but such incidents were few and far between.

If you can make a statement like that, that close shaves weren't an absolutely integral part of X-Com, and that your soldiers didn't come home with single-digit hit points on a regular basis, then I don't think you played X-Com very much. The only way I can imagine you holding that opinion is if you just didn't have very much time in the original game.

I agree with Switchbreak, but to elaborate further...

...I don't think that close shaves are an integral part of the experience because they are infrequent and they give the wrong idea to a bad Commander. Tamren's troops survived because of a miracle. They should be dead. In many playthroughs of the same incident, they would be.

If you play a lot of XCOM, you don't rely on close shaves and on random AI missteps to make your way. You systematize your attacks to maximize your chances. No playing the dice unless you have no choice. It's too easy to lose the Earth that way.

So no, my soldiers don't regularly come home with single digit hit points. Normally, they come home alive and perfectly well.

Redwing wrote:

Do you really need to have a less damaging weapon that a pistol? Assuming a 6 hit-point system, 1 hitpoint of damage is a non-threatening shoulder wound. Do you really need to map boo-boos smaller than that in a combat simulation?

I suppose the plausibility of the health/dmg modelling depends on whether being probed by an alien tentacle anally is more or less damage than a pistol.

Of this, I do not know. But surely the system would need to consider both the physical and emotional trauma of such an alien close encounter.

I think Redwing's point is valid. For the very little we know, if a soldier has six total health points, it would probably even be more thrilling for the sheer fact that you are managing such a small pool of health. It's possible that the 6 health points would even represent six ranges of health as opposed to distinct points even. Who knows. For a team that is playing the original XCOM so constantly, I think we're gonna have to believe that they get what it is about.

Redwing wrote:

Yikes, the conversation got ahead of me a bit...

Malor wrote:

Another way of putting it: say a pistol does 1 damage. There is no way, in this system, to make a weapon that is half again more damaging than a pistol. Either it's exactly the same, or it's at least twice as damaging.

Do you really need to have a less damaging weapon that a pistol? Assuming a 6 hit-point system, 1 hitpoint of damage is a non-threatening shoulder wound. Do you really need to map boo-boos smaller than that in a combat simulation?

There is actually a way to make a weapon that is 50% more deadly than a pistol doing 1 damage. That is to make a pistol with a greater critical hit percentage, exactly modified to be 150% more dangerous, and no more.

There is no complexity being lost here. It's a presentation issue. Having smaller numbers with explicitly stated effects is better than having large numerical relationships with implied effects.

EDIT: Actually, what I thought about is similar: it's hard to simulate a variety of damage effects with just 10 HP, so I was assuming that the game would eventually level the soldiers to about 40 ish HP max. At the start of the game, everything is deadly, so you only get 6-10.

Essentially, my take was that they were going to model armor, not by damage mitigation but by giving your dudes more HP.

You guys are all missing the big picture, and the only critical piece of information we need about this game.

Will there be Hattes?

Malor wrote:

The only way I can imagine you holding that opinion is if you just didn't have very much time in the original game.

Before you guys think worse of Malor for saying this... I would like to point out that he is absolutely correct.

Emergent narratives happen all over the game. The more you play, the more you will see. They don't have to be full fledged "incidents" worthy of a song. If you never found any it was because you didn't play enough, or you played it too safe.

Tales of lucky survival don't need to involve massive explosions. One time when assaulting an alien base I moved Grubber and had him crouch even though there was no enemy in sight. The very next turn a plasma bolt hit the wall right above his head. If he had been standing it would have hit him in the face.

Close shaves are an integral part to the game because you NEED to take risks to win. That tale of miraculous survival with Khoram, Grubber and Milkman wouldn't have happened if I had simply played it safe and sent in only one man. But there is more to the situation than that. I needed to capture a commander alive, if I failed to do so I would need to attack a whole other alien base. Maybe losing men in the process, quite possibly more than 4 men. If I had sent men one at a time they might have all been killed as well. I took the risk to send all of them to give them a better chance at storming the command centre. And I very VERY nearly paid the price.

Not only are these the events I remember the most fondly. They are also the only events I remember at all. Sure, you CAN play conservatively and use every trick in the book to bring your men home alive every time. You could mind control every alien you see, or use a blaster launcher on everything from across the map. But do you even remember what those missions were like? Do they stand out in your mind whenever you think of the game? Of course not.

This is why I argue vehemently against anything that breaks the narrative. Simplifying the game systems won't stop crazy emergent stories from happening. But the variations will be MUCH fewer and far between.

Its not just about killing aliens for me. Its about that time when Redwing literally missed the broad side of a barn. Or the time I got to see NathanialG get defeated by some random bit of masonry.

IMAGE(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/2219/57893540.png)

I remember the missions my men undertake, thank you. Your way of playing XCOM is not superior to mine.

You don't need to take unnecessary risks. Some risks you need to take, but sending in 4 men blind when a blaster bomb is suspected is just foolhardy. Why send in men in the first place? A HWP is more replaceable.

Moreover, I'm not seeing anywhere in there where a smaller HP pool would have made a difference!

Squaddie health might and most likely will be a dynamic, upgradable value. Who's to say you dont end up with 25HP tank by the end?

Armor might alter the stats and situations significantly, as it should. We are fragile sacks of meat, we should count on our kewlars for protection, not thickness of skin.

The intensity of speculation here is kinda amusing I`m willing to wait for more in-depth info before going all-out nerd-rage. Just gimme access to more than 4 squaddies, thank you very much.

Tamren wrote:

Its not just about killing aliens for me. Its about that time when Redwing literally missed the broad side of a barn.

Well now you're just using ad-hominems!

Spoiler:

But seriously, did I hit anything in your game? I seem to remember blowing up a lot of scenery and not a lot else.

I really do hope moments like that are possible in the new game, I just really haven't seen anything yet that personally gives me the notion that this isn't an attempt at a honest-to-god loving recreation of the original X-com with modern sensibilities and sexy new graphics. I'm nothing if not an eternal optimist!

I assume Tkyl will make sure that any character named after me is just as awesome in the new X-Com as I was in the Tamren's version of the old. This is really all that matters.

LarryC wrote:

You don't need to take unnecessary risks. Some risks you need to take, but sending in 4 men blind when a blaster bomb is suspected is just foolhardy. Why send in men in the first place? A HWP is more replaceable.

Because I needed to capture the alien commander alive. HWPs can't carry stun rods.

Tamren wrote:
LarryC wrote:

You don't need to take unnecessary risks. Some risks you need to take, but sending in 4 men blind when a blaster bomb is suspected is just foolhardy. Why send in men in the first place? A HWP is more replaceable.

Because I needed to capture the alien commander alive. HWPs can't carry stun rods.

Clearly, you'll be using the HWP to spot aliens, not to shoot at them. Once the alien disposition is determined, you can more surely deploy your men with less risk of the disaster your squad barely avoided.

It'll also absorb explosive damage in the event of a blaster bomb.

I don't use HWPs in alien bases. They are too large and cumbersome, can't fire past infantry in front of them and block infantry behind them. Being 2 tiles wide means they tend to get shot in the side armour a lot when turning corners. Sending a lone HWP into the command centre to have a look around sounds like a great way to lose a HWP. Its really no different from sending a single soldier. Except as I already noted, they can't carry stun rods.

Knowing the number and disposition of the aliens in the command centre doesn't change the fact that you still need to send a man up there to tazer them. Even firing a single shot while you are up there is inadvisable because if you hit the command consoles you will start a chain reaction that fills the whole place with explosions and often kills the alien you want to capture. If that alien dies you are back to square one. So unless you have stun ball launchers (which I didn't at the time) the only viable course of action is to eliminate all the aliens you can see from the ground floor. Then rush up there and tazer the rest of the aliens. If you didn't bring a mind probe to identify individual aliens, you will have no other option but to tazer them all.

Sending a single man may mean he just gets killed. And by the time the second man arrives the aliens will have refreshed their TUs. So its better to use multiple soldiers at once, even if it means the possibility of losing them all. If you succeed you won't have to attempt this all over again and can simply destroy the command centre in all further bases. Sure its a risk, but sometimes you need to sacrifice a few good men in pursuit of something important.

LarryC wrote:

It'll also absorb explosive damage in the event of a blaster bomb.

This is incorrect. HWPs take 4X normal damage from explosives because the vehicle occupies 4 separate tiles. Unless it sits at the very edge of the blast, a blaster bomb will instantly kill any HWP.

Malor wrote:

Another way of putting it: say a pistol does 1 damage. There is no way, in this system, to make a weapon that is half again more damaging than a pistol. Either it's exactly the same, or it's at least twice as damaging.

So? Granularity isn't complexity. It's just minor detail that, at the end of the day, doesn't actually add depth. There is no difference between a player surviving with 1/6 HP and 1/60. One additional hit will kill them in either case.

I'm excited again. Individual decisions might be good, and they might be bad. But the developers clearly know what kind of experience the original game provided, and what they're going for.

I just want it to be out so I can see if I like it.

cube wrote:
Malor wrote:

Another way of putting it: say a pistol does 1 damage. There is no way, in this system, to make a weapon that is half again more damaging than a pistol. Either it's exactly the same, or it's at least twice as damaging.

So? Granularity isn't complexity. It's just minor detail that, at the end of the day, doesn't actually add depth. There is no difference between a player surviving with 1/6 HP and 1/60. One additional hit will kill them in either case.

That's the thing; we know for a fact a team member with 1/60 will die if hit again, or is dying due to wounds / bleeding.
We don't know enough about the new HP mechanic to pass judgment.

Besides, I think it's safe to say within a few months of release, the community will release enough mods to turn 2012 X:Com into a hi-res carbon copy of 1993 X:Com, thus keeping all purists happy.

Well, they nailed the sounds

So it's been a week or so, and despite my reservations about the gameplay, I'm still excited to see what the new XCOM has to offer. Mostly this is because it's been a long time since I've had a new turn-based squad-tactical game with destructible environments, and Firaxis has a good track record when it comes to production values. Well, maybe not so much with their netcode, but at least I don't worry about it suffering from, er, "Eastern European Development Syndrome."

Hypatian wrote:

I'm excited again. Individual decisions might be good, and they might be bad. But the developers clearly know what kind of experience the original game provided, and what they're going for.

I just want it to be out so I can see if I like it. :)

Anyone know when it will be out?... /glares at Tkyl

Slacker1913 wrote:

Well, they nailed the sounds

Holy crap, I just watched that video, and they do indeed nail the sounds and music. The tone is perfect. The sectoid's noise reminded me of the clicking from the aliens in Signs. They sound awesome.

I don't think this means anything, but if you watch the video, there's a screen grab there, that shows your squad inside what looks like a human base, perhaps its a cinematic and not anything else, but I counted 5, five, FIVE, soldiers. Don't know if it'll mean anything to the squad size discussion, but I take it as a sign of good things to come.

The music alone, how they captured the essence and tone of the first game, is impressive. I definitely approve, and hope has been restored!!!

Slacker1913 wrote:

Well, they nailed the sounds

Yeah, totally. The re-use of the opening notes from the original game's intro made me grin. Heard that many, many times.

The more i see of these videos, the more I'm curious about the game. Looks good so far.

cube wrote:
Malor wrote:

Another way of putting it: say a pistol does 1 damage. There is no way, in this system, to make a weapon that is half again more damaging than a pistol. Either it's exactly the same, or it's at least twice as damaging.

So? Granularity isn't complexity. It's just minor detail that, at the end of the day, doesn't actually add depth. There is no difference between a player surviving with 1/6 HP and 1/60. One additional hit will kill them in either case.

But that example doesn't work because you are describing a situation with only one outcome. Of course there is no difference!

Granularity ALLOWS for complexity and depth. It doesn't magically generate it, but you can't have one without the other. 60/60 is far more complicated than 6/6 because there are so many more ways that you can arrive at one. It doesn't matter that the soldier will still likely die in one or two hits. If the possibility remains open that he could survive by a miracle, every now and then he will. You just can't do that in a system with single digit hitpoints. Surviving with 1/6 HP is nothing amazing because it happens all the time.

Slacker1913 wrote:

Well, they nailed the sounds

The music is awesome.

In one of the shots you can see an XCOM trooper with 11 hitpoints. The game displays hitpoints as a stack of bars beside the unit in question. It looks like the maximum it can display is 15 without looking a bit goofy. Considering the giant robot walker thing has only 12 hitpoints, 15 is looking like the new ceiling.

I could imagine a display with a different symbol (stars, say) for larger amounts. Imagine five stars and ten pips to display 60 (ten HP per star, one per pip, once all of the pips run out you take out a star and refill the pips. etc.)

I'm not terribly worried about small HP numbers. There are a lot of different ways to represent this sort of thing that have been done in all sorts of games. Specifically thinking about attrition tables right now--where it was basically "based on competing strength, roll a die to see what each side loses". Units didn't have any HP at all in that kind of system, they just lived or they died.

If you know the probabilities, there's still plenty of room for an exciting "hail mary" kind of scenario. "OMG, he had 1hp left and that baddie had three shots at him with a 90% chance to hit each time, and he [em]made[/em] it!", for example, vs "He had 1hp left, but nobody had a better than 10% chance to hit him he was moving so fast."

If they're smart they're playtesting the heck out of this to see what best gives that feeling of tension but at the same time leaves you knowing exactly what your chances of any given outcome are, so you can plan as well as possible.

Actually, I'm sort of seeing a trend in smaller numbers in things lately, I think. I think it's kind of fresh-feeling. I mean, looking similarly at small numbers of XP and such in Diablo III. Contrast this with the score inflation that happened with pinball machines. *shrug* I don't think the X-COM numbers were ever so large as to really fit that mold, but I certainly think that making them even smaller but giving dramatically more detailed on-screen hit probabilities is a reasonable choice.