Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

For general discussion of inXile and our games.

Moderator: SagaDC

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5890
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Woolfe »

Remo wrote: June 11th, 2017, 7:17 am Sound like someone didn't make an informed purchase..
Which of course was exactly the issue. How could I make an informed decision, when the information was all targeted at making it seem as similar to the original conceptually as possible.
I apologise if I come across a little "arrogant" but it really was a figurative slap to the face, and the only recourse I have is to not purchase the product, and to make complaints in areas that may sway someone else's decision to purchase.

Anyway.

As Zombra says, back on target.

The above reasoning is one of the reasons I want to support the efforts around Phoenix Point.

The others are that the world building is excellent. I am loving the background stories etc for this. Really building a cohesive world view from disparate seeming instances. The writing is interesting and suggestive of so much more.

And the gameplay suggestions look very appealing. The obvious "XCOM" types aside. I love the idea of an enemy that is somewhat organic in its structure, the way different weapons are literally grafted into the bad guys. The nature of the beasties is very much "terror from the deep" style, and it works. I am not a huge "horror" fan, but I am really liking the design, and am looking forward to see the abominations that result.

Gizmo wrote: June 11th, 2017, 1:31 pm This (below), is what got my attention the most:
SagaDC wrote: June 5th, 2016, 9:11 pm It's definitely worth noting that the Crabman has both a normal Hit Point bar, but also five smaller "location-based" Hit Point bars, each with a special effect for depleting health in that location. Disabling the right arm would disable the claw-based melee attack, while disabling the left arm would disable the Crabman's gun. Disabling the either leg would reduce the Crabman's movement by half, and presumably disabling both legs would immobilize it entirely. Disabling the Crabman's head would impair it's vision.
... And it would seem to derive directly from Fallout; (or something the FO devs may have copied).

This clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uMePkH8oX0 would seem to suggest that Pheonix Point (combat) plays like a cross between Fallout 2, Shadowrun. and Gears of War. Does that seem apt to anyone?
Why must you make everything derivative? Sometimes things derive from logical process and just end up similar.

The crabman elements. I'm not sure what else you assume they would do with a crabman. Logically the things you mention would be the same in any game, with any creature. Crabmen make sense in Phoenix Point, because the "bad guy" is an ocean based creature. The ocean has turned against humanity and is now taking over the land (in the form of the mist).

The Tactical screen reminded me a little of shadowrun. But again. There are only so many ways you can do turn based/AP style systems. At a glance it looks similar, but until you actually get to grips with the intricacies of it, we'll not know.
Last edited by Woolfe on June 11th, 2017, 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!
User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3855
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Gizmo »

Woolfe wrote: June 11th, 2017, 4:38 pm Why must you make everything derivative? Sometimes things derive from logical process and just end up similar.

The crabman elements. I'm not sure what else you assume they would do with a crabman. Logically the things you mention would be the same in any game, with any creature. Crabmen make sense in Phoenix Point, because the "bad guy" is an ocean based creature. The ocean has turned against humanity and is now taking over the land (in the form of the mist).
Ah... but you've done it again...(prematurely assumed what I meant)... I don't think that you realize it. You have latched onto 'crabmen' because Bethesda had crabmen (mirelurks) in FO3, but that's coincidental, and has nothing to do with the example; which was about the segmented limb targeting, and its subsequent effects. Pheonix Point seems to take that concept a bit further. In Fallout 1 & 2, it did much the same; shoot the legs, and reduce their movement, shoot the arms, and reduce or eliminate their ability to attack; and blind them with shots to the eyes.
The Tactical screen reminded me a little of shadowrun. But again. There are only so many ways you can do turn based/AP style systems. At a glance it looks similar, but until you actually get to grips with the intricacies of it, we'll not know.
That's debatable, but it's also—often pretty accurate. My description of it as hybrid, was... aptly descriptive; I thought, and would give a fairly effective image of it. It was not diminishing or disparative to describe it as I saw it.
Last edited by Gizmo on June 11th, 2017, 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5890
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Woolfe »

Gizmo wrote: June 11th, 2017, 5:35 pm
Woolfe wrote: June 11th, 2017, 4:38 pm Why must you make everything derivative? Sometimes things derive from logical process and just end up similar.

The crabman elements. I'm not sure what else you assume they would do with a crabman. Logically the things you mention would be the same in any game, with any creature. Crabmen make sense in Phoenix Point, because the "bad guy" is an ocean based creature. The ocean has turned against humanity and is now taking over the land (in the form of the mist).
Ah... but you've done it again...(prematurely assumed what I meant)... I don't think that you realize it. You have latched onto 'crabmen' because Bethesda had crabmen (mirelurks) in FO3, but that's coincidental, and has nothing to do with the example; which was about the segmented limb targeting, and its subsequent effects. Pheonix Point seems to take that concept a bit further. In Fallout 1 & 2, it did much the same; shoot the legs, and reduce their movement, shoot the arms, and reduce or eliminate their ability to attack; and blind them with shots to the eyes.
I'm sorry, did I make a connection between Fallout and crabmen, in your post. I wonder what would have lead to that odd misconception?
Gizmo wrote: June 11th, 2017, 1:31 pm I'd have said it was. I watched that video, and it has me interested. It seems to play more like the way a Fallout 3 should; than the official FO3 actually did.

This (below), is what got my attention the most:
SagaDC wrote: ↑June 6th, 2016, 2:11 pm
It's definitely worth noting that the Crabman has both a normal Hit Point bar, but also five smaller "location-based" Hit Point bars, each with a special effect for depleting health in that location. Disabling the right arm would disable the claw-based melee attack, while disabling the left arm would disable the Crabman's gun. Disabling the either leg would reduce the Crabman's movement by half, and presumably disabling both legs would immobilize it entirely. Disabling the Crabman's head would impair it's vision.
... And it would seem to derive directly from Fallout;(or something the FO devs may have copied).
Sigh. The only other option is that you believe it is derivative simply because it has location based targeting?
So my comment still stands. I just made an assumption that "location based targeting" was a little more obviously generic, than "crabman" being specifically mentioned 4 times, clearly I was wrong.

Perhaps, again, you need to consider how you phrase your comments, as it is clearly not obvious as to what you are referring.

In any case, neither is derivative.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!
User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3855
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Gizmo »

Woolfe wrote: June 11th, 2017, 5:53 pm Perhaps, again, you need to consider how you phrase your comments, as it is clearly not obvious as to what you are referring.
In any case, neither is derivative.
It was plenty obvious (enough) to me... (especially with the "or something else the Fallout dev's may have copied" ). It did occur to me after posting that FO3 had mirelurks... but since I hadn't mentioned FO3, I didn't think it would be an issue.

**But yes, I do think it's derivative. It's not a bad thing to use what works. As I said, the game already appears to play like a better Fallout 3 than FO3. That in itself is enough reason to buy a copy.
Last edited by Gizmo on June 11th, 2017, 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5890
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Woolfe »

Gizmo wrote: June 11th, 2017, 6:00 pm
Woolfe wrote: June 11th, 2017, 5:53 pm Perhaps, again, you need to consider how you phrase your comments, as it is clearly not obvious as to what you are referring.
In any case, neither is derivative.
It was plenty obvious to me... (especially with the "or something else the Fallout dev's may have copied" ). It did occur to me after posting that FO3 had mirelurks... but Since I hadn't mentioned FO3, I didn't think it would be an issue.

**But yes, I do think it's derivative. It's not a bad thing to use what works.
So even you admit that it wasn't clear :D

Derivative of what? My point is that just because something results in the same, doesn't mean it is derivative. The concept of targeted hits that cause penalties based on what you hit, has been around since before PC gaming.

Jeebus, when I was a kid playing with army men, I had targeted hits for crying out loud. Gah...
It's not too late. Make it Eight!
User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3855
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Gizmo »

Woolfe wrote: June 11th, 2017, 6:08 pm So even you admit that it wasn't clear :D
I don't see it, no.
Derivative of what? My point is that just because something results in the same, doesn't mean it is derivative. The concept of targeted hits that cause penalties based on what you hit, has been around since before PC gaming.
You watched the video, as did I. I thought that was pretty derivative of Fallout; and it also reminded me of this too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqzFJsmads4
(...and no, I don't think that mr. Gallop copied my video. :D )
Remo wrote: June 11th, 2017, 3:52 pm
Gizmo wrote: June 11th, 2017, 10:33 am **Was this the case with the new X-com? (Haven't played)
Thank god to that. Fool me once shame on me...

Btw, which was your favorite MicroProse x-com and why ? UFO defense, Terror From the Deep, or Apocalypse..

And did you know that Julian did quite a few turn-based tactics before and after his time with MicroProse, using various formulas but seemingly considerably less complicated than x-com UFO defense.
Alas, I never got around to playing any of the X-Com titles.
User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5890
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Woolfe »

Gizmo wrote: June 11th, 2017, 6:13 pm
Woolfe wrote: June 11th, 2017, 6:08 pm So even you admit that it wasn't clear :D
I don't see it, no.
Obviously....
Gizmo wrote: June 11th, 2017, 6:13 pm
Derivative of what? My point is that just because something results in the same, doesn't mean it is derivative. The concept of targeted hits that cause penalties based on what you hit, has been around since before PC gaming.
You watched the video, as did I. I thought that was pretty derivative of Fallout; and it also reminded me of this too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqzFJsmads4
(...and no, I don't think that mr. Gallop copied my video. :D )
Nothing in that video was unique.

If you asked me to provide a representation of a GUI for a targeted limb system with a mouse based control system, I would have come up with something similar. Because it is logical.
A paperdoll or 3d equivalent, where highlighting specific limbs gives a visual indicator of targeting with potentially other information available.

Its not exactly rocket science.

If it was with a Controller, I might make it a little different. Same if it was with a keyboard only. (A simple scroll list that then highlights the representation on the paperdoll would work slightly better than a mouse roll over in that situation)
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 »

Woolfe wrote: June 11th, 2017, 4:38 pm Why must you make everything derivative? Sometimes things derive from logical process and just end up similar.
Didn't you know? everything is a derivative. Although it often used in negative way to imply lack of originality, often applied selectively in way that is mainly about validating your preferences, basically saying that you like what you like because its original, everyone else can't get it right, and extra points for demonizing the competition insidious kick the dog practices tm.


Speaking of derivative, my all time favorite X-com, Terror From the Deep, is often regarded as just that, a rehash of UFO Defense with a different paint job and overall an inferior product.** While the subsequent X-com Apocalypse is better regarded, its critics often say it not derivative enough i.e. changed too much..

It is interesting to note that after Apocalypse, MicroProse decided to take the franchise into space, as primarily space combat simulator; Then decided to return more closely to the original formula, while toying with things like RTwP (Real Time with Pause) ; Finally they scraped that idea in favor of first-person shooter x-com..

Then after Firaxis ruined X-com franchise, bring back Xcom as turn-base tactics game from two decade retirement to the forefront. Soon after Julian swooped with concept that is copy&paste of most of Firaxis UI and mechanics, and everything else from his earlier games, with pretty graphics.. that is not derivative but *insert positive term for the same thing*

What does it all mean? Nothing. I try to focus on what I like and how to improve my experience, and avoid the gaming Oscars committees.


** In my little backwater part of the globe, it was the first x-com I could put my hands on and IMO the best one. UFO Defense was nice but not as varied, challenging and exhilarating as TFTD. To date TFTD offered me some of my best gaming experience of the genre.
User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5890
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Woolfe »

Pfff. There is derivative and then there is derivative. When you say it is derivative you immediately give a suggestion that someone has copied. Which is fine. Except when you throw it around on uber generic stuff.

You wouldn't be wrong about the similarities between the 2 styles. I was just having a gander at some of the available images of both games side by side, and there are a lot of similarities in the art style. Even the layout of the HUD looks pretty similar, albeit with different representations. Though the HUD doesn't look dissimilar to Shadowrun or WL2 either in all fairness. And the clothing etc is very much more "post apoc" styling over the clean X-com look, which obviously fits the story etc. The clear differences are in the mutable aliens.

Terror from the Deep was good, although I have a recollection of there being a mission type that was a pain in the arse, because you could never find the last damn alien.... Inflitration mission.... I can't recall ... but it was a big area, and the aliens were all over the place at the start and you had to find them. And lobster men... Lobster men.... Shudder....

I never got to play apocalypse much.

Firaxis didn't make X-com. They made a tactical shooter with some other shit.
As for copy paste UI, sure I'll give you that from the current screens.
But the gameplay? Not sure how you can make that call. We have already seen some fairly significant differences in the tactical combat. and based on comments made it certainly seems like the goal is to take all those bit that X-com failed at out of the box and re-integrate them.

That makes me happy. I want the metagame to be in depth and interesting!
It's not too late. Make it Eight!
SagaDC
Global Moderator
Posts: 3509
Joined: May 2nd, 2012, 5:51 am

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by SagaDC »

Snapshot Games is at E3 this week, and they'll be showing off some more stuff about Phoenix Point. They'll be livestreaming some stuff tomorrow on some new service called caffeine.tv, and they've also set up an official Discord server and an official Twitter account.

They cover all that in their new Fig update: https://www.fig.co/campaigns/phoenix-po ... 91#updates
Remo
Scholar
Posts: 144
Joined: April 24th, 2017, 3:16 am

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Remo »

Woolfe wrote: June 12th, 2017, 3:18 am Terror from the Deep was good, although I have a recollection of there being a mission type that was a pain in the arse, because you could never find the last damn alien.... Inflitration mission.... I can't recall ... but it was a big area, and the aliens were all over the place at the start and you had to find them. And lobster men... Lobster men.... Shudder....
Yeah, among other things that is why I was speaking in past tense, nowdays this gem feels too dated for me to play, even with audibook in the background, which is the only way I can play many older games which often difficult but not overly complicated.. if it makes sense. I mean in many older games once you are past the learning curve you no longer need to pay much attention to it, you settle into a monotonous rhythm and grind through while doing something else.
Woolfe wrote: June 12th, 2017, 3:18 am Pfff. There is derivative and then there is derivative.
And who is to say what should be implemented as is and what should be taken with broad strokes?

You find base defense mission integral but drool don't. You find basic ammo management integral but Xenonauts and Phoenix Point (by the look of it) don't. You find air-combat integral part of strategic depth, but Xenonauts dev who integrated/improved want to add autoresolve until they can come up with a way to rework it, while xcom2 new expansion focus on expanding the world with other resistance factions with unique abilities.
User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5890
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Woolfe »

Remo wrote: June 13th, 2017, 4:42 am
Woolfe wrote: June 12th, 2017, 3:18 am Pfff. There is derivative and then there is derivative.
And who is to say what should be implemented as is and what should be taken with broad strokes?

You find base defense mission integral but drool don't. You find basic ammo management integral but Xenonauts and Phoenix Point (by the look of it) don't. You find air-combat integral part of strategic depth, but Xenonauts dev who integrated/improved want to add autoresolve until they can come up with a way to rework it, while xcom2 new expansion focus on expanding the world with other resistance factions with unique abilities.
Er not sure what that has to do with being derivative, but let me respond.

A game that is being "Rebooted" should hold certain elements of the original. But my issue with Xcom is that they actually "put in" most of the elements they just did it in half arsed shitty ways.

The economy was crap in Xcom reboot. It was crap in Xcom original, but at least it was an active real thing that you interacted with. They could have tweaked and fixed rather than stripping it out.
Bases and Secondary bases, and radar stations etc. All lost in favour of a single base, where the design had no real impact on the rest of the game.
Satellites. You can't tell me they were an improvement over the originals radar stations. They didn't even make sense.
I've already mentioned why I think ammo was important. It created pressure on your team. Do you go to the next alien site with a reduced ammo, or head home and miss the alien mission?
Inability to target the terrain?
Loadout. The original Loadout screen was terrible and annoying. But you could easily have set up "templates" that made it easy to apply, and then modify if you chose to. You could even have had a favoured template or something similar, if you just wanted to get stuck in. Instead we got everything on rails.
Mission maps.... Seriously. The original had fantastic variation and interesting layouts. The new one... Yeah not so much.

The game was almost good. I'm sure a lot of this may have been fixed or modded. But why the hell are we getting a shitty game in the first place?

As to your specific points.

Having not played Xenonauts, and Phoenix Point having not yet decided on Ammo. That doesn't help.

Ok let me clarify. I found the working base integral. The base defence was a component of that. It was one of those elements that was always there in the old games, it gave pressure. You had to take out the enemy vessels before they found you. It made logical sense. It added to the atmosphere in a way that nothing in the new game did. The world meant something.

Air Combat? I actually don't recall mentioning that at all. I think it is a very important component. But the original was very simplistic. I would like to see it improved upon. I can't even remember what the new xcom had.

The real issue I think was that everything was on rails. You were meant to be this commander making all these decisions. And yet it was all reduced to a couple of simple choices that half the time didn't even make sense.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!
SagaDC
Global Moderator
Posts: 3509
Joined: May 2nd, 2012, 5:51 am

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by SagaDC »

Just a quick side-note, but ammo management is confirmed to be in Phoenix Point. Players will have to equip their soldiers with ammo or specialty ammo before sending them on missions. Some people are happy with the decision, others aren't.

There also might be air combat, but they've been pretty cagey about that. Official word is that when the game begins, the mutants will be largely restricted to the land along coastal regions and the player will control the skies, but that later in the game the aliens might start introducing flying units that can threaten your air vehicles.
User avatar
Lord of Riva
Adventurer
Posts: 964
Joined: October 14th, 2014, 10:18 am

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Lord of Riva »

SagaDC wrote: June 13th, 2017, 7:58 am Just a quick side-note, but ammo management is confirmed to be in Phoenix Point. Players will have to equip their soldiers with ammo or specialty ammo before sending them on missions. Some people are happy with the decision, others aren't.

There also might be air combat, but they've been pretty cagey about that. Official word is that when the game begins, the mutants will be largely restricted to the land along coastal regions and the player will control the skies, but that later in the game the aliens might start introducing flying units that can threaten your air vehicles.
im not. I mean special ammo is great and all and should be limited. Im not sure why it would be interesting to realise you miss a bullet at the end of a 40 minutes mission.

Getting the Ammunition you definitely need into a mission will result in pointless busywork. The solution in my opinion would be to make special ammo vastly superior to standard ammo, so that you want to avoid using the standard. This however would solve the lock that could happen and at the same time result in tense situations like woolfe describes.

Its a double edged sword and im standing between old and new (as i have played a lot of old games as well, but are relatively young) and for me there are some old things we should be done with and other we should embrace. However in most cases they have to be refined.
User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 6219
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Zombra »

Yeah. For me, ammo management never led to interesting decisions and I'm not looking forward to it in PP. It's always just "load up everyone's pockets and hope it lasts for the whole fight". Then on a long mission if people run out, it's just, "OK, that guy can't do anything so I'll pass his turn over and over from now on." Thrilling!
Image
Remo
Scholar
Posts: 144
Joined: April 24th, 2017, 3:16 am

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Remo »

Woolfe wrote: June 13th, 2017, 5:30 am Er not sure what that has to do with being derivative, but let me respond.

A game that is being "Rebooted" should hold certain elements of the original. But my issue with Xcom is that they actually "put in" most of the elements they just did it in half arsed shitty ways.
I wasn't arguing one way or another, just suggesting that what people consider core elements is subjective.. For example, @Zombra believe that WL1 oldschool encounters were essential part of the game and that overall WL2 removed a lot of elements that made WL1 what it is to him. Couldn't he make the same arguments as others did in this thread regarding Firaxis, saying that Inixile abused the franchise and used insidious practice to pull a bit and switch from people who were expecting these elements of the original?

I also suggested that fan perspective is different from that of a studio. We mainly care about us, hopping that the franchise will continue to grow with us, continually improving our experience with each tittle. While studios has other real life constraints and considerations. Could Firaxis easily add what you suggested, as you suggested? maybe**. But likely they intentionally made XCom EU more accessible to build their user base (which is a common practice with reboots) then added more verity and complexity with EW ( similarly to x-com UFO defense -> TFDF ).

Then after confirming that there is large portion of the community want more complexity, they built XCOM2 with modding support from the ground up, working with longwar devs to offer it on day one... and now with Xcom2 expansion they again adding more verity and complexity addressing many of the things the community asked for.


** Mind you, Inxile also cut some content from few of its releases (like WL2) which didn't meet the standard on schedule, some of it was later introduce along with QoL improvements and some of it went into next installments. They also stated that Wl3 will be more accessible, shorter and incorporate some industry standards that I can't care about.. -- Do I like any of this? no. But I understand that they have real life constraints and other consideration, working of data that I am not aware off.
Last edited by Remo on June 13th, 2017, 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Remo
Scholar
Posts: 144
Joined: April 24th, 2017, 3:16 am

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Remo »

SagaDC wrote: June 13th, 2017, 7:58 am Just a quick side-note, but ammo management is confirmed to be in Phoenix Point. Players will have to equip their soldiers with ammo or specialty ammo before sending them on missions. Some people are happy with the decision, others aren't.
That depends on what they do with it. Generally I no longer care for ammo management, its the type of monotonous stuff that adds nothing but mandatory clickfest that should be streamlined/automated. But given that they are using fire trajectories, destructible environment, and limbs damage that could be integrated in an interesting and meaningful way with ammo types. And since don't seem to be using specialization loadouts, adding some sort of inventory/weight managing particularly for heavy weapon and grenades would be needed.

p.s. that part in the last post about xenonauts not having ammo management was brain fart on part.
SagaDC wrote: June 13th, 2017, 7:58 am There also might be air combat, but they've been pretty cagey about that. Official word is that when the game begins, the mutants will be largely restricted to the land along coastal regions and the player will control the skies, but that later in the game the aliens might start introducing flying units that can threaten your air vehicles.
It is good that they are cagey about it. The campaign is over, they should go into dev mode, use the year+ they have to see what works and polish, no need to over promise of the bat. Particularly with Firaxis recent expansion looming over them..
Last edited by Remo on June 13th, 2017, 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3855
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Gizmo »

As a Ground Control player, I'm more than fine with requiring a loadout, before embarking on the mission.
User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5890
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Julian Gollop's "Phoenix Point"

Post by Woolfe »

SagaDC wrote: June 13th, 2017, 7:58 am Just a quick side-note, but ammo management is confirmed to be in Phoenix Point. Players will have to equip their soldiers with ammo or specialty ammo before sending them on missions. Some people are happy with the decision, others aren't.
Excellent.
Zombra wrote: June 13th, 2017, 10:36 am Yeah. For me, ammo management never led to interesting decisions and I'm not looking forward to it in PP. It's always just "load up everyone's pockets and hope it lasts for the whole fight". Then on a long mission if people run out, it's just, "OK, that guy can't do anything so I'll pass his turn over and over from now on." Thrilling!
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.
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. You can still go wild fire when you need it. But it might mean that you need to avoid the secondary objective, or that you take the secondary objective using melee weapons, or that you scavenge gear from the battlefield or or or or.

The problem the original had, was not the jam it in everywhere mentality, it was that you had to manually do that. By having a simple Auto/defualt loadout template, you can avoid 90% of that work.
SagaDC wrote: June 13th, 2017, 7:58 amThere also might be air combat, but they've been pretty cagey about that. Official word is that when the game begins, the mutants will be largely restricted to the land along coastal regions and the player will control the skies, but that later in the game the aliens might start introducing flying units that can threaten your air vehicles.
That makes sense, from the point of view of making it a full "world". It seems logical that some flight based vehicles would survive and be used. How else do you get on top of the damn Behemoth :-)
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 »

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:

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.
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.

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.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”