Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Discuss RPGs, video games, films, series, books. No political, religious or other serious debates, this is a hobby forum.

Moderator: SagaDC

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5628
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Woolfe » June 14th, 2017, 11:26 pm

Remo wrote:
June 14th, 2017, 6:11 am
post_id=188029 wrote:
June 13th, 2017, 6:14 pm
Ok. So for me, the different ammo types is less important, as to just the ammo component.
The load up everyones pockets and hope it lasts is EXACTLY what I want. It creates a scarcity issue. You go into the mission, and one of the things you have to weigh up, is whether you can be free and easy with your ammo, or do you conserve it.
Ammo scarcity works well in Post-Apoc setting, but I don't see an elite worldwide professional military organization running out on basic ammo.. it would be a footnote on your operational cost balance sheet along with fuel, food etc expanses.. if we can support the infrastructure for a fleet of strike jets we can have an armory sufficiently supplied with basic ammo :lol:
In between missions sure, heck even maybe back at your vehicle. What about when you can't get back? Or you are called elsewhere?
Although in the end its the <strike>economy</strike> gameplay, stupid. The resource Management system was really about providing a way to balance and reward what you can do on the tactical level. The question is whether that is the best way to achieve that, because lets be honest X-Com economics was a joke, it took you a couple of hours to figure out the best play and then its just monotonous gameplay for the rest of your game, every game.
Yep I won't deny that, the economic game was broken, so why not fix it. The one I saw in the Reboot was just pisspoor. It was worse than a broken one. The economy was meant to be important, because in the original, it was expected that you would lose some nations as the aliens started to infiltrate more. Yes it was a means to allow the tactical game, but it was also a key part of the game in and of itself. If you didn't take some notice of the economy, you would end up strapped for cash and fighting a much more desperate game.
post_id=188029 wrote:
June 13th, 2017, 6:14 pm
Now in most single one off missions, it probably won't cause any issues if you go wild with your fire. But if you are going to have a few missions one after the other, it becomes an extra constraint, and adds flavour.
Overall it is always about making smart decisions, making use of the available information to assess the situation to come up with a good plan. On the operational level its about the type of engagement/foes you'd be facing, what tactics you can employ given your available assets, and choosing the best weapons and equipment for the task ahead. On the tactical level it's about reconnaissance to determine an engagement area, positioning, fire support, adapting etc.
Sure. At a tactical level, and all ammunition does is add one more factor to consider. Is it a mission type that will require a lot of combat, should we maybe take some extra ammo on a character instead of say explosives. Its not just make work, it is a tactical, logistical decision that needs to be made.
To that effect, to me good gameplay is about the wealth of your tactical decision making toolbox. Let me make use reconnaissance drones, smoke to preposition and hinder their line of sight, send hail of bullets and explosives to suppress their positions and cause mayhem, utilize explosives and demolitions to deny them cover and create new points of ingress, smart positioning to flanking their shield users, etc etc.. To that effect, given that Phoenix point is going to use some ability "mana" for balance, I don't see bullet counting offering anything other than encourage boring gameplay (think overwatch creep) and generally more limited tactical options.

As for the rest, making use of deployment and recovery times offers the same constraint you mentioned, and is indeed a good idea.
Do you or do you not "Reload" in the X-com Reboot?
In most situations, you are going to have enough ammo to get through the battle. Hence you will have no functional difference to the gameplay.

However in some situations, (Long drawn out base assault, a siege, multiple small missions one after the other etc) ammunition should become an issue. Because it is a reasonable tactical element that affects the gameplay.
The addition of ammunition should be done so as to add to the game. It should add a factor to concern yourself with. Something addressable through good planning, but will be an issue sometimes when things go wrong.
It shouldn't be "bullet counting".

By the way. I am actually considering loading up the Reboot. Whacking some Mods on it, and seeing if it is any better with time. I only have the Vanilla game, no DLC, or expansions. Do you think it is worth it, or will I just get more annoyed at it... :roll: :shock: :lol:
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

Remo
Scholar
Posts: 144
Joined: April 24th, 2017, 3:16 am

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Remo » June 19th, 2017, 9:25 am

Woolfe wrote:
June 14th, 2017, 11:26 pm
In between missions sure, heck even maybe back at your vehicle. What about when you can't get back? Or you are called elsewhere?
If your soldiers are called elsewhere then they would be able to rearm at the dropship and it's combat fatigue and fuel reserves that should be your immediate concern.. In either case, it is easy to rationalize mechanics we like and poke holes in those we don't, I can make the same argument you did about equipment damaged/repair which the original Xcom and pretty much every tactical games abstract because ultimately it servers little importance to their gameplay.

I think that the original Xcom mechanics lend tied very well together and its technobabble was plausible given the setting, however, In the end it is all comes down to gameplay and after playing both I find the new Xcom FAR more engaging and fun experience, and I absolutely didn't miss the after mission inventory bullet counting.
Woolfe wrote:
June 14th, 2017, 11:26 pm
Sure. At a tactical level, and all ammunition does is add one more factor to consider. Is it a mission type that will require a lot of combat, should we maybe take some extra ammo on a character instead of say explosives. Its not just make work, it is a tactical, logistical decision that needs to be made.
Yeah, but all those consideration are present in the reboot.. As military organization you have access to unlimited supply of conventional weapons and ammunition. Your soldiers carry sufficient ammunition with them to carry out each mission, but otherwise they have limited supply of grenades and heavy weapons for each mission (that include the rare two-stage missions).

Obviously your weapons need to be reloaded, which cost action points todo, and special abilities have cooldowns. Later more advanced ammunition and laser weaponry can be researched/produced. There are more ammunition type, that should be change depending on the situation and your team makeup/specialization. As your soldiers gain experience you'd be able to specialize them in their field e.g. expanding their abilities or kits capacity (the usual offense/defense/support stuff.) etc etc etc

Overall I feel that whole 'ammo issue' has been blown up out of proportion in some circles by few old' timers on a 'get off my lawn' bandwagon, because what Firaxis actually removed is minute and dwarfed in comparison to how much they add/improved. Sure the game has been streamlined to be more accessible on the casual/normal difficulty (like in 99% triple-A titles) but make no mistake even vanilla XCOM EU is more complex game than the original, and with later addition and mods it make the original feel like mobile crap in comparison! Even Julian said that his pit peeve with new XCOM that it was "too difficult"! ( And I don't think he was joking )
Woolfe wrote:
June 14th, 2017, 11:26 pm
By the way. I am actually considering loading up the Reboot. Whacking some Mods on it, and seeing if it is any better with time. I only have the Vanilla game, no DLC, or expansions. Do you think it is worth it, or will I just get more annoyed at it... :roll: :shock: :lol:
I am not sure about XCOM EU mods ( I skipped the initial release, and by the time I came along Enemy Within and long war mod was available, and with xcom2 release I didn't have time for extra playthroughs ) you can try the nexus although I'd suggest you do some research on a dedicated forum.

My only recommendation is that you try to play on higher difficulty level, to help you learn what works and figure out all nuances and synergies, and overall making all your choices really count in the long run.

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5628
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Woolfe » June 19th, 2017, 4:29 pm

Remo wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 9:25 am
Woolfe wrote:
June 14th, 2017, 11:26 pm
In between missions sure, heck even maybe back at your vehicle. What about when you can't get back? Or you are called elsewhere?
If your soldiers are called elsewhere then they would be able to rearm at the dropship and it's combat fatigue and fuel reserves that should be your immediate concern.. In either case, it is easy to rationalize mechanics we like and poke holes in those we don't, I can make the same argument you did about equipment damaged/repair which the original Xcom and pretty much every tactical games abstract because ultimately it servers little importance to their gameplay.
Actually you can't. The original Xcom had a weight limit on the Chopper. Hence why you could only have 12(I think) soldiers on the flight. So the idea that you could stock the dropship with additional ammunition weight, assumes that you are not taking a full load of troops in the first place.
That should be an option. Do you have a stock of ammo? or do you take an extra soldier?
Either way any amount of gear on the Vehicle would never equate to a full load out, as that would be close to double the weight of equipment being carried.
In the original game, it was not unusual for me to finish a mission, and on the way back have another mission become available. I then had a choice of diverting to perform the mission immediately, or return and get refitted then try and get back to the mission. If you don't have Ammo, or as you mention fatigue mechanics, then the risk becomes significantly less.
Remo wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 9:25 am
I think that the original Xcom mechanics lend tied very well together and its technobabble was plausible given the setting, however, In the end it is all comes down to gameplay and after playing both I find the new Xcom FAR more engaging and fun experience, and I absolutely didn't miss the after mission inventory bullet counting.
Good for you, I did. I think it removed some of the pressure and intensity that was in the original game.
Remo wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 9:25 am
Woolfe wrote:
June 14th, 2017, 11:26 pm
Sure. At a tactical level, and all ammunition does is add one more factor to consider. Is it a mission type that will require a lot of combat, should we maybe take some extra ammo on a character instead of say explosives. Its not just make work, it is a tactical, logistical decision that needs to be made.
Yeah, but all those consideration are present in the reboot.. As military organization you have access to unlimited supply of conventional weapons and ammunition. Your soldiers carry sufficient ammunition with them to carry out each mission, but otherwise they have limited supply of grenades and heavy weapons for each mission (that include the rare two-stage missions).

Obviously your weapons need to be reloaded, which cost action points todo, and special abilities have cooldowns. Later more advanced ammunition and laser weaponry can be researched/produced. There are more ammunition type, that should be change depending on the situation and your team makeup/specialization. As your soldiers gain experience you'd be able to specialize them in their field e.g. expanding their abilities or kits capacity (the usual offense/defense/support stuff.) etc etc etc

Overall I feel that whole 'ammo issue' has been blown up out of proportion in some circles by few old' timers on a 'get off my lawn' bandwagon, because what Firaxis actually removed is minute and dwarfed in comparison to how much they add/improved. Sure the game has been streamlined to be more accessible on the casual/normal difficulty (like in 99% triple-A titles) but make no mistake even vanilla XCOM EU is more complex game than the original, and with later addition and mods it make the original feel like mobile crap in comparison! Even Julian said that his pit peeve with new XCOM that it was "too difficult"! ( And I don't think he was joking )
The "Ammo" issue is blown out of proportion because it is an example of the "dumbing down" of the system. It is just one of the Obvious elements. I could equally argue about the Sats vs Radars. The Dumb flat base versus controlling the layout of your base and having an actual real effect in combat. The lack of an economic system. The 3 choice mission structure. The destructible environments, but the inability to target it(except with precious grenades). The 2 step move versus AP movement. Squad size. Magical disappearing weapons.....Etc etc etc

As I said, its not a single thing in the game that was "bad", a lot of it was good. But when you added it all together... meh.... No depth, no replayability.

Remo wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 9:25 am
Woolfe wrote:
June 14th, 2017, 11:26 pm
By the way. I am actually considering loading up the Reboot. Whacking some Mods on it, and seeing if it is any better with time. I only have the Vanilla game, no DLC, or expansions. Do you think it is worth it, or will I just get more annoyed at it... :roll: :shock: :lol:
I am not sure about XCOM EU mods ( I skipped the initial release, and by the time I came along Enemy Within and long war mod was available, and with xcom2 release I didn't have time for extra playthroughs ) you can try the nexus although I'd suggest you do some research on a dedicated forum.

My only recommendation is that you try to play on higher difficulty level, to help you learn what works and figure out all nuances and synergies, and overall making all your choices really count in the long run.
Difficulty wasn't much of an issue. I played it on the mode that everyone suggested was closest to the originals difficulty(I think 1 above normal difficulty?). It was pretty good, but It only got really hard from that point of view because you started with such a low number of soldiers in your squad. so losing one was like losing 4 in the original, except it wasn't, because each individual soldier was tougher and could handle it pretty well. Which is another gripe. At no point did I ever feel like the aliens were massively technologically advanced.

I actually don't think we can compare our Xcom Reboot experiences. I played the vanilla fairly soon after release. It was good enough that I finished it, but it burnt me badly enough that when I went to replay it I just couldn't get past the constant repeating maps and boringness of just mission after mission. Without that middle build up to each mission of performing the other functions of a commander, it became just a series of tactical battles with no depth, the long war mod came out not too long after I had finished it, but even with it and a bunch of other elements turned on, I couldn't bring myself to play more than 3 maps on the reboot....

You on the otherhand, have come in with the changes made at Enemy Within, and the Long War Mod having been tweaked and perfected for several versions. I'm guessing we had very very different experiences.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

Remo
Scholar
Posts: 144
Joined: April 24th, 2017, 3:16 am

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Remo » June 19th, 2017, 5:39 pm

Woolfe wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 4:29 pm
Actually you can't. The original Xcom had a weight limit on the Chopper. Hence why you could only have 12(I think) soldiers on the flight. So the idea that you could stock the dropship with additional ammunition weight, assumes that you are not taking a full load of troops in the first place.
You can't because they built their gameplay around that, hence *insert technobabble balance reasons* the chopper could only carry that, not because its realistic that our choppers couldn't carry extra 20kg of ammo. ( in fact, I can argue that the reboot abstract inventory specialized kit system is much more realistic representation of modern battlefield than the game inventory slot/weight gamy holdover from dnd ) For the same gameplay reason in Phonix point you are going to have an ability "mana" pool and they will strap on with some technobabble.

Like I said before the game is more than the sum of its part and its the designers job to look at the big picture. And while I have many issues with vanilla XCOM, the removal of ammo and the economics of production/selling isn't one of them, and I didn't miss the air combat in XCOM2 ( although the infiltration part is done so much better by LW mod)
Woolfe wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 4:29 pm
The "Ammo" issue is blown out of proportion because it is an example of the "dumbing down" of the system. It is just one of the Obvious elements.
Like I said, it was a mainstream triple-a reboot with all it entails, still I wouldn't say "dumbing down" because even though they have shifted focus we ended up with far more complex gameplay (even without mods). Whether it something you will enjoy is entirely different question. And I was mainly commenting on people like Gizmo who will eagerly bash on franchise even though they never played it..
Woolfe wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 4:29 pm
As I said, its not a single thing in the game that was "bad", a lot of it was good. But when you added it all together... meh.... No depth, no replayability.
That is your right. Although to be fair you only play vanilla XCOM EU.. As for me, I find the definition of replayability and depth is very subjective and frougth with confirmation bias. Does a slot machine offer replayability, does the economic equivalent of fetch quest offer depth :?

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 2904
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Gizmo » June 19th, 2017, 6:55 pm

Remo wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 5:39 pm
And I was mainly commenting on people like Gizmo who will eagerly bash on franchise even though they never played it..
Do explain; especially since that would be news to me; fake news at that.

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5628
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Woolfe » June 19th, 2017, 7:33 pm

Remo wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 5:39 pm
Woolfe wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 4:29 pm
Actually you can't. The original Xcom had a weight limit on the Chopper. Hence why you could only have 12(I think) soldiers on the flight. So the idea that you could stock the dropship with additional ammunition weight, assumes that you are not taking a full load of troops in the first place.
You can't because they built their gameplay around that, hence *insert technobabble balance reasons* the chopper could only carry that, not because its realistic that our choppers couldn't carry extra 20kg of ammo. ( in fact, I can argue that the reboot abstract inventory specialized kit system is much more realistic representation of modern battlefield than the game inventory slot/weight gamy holdover from dnd ) For the same gameplay reason in Phonix point you are going to have an ability "mana" pool and they will strap on with some technobabble.
That's not really the case though is it. Choppers only carrying X amount is a fairly logical step and works in fine with idea of how many troops you could actually carry.
Xcom reboot only let you take 4 to start with. Which was a travesty in and of itself. So in theory in "that" space having any amount of gear in your chopper equivalent makes sense. Doesn't make it "not dumb" though.
Ability point mana, allowing you to choose the abilities and skills of each character. So is that not a better representation than, you are a heavy, therefore you can not possibly ever fire an Assault rifle/Shotgun/Pistol/Sniper/etc etc etc...
Remo wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 5:39 pm
Like I said before the game is more than the sum of its part and its the designers job to look at the big picture. And while I have many issues with vanilla XCOM, the removal of ammo and the economics of production/selling isn't one of them, and I didn't miss the air combat in XCOM2 ( although the infiltration part is done so much better by LW mod)
And as I said, it is the SUM of the game that is the problem. The economics, and Ammo, and Air combat, and base building, and and and, where all what made up the SUM of the original game. The Tactical combat was only a part of the whole. Without the other elements, as they did with the Xcom Reboot, it didn't make up to be the total of the original. Actually they gave a veneer of the original, as a sop, because they knew they were going to catch heat for it.
Remo wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 5:39 pm
Woolfe wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 4:29 pm
The "Ammo" issue is blown out of proportion because it is an example of the "dumbing down" of the system. It is just one of the Obvious elements.
Like I said, it was a mainstream triple-a reboot with all it entails, still I wouldn't say "dumbing down" because even though they have shifted focus we ended up with far more complex gameplay (even without mods). Whether it something you will enjoy is entirely different question. And I was mainly commenting on people like Gizmo who will eagerly bash on franchise even though they never played it..
That's not an excuse, no matter how many execs bleat it.
Remo wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 5:39 pm
Woolfe wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 4:29 pm
As I said, its not a single thing in the game that was "bad", a lot of it was good. But when you added it all together... meh.... No depth, no replayability.
That is your right. Although to be fair you only play vanilla XCOM EU.. As for me, I find the definition of replayability and depth is very subjective and frougth with confirmation bias. Does a slot machine offer replayability, does the economic equivalent of fetch quest offer depth :?
Agreed, and I am tempted to load it up with the mods to see if age has made it better. But it sounds somewhat like EW might be needed, and they don't get money from me anymore.
Of course it is. Just like anything related to "enjoyment" it is subjective. So are you saying the game was meant to be played once and then move on? So why then all the extras etc. No that is crap. I played the original, with all its flaws, to death. Numerous times. Just like I play CIV a lot, or Stellaris etc. The original game was a Tactical AND a Strategic game. The Reboot became a Tactical game, with some stuff on the side to make it look like a Strategic game. It was the equivalent of the Total War series of tactical shooters. But they took it and turned it into less than it was, and THAT is my problem with it.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

Remo
Scholar
Posts: 144
Joined: April 24th, 2017, 3:16 am

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Remo » June 20th, 2017, 4:02 am

Woolfe wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 7:33 pm
That's not really the case though is it. Choppers only carrying X amount is a fairly logical step and works in fine with idea of how many troops you could actually carry.
You are not hearing me, the squad (map, speed) size and everything is determined by the gameplay that they are aiming for. A squad size of 4, 16, 64 or 256 are all just as arbitrary and make as much sense as teleportation quantum buster grenades, if it was all that important to gameplay they would have added vehicle variants, send two choppers or make some hightech technobabble :roll: Its fine if your prefer larger scale engagements (me too) but it doesn't make it smarter design just geared for longer session time.

Its ok not to like it, just no need to justify your personal preference to me with cheery picking that ignore the wider context.
Woolfe wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 7:33 pm
Ability point mana, allowing you to choose the abilities and skills of each character. So is that not a better representation than, you are a heavy, therefore you can not possibly ever fire an Assault rifle/Shotgun/Pistol/Sniper/etc etc etc..
Deployable highly-trained specialized forces are huge part of modern small-unit tactics, these detachments are rotated among points of engagements and take the brunt of fighting. As far as representation goes: having a good aim doesn't make one a sniper, it takes a lot of training with Sniper rifle and tactics to make one a sniper, and that wont make you better than a rookie as close range shock troop with a Shotgun, a flanker with a Rifle/SMG or explosives specialists.. Overall I would say that in this even XCom EU release works very well and offer vast improvement over the originals, and then there squeals and Long War :twisted: offering a system with a lot of verity that can lead to in depth tactical discussion.

As for ability mana.. that sound soo silly :lol: but I assume that they have done their research, so I will reserve judgment until I see more details.
Woolfe wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 7:33 pm
Without the other elements, as they did with the Xcom Reboot, it didn't make up to be the total of the original. Actually they gave a veneer of the original, as a sop, because they knew they were going to catch heat for it.
Nothing can ever capture or compare with my initial experience with those game.. but otherwise that is true, Firaxis Xcom didn't make up to be the total of the originals, it took a little patience but they ended up with a game that offer me much more in all the above, a game that I actually enjoy playing and figure out rather then forcing myself to slog through due to misguided nostalgia.
Woolfe wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 7:33 pm
That's not an excuse, no matter how many execs bleat it.
That is not an excuse, that is a fact. Don't like it don't buy it. This whole games for gamers vs evil Inc is just sweet talk to make you open up your valets, like Fargo cheesy Wasteland kickstarter video :lol: Or do you not think that Inxile have a business plan, picked up Wasteland for its ol' school brand recognition, and have target audience that left out some of its original fans :roll: Did they hit it right out of the bat? or needed some time to polish a 'director cut' and forced todo a 'visual upgrade' despite people chanting that 'graphic don't matter'.. Aren't they making WL3 shorter, more accessible, more 'industry standard' ready, developing simultaneously for console etc.. Also Julian isn't "beating" Firaxis in their own game, he plays the same game, making his in Firaxis own cauldron :lol:

For an experienced gamer you seem to be a either very clueless or willfully ignorant. Here is a "pro" tip form one veteran PC gamer to another, look at triple-a games as platforms; check out the reviews and modding section before buying; exercise patience as it can take a while until your tall order can be meet. And If that haven't work for you so far, save your nerves and move to greener pasture of mid-size or indie devs that focused on more niche tastes.
Last edited by Remo on June 20th, 2017, 4:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5628
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Woolfe » June 20th, 2017, 4:24 am

Remo wrote:
June 20th, 2017, 4:02 am
Woolfe wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 7:33 pm
That's not really the case though is it. Choppers only carrying X amount is a fairly logical step and works in fine with idea of how many troops you could actually carry.
You are not hearing me, the squad (map, speed) size and everything is determined by the gameplay that they are aiming for. A squad size of 4, 16, 64 or 256 are all just as arbitrary and make as much sense as teleportation quantum buster grenades, if it was all that important to gameplay they would have added vehicle variants, send two choppers or make some hightech technobabble :roll: Its fine if your prefer larger scale engagements (me too) but it doesn't make it smarter design just geared for longer session time.

Its ok not to like it, you don't need to justify your personal preference to me with cheery picking that ignore the wider context.
Of course its gameplay.. What else would we be talking about. Doesn't make it any more reasonable. You can say technobabble and other spiffy terms all you want, its all the same thing. The original game had pressure caused by lack of ammunition, and the ability to do more elsewhere. You were the one who brought in "Reality" by saying that why wouldn't they just rearm from the chopper etc. I simply pointed out that your reality doesn't make sense in the real world, let alone the gameplay.
Woolfe wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 7:33 pm
Ability point mana, allowing you to choose the abilities and skills of each character. So is that not a better representation than, you are a heavy, therefore you can not possibly ever fire an Assault rifle/Shotgun/Pistol/Sniper/etc etc etc..
Deployable highly-trained specialized forces are huge part of modern small-unit tactics, these detachments are rotated among points of engagements and take the brunt of fighting. As far as representation goes: having a good aim doesn't make one a sniper, it takes a lot of training with Sniper rifle and tactics to make one a sniper, and that wont make you better than a rookie as close range shock troop with a Shotgun, a flanker with a Rifle/SMG or explosives specialists.. Overall I would say that even XCom rebot inital release works very well and offer vast improvement over the originals in this, and then there sequals and Long War :twisted: offering a system with a lot of verity that can lead to in depth tactical discussion.
Oh no.. I'm sorry you are totally right. A sniper doesn't ever get trained in say how to use an assault rifle. A Heavy would not know how to use a Shotgun, why would they, I mean its not like in real life they ever run out of fucking ammunition.

:lol: You have some serious circular logic going on there.
As for ability mana.. that sound soo silly :lol: but I assume that they have done their research, so I will reserve judgment until I see more details.
Isn't it simply willpower? A method to allow usage of special abilities etc, its no more stupid than having a cooldown. Oh I can run and gun. But nope can't do it 2 turns in a row...
Woolfe wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 7:33 pm
Without the other elements, as they did with the Xcom Reboot, it didn't make up to be the total of the original. Actually they gave a veneer of the original, as a sop, because they knew they were going to catch heat for it.
Nothing can ever capture or compare with my initial experience with those game.. but otherwise that is true, Firaxis Xcom didn't make up to be the total of the originals, it took a little patience but they ended up with a game that offer me much more in all the above, a game that I actually enjoy playing and figure out.
Rubbish, they ALMOST achieved it with the reboot. But then you scratched the surface and realised it was a big shell game full of nothing but fluffy feel good bullshit.
Woolfe wrote:
June 19th, 2017, 7:33 pm
That's not an excuse, no matter how many execs bleat it.
That is not an excuse, that is a fact. Don't like it don't buy it. This whole games for gamers vs evil Inc is just sweet talk to make you open up your valets,
They advertised it hard as being like the original. And yeah I fell for it. I'm sorry for hoping that a company would be a little more respectful of the original source.
like Fargo cheesy Wasteland kickstarter video :lol: Or do you not think that Inxile have a business plan, picked up Wasteland for its ol' school brand recognition, and have target audience that left out some of its original fans :roll: Did they hit it right out of the bat? or needed some time to polish a 'director cut' and forced todo a 'visual upgrade' despite people chanting that 'graphic don't matter'.. Aren't they making WL3 shorter, more accessible, offer more industry standards, developing simultaneously for console etc.. And Julian isn't "beating" Firaxis in their own game, he plays the same game, making his in Firaxis own cauldron :lol:
Hey here is a bit of info for you. I haven't backed WL3. And at this stage I am unlikely to. I wasn't totally happy with how they handled WL2. I am not happy with what I am seeing of BT4 either. So yeah, at this point Inxile don't get my money.
For an experienced gamer you seem to be a either very clueless or willfully ignorant. Here is a "pro" tip form one veteran PC gamer to another, look at triple-a games as platforms; check out the reviews and modding section before buying; exercise patience as it can take a while until your tall order can be meet. And If that haven't work for you so far, save your nerves and move to greener pasture of mid-size or indie devs that focused on more niche tastes, and focus on the positive.
You feel better now? Got that condescension off your chest? I've already stated I trusted them too much. Sorry for occasionally being suckered into the hype. Firaxis have actually treated a lot of IP pretty well, and they beat that old "we loved the original game" drum really fucking hard, so yeah I thought they might actually produce something good. Coupled with positive reviews from sites I trusted, I had a little cash spare at the time and I bought it. Are you suggesting you are so perfect that you have never purchased something that didn't live up to the hype?
Please, stop being petulant because you actually can't argue against most of the problems the game had, other than to say "well that's the way I like it". You even admitted yourself that you played with the mods and the expansions which solved some of the issues.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

Remo
Scholar
Posts: 144
Joined: April 24th, 2017, 3:16 am

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Remo » June 20th, 2017, 7:26 am

The original game had pressure caused by lack of ammunition
FYI XCom2 has pressure caused by infiltration timers, that didn't prevent this mechanic from being poorly received by many fans of the originals and longwar mod in particular, and Phoenix Point specifically took steps to address the underlying reason in different way.

Anyway, to sum it up I think that Firaxis correctly identified key gameplay elements that leads to interesting decisions and removed pointless busywork. It took a while to hone the formula but they ended up with game that offer mechanics that lend to more meaningful decisions and good gameplay. And with next update they are moving to expand on the strategic level as well, And we get a new take from 'Phoenix Point' soon-ish, that is a win win in my book.
Oh no.. I'm sorry you are totally right. A sniper doesn't ever get trained in say how to use an assault rifle. A Heavy would not know how to use a Shotgun, why would they, I mean its not like in real life they ever run out of fucking ammunition.
That not what I said. Which was that he should be as effective with it as any other rookie in game. And yes (A) realistically even in special forces where they are intentionally trained with a verity of weapons and roles, a specialist ( i.e. someone who has spend most of his time training in terrain/scenarios and combat in a specific role) sniper will be more effective in said role than an expert in close quarter fighter or demolition expert who just picked a gun; (B) I spoke off the modern specialized combat kits, which are outfitted to the individual need, specialty, designation, and mission (need more ammo, strap a pouch with extra mags) which is why its not as simple as just pick up a gun and blast away..

But again, the main point was gameplay, I was noting that XCom offered a vast improvement over the original ( which you tend to skip in favor of what they didn't do, or didn't do well enough to your taste ). And yes I think that its skill trees offered more unique options that allow your soldiers really come into play in a verity of interesting situations. And made the loss to the team that much more devastating when a specialist is incapacitated or bites the dust, because you can't just pass the sniper rifle to the next guy with high aim and as result pressured to make due and adapt.

Otherwise, it would be nice to see what refinement to the formula Phoenix Point came up with, with what their engine will offer.
Isn't it simply willpower? A method to allow usage of special abilities etc, its no more stupid than having a cooldown. Oh I can run and gun. But nope can't do it 2 turns in a row...
It is game balance mechanic yes, but it still sound silly.. ability mana :roll: :lol: As for your comparison, I find that more abstract vague nature of cooldown works better for me, depending on the ability I can pretend that its due to strenuous physical (run and gun), mental exertion (eye fatigue) or mechanical reason (barrel cooldown), while a magical mana pool that rules them all is much harder to digest.. But I am intrigued to see what Phoenix Point will do with it, if it works i'll call it ability mana with pride :D
Woolfe wrote:
Remo wrote:Nothing can ever capture or compare with my initial experience with those game.. but otherwise that is true, Firaxis Xcom didn't make up to be the total of the originals, it took a little patience but they ended up with a game that offer me much more in all the above, a game that I actually enjoy playing and figure out.
Rubbish, they ALMOST achieved it with the reboot. But then you scratched the surface and realised it was a big shell game full of nothing but fluffy feel good bullshit.
By little patience I was speaking of the expansion ( wink wink "director cut" ) and mods ( Which to me is an integral part of any triple-a.) Otherwise we going to have to put an end to this and agree to disagree.. segway -->
You feel better now? Got that condescension off your chest?


Yeah :smug: :lol: :oops: I always respond poorly to seemingly entitled, self-righteous amd butthurt comments that such forums are a breading ground for.. I mean, we get it :ugeek: hugs and stuff, still 'despite all the rage you are still a rat in cage', so sober up mate and look at the bright sight of modding and Phoenix Point ;)
Last edited by Remo on June 20th, 2017, 11:08 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 5697
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Zombra » June 20th, 2017, 10:43 am

OK, we can leave the little personal duel out fellas. If it continues you can expect to see your posts trashed and I don't really want to do that when you're putting so much effort into the actual debate. Keep it respectful. Thank you.
Image

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5628
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Woolfe » June 20th, 2017, 5:19 pm

Remo wrote:
June 20th, 2017, 7:26 am
The original game had pressure caused by lack of ammunition
FYI XCom2 has pressure caused by infiltration timers, that didn't prevent this mechanic from being poorly received by many fans of the originals and longwar mod in particular, and Phoenix Point specifically took steps to address the underlying reason in different way.
Because they don't make sense. A timer does not equate to a replacement for pressure from lack of resources. One is a "Time" issue, the other is a conserve fire issue.

I get abstract, but why use abstract when you can use the actual real effects. Especially when you are using "actual real effects" in any number of other areas in that same system. They are looking for a solution to a problem that already has an answer.
Remo wrote:
June 20th, 2017, 7:26 am
Anyway, to sum it up I think that Firaxis correctly identified key gameplay elements that leads to interesting decisions and removed pointless busywork. It took a while to hone the formula but they ended up with game that offer mechanics that lend to more meaningful decisions and good gameplay. And with next update they are moving to expand on the strategic level as well, And we get a new take from 'Phoenix Point' soon-ish, that is a win win in my book.
I can't comment on the current build/version, because they lost me with the original reboot. The X-com game was always about more than the tactical combat. Oh the tactical combat was very important, but the strategic elements were what gave the game its structure. You didn't just go into a fight with a bunch of soldiers. You went into a fight with a bunch of soldiers you hired, you equipped, from the base you designed with direction from the radar emplacements you put in place etc.

They failed in that space.
Oh no.. I'm sorry you are totally right. A sniper doesn't ever get trained in say how to use an assault rifle. A Heavy would not know how to use a Shotgun, why would they, I mean its not like in real life they ever run out of fucking ammunition.
That not what I said. Which was that he should be as effective with it as any other rookie in game. And yes (A) realistically even in special forces where they are intentionally trained with a verity of weapons and roles, a specialist ( i.e. someone who has spend most of his time training in terrain/scenarios and combat in a specific role) sniper will be more effective in said role than an expert in close quarter fighter or demolition expert who just picked a gun; (B) I spoke off the modern specialized combat kits, which are outfitted to the individual need, specialty, designation, and mission (need more ammo, strap a pouch with extra mags) which is why its not as simple as just pick up a gun and blast away..
And yet that is how the game does it. I know what you said, but your argument of how it works in real life, supports the original Xcom way more than the Reboot. The Reboot has taken the "real life" elements, and turned them into abstracts.

In the original you could and often did pick up someone else's weapon if they had fallen. Maybe they were carrying one of the precious alien weapons, that even though it was a different type was still more effective than whatever weapon you may be carrying etc. Or maybe you need to go into an environment where you are checking room to room. A sniper rifle would suck at that, grabbing the shotgun off your fallen comrade may well be the better solution.
But again, the main point was gameplay, I was noting that XCom offered a vast improvement over the original ( which you tend to skip in favor of what they didn't do, or didn't do well enough to your taste ). And yes I think that its skill trees offered more unique options that allow your soldiers really come into play in a verity of interesting situations. And made the loss to the team that much more devastating when a specialist is incapacitated or bites the dust, because you can't just pass the sniper rifle to the next guy with high aim and as result pressured to make due and adapt.
Haven't skipped. Have constantly stated "it was almost a good game". My focus is almost entirely on the bits that they did so badly they would be better if they had dropped them, or on the bits that have been done to "ease" gameplay, but at the expense of the actual complexity of combat that the original had. It went from a tactical game to an action game.
I wouldn't have a problem with the skill tree, if it didn't lock down everything else. Sure it doesn't make sense for a sniper to start with a shotgun. But in the middle of combat sometimes you just need to get something done. But all that flexibility has been "abstracted" out of the game.
Isn't it simply willpower? A method to allow usage of special abilities etc, its no more stupid than having a cooldown. Oh I can run and gun. But nope can't do it 2 turns in a row...
It is game balance mechanic yes, but it still sound silly.. ability mana :roll: :lol: As for your comparison, I find that more abstract vague nature of cooldown works better for me, depending on the ability I can pretend that its due to strenuous physical (run and gun), mental exertion (eye fatigue) or mechanical reason (barrel cooldown), while a magical mana pool that rules them all is much harder to digest.. But I am intrigued to see what Phoenix Point will do with it, if it works i'll call it ability mana with pride :D
And what "Willpower" doesn't fit Mental exertion? or Strenuous actions? Mechanical reasons should exist anyway. Why abstract them into a single thing. Its no different to the "magical" cooldown timer. Also I assume you are using "magical" and "mana" to get a rise out of me. Which is odd, because that is just a name, it doesn't define the gameplay mechanic. Also Mana doesn't even accurately describe the function, as mana tends to be large sums, whilst the willpower thing looks like it will be somewhat limited.
Woolfe wrote:
Remo wrote:Nothing can ever capture or compare with my initial experience with those game.. but otherwise that is true, Firaxis Xcom didn't make up to be the total of the originals, it took a little patience but they ended up with a game that offer me much more in all the above, a game that I actually enjoy playing and figure out.
Rubbish, they ALMOST achieved it with the reboot. But then you scratched the surface and realised it was a big shell game full of nothing but fluffy feel good bullshit.
By little patience I was speaking of the expansion ( wink wink "director cut" ) and mods ( Which to me is an integral part of any triple-a.) Otherwise we going to have to put an end to this and agree to disagree.. segway -->
Well I did say several comments ago that we can't really compare our experiences. Cause I am coming from Vanilla Reboot. You are coming from Multiple expansions and Modding to fix what the Developers did wrong.
You feel better now? Got that condescension off your chest?


Yeah :smug: :lol: :oops: I always respond poorly to seemingly entitled, self-righteous amd butthurt comments that such forums are a breading ground for.. I mean, we get it :ugeek: hugs and stuff, still 'despite all the rage you are still a rat in cage', so sober up mate and look at the bright sight of modding and Phoenix Point ;)
The dumb thing was, I had no animosity towards you at all, I was even asking your advice so I could give the game another chance.
I get where you are coming from. I'm not butthurt, I am disappointed, and angry. Butthurt would suggest I don't have a reason to be that way, but I have shown repeatedly that I do. I have even admitted repeatedly that I got taken in by them. I have reasoned and real arguments why the reboot was a shadow of the original. Many of which you agree with, simply by dint of the fact you are using mods to fix it. And yet, you continue to argue, and now insult me. There is a reason people resort to those tactics, and it doesn't involve having a cognisant argument.
Zombra wrote:
June 20th, 2017, 10:43 am
OK, we can leave the little personal duel out fellas. If it continues you can expect to see your posts trashed and I don't really want to do that when you're putting so much effort into the actual debate. Keep it respectful. Thank you.
All Good Zombra, and apologies if I cracked a little, his trolling got to me. I can't see this going on much longer, his argument is going nowhere and is repeating itself.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

Remo
Scholar
Posts: 144
Joined: April 24th, 2017, 3:16 am

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Remo » June 23rd, 2017, 11:58 am

Maybe that is your problem, because there is no argument to be won here.. I am not challenging your gaming preferences, I don't care why you feel disenfranchised or say that you shouldn't, I don't need walkdown memory lane nor care for clash of the mechanics in a member berry grove, and certainly not trying to sell you on giving the new Xcom another chance. We have more in common than you realize, I am just tiered of some recurring themes and feel little perspective should be had, that what I am trying to dribble with my English drivel.

If you recall I noted that we hadn't had a turn based tactical squad based shooter worthy of the name in a decade, and how much Firaxis effort reinvigorated the genre. That all studios have real life constraints and considerations. That a game is more than the sum of its parts and designers need to look not just at the rulesets but the people they are designed for. I think that mechanics made meaningful when integrated with the rest of the gameplay in a way that prompts interesting and ambiguous decisions. And while for me Firaxis initial release left a lot to be desired, it provided a solid foundation to build on that removed the pointless mechanical incumbency of the originals ( including but not limited to ammo management and the manufacturing income padding .) And finally noting how much the reboot has grown since its initial release proved to be a commercial success, and the effort Firaxos put to address the community's needs (And that as far as I am concerned what their game offer to me managed to both surpassed the original and capture their flavor and tension. FYI i recently have been playing LongWar2 )

To help illustrate these points i tried to offer less evocative examples substituting Firaxes for Inxile/Snapshot, ammo management to weapon wear (which isn't present in WL2). Suggested that while Xcom/Xcom2/Mods use different mechanics you are offered at the very least with the same decisions. Showing you can plausibly explain and tear down any mechanic, and when you hung up on your example showing an examples of what you argued for on paper that was already implemented in Xcom1 and another poorly received in Xcom2. (btw if you put your mind to it, you should be able to reason out a plausibly explanation for each example and how it tied to the rest of the game in the reboot )

But I am not sure what are you trying to prove, but from my perspective it just feels like pointless nitpicking. Usually i'd suggest that we focus on the present and how Phoenix point can improve upon what Xcom/Xcom2/Mods offer, but given that you are only played the initial release we lack common ground for such discussion, and this back and forth isn't doing good for any of us... so agree to disagree..

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5628
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Woolfe » July 4th, 2017, 11:56 pm

Indeed, as I mentioned quite a number of posts ago, we can't really compare experiences.

I don't have a problem. Firaxis created a game that was almost good, but lost a lot of the elements that made the original what it was. I bought it. I found it to be not what they said. As such I now don't buy Firaxis games, and I will point out the Xcom remake's plethora of issues whenever I have the opportunity.

I like arguing, I find it an excellent way to understand someone else's point of view, so for me that is not a problem. :-)

I wasn't trying to prove anything, I was simply having an argument with someone over a game that could have been so much more. Based on your comments, I was even leaning to giving the game another try as clearly you enjoyed it and you seemed reasonable, albeit subjectively wrong on many points.

Then you started abusing me. That was a problem, but not mine.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

SagaDC
Global Moderator
Posts: 3466
Joined: May 2nd, 2012, 5:51 am

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by SagaDC » July 11th, 2017, 2:43 pm

Snapshot's pre-order store just went live, so people who were waiting for Paypal support can now back the project using CrowdOx. Snapshot has also just finished setting up the official Phoenix Point forums.

https://www.fig.co/campaigns/phoenix-po ... 16#updates

Godfather101
Explorer
Posts: 263
Joined: April 11th, 2012, 1:14 pm

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Godfather101 » July 11th, 2017, 10:08 pm

Thx for the Info @Saga.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest