Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
1. X-COMWait!! That is factually incorrect. XCOM is a spinoff of Warhammer 40k franchise, and was designed by Rick Priestley!!!
X-COM was a strategy game developed by legendary designer Sid Meier and released in 1994...
aware
xy -4 -2 xyr 4 -2 point
xy 0 -10 xyr -2 -10 atk1
xy 8 4 xyr -8 -4 atk2
xy 8 4 xyr -8 -4 atk3
But I think the right thing would have been calculating these in the world space, not the screen space, so this xyr duplicate wont be required for the 180 degree version of the anim.
Yes, but these are trivial and already doable. The difficult part would be adding all those features OXC was not intended to have, from dialogues to trade UI, map transitions and all the rest...XCOM had a trade system since the beginning, it is just that you sold stuff on the global market, like an agency does. As a Microprose game, XCOM just goes at a very different scale from an RPG game, or even say Jagged Alliance, so RPG elements go into conflict with the idea of soldiers being expendable in the first place, as opposed to typical RPG, where characters interact on a local scale and are expected to reach the end of the game. Baldur's Gate did allowed for characters to die but it had some hacks where the newly recruited characters matched the level of the one the squad, and losing more than a few would have made game impossible, it also had the protagonist character, which could no be lost, which was really annoying. Icewind Dale had similar system, but the new characters started at level 1 and were basically useless, so the the feature was removed for the enhanced edition, meaning one had to reload on permadeath of a character, and these games were relatively forgiving since only a few enemies could permed a character. In Final Fantasy Tactics, losing a character wasn't such a disaster, since the game regularly filled the pool with the new ones with higher level, albeit with different abilities, and one could always grind a level 1 character to higher level, which was a kind of cheating, so everyone agreed that proper game should have a per chapter turn limit, so player wont have time to grind super soldiers, and there are even mods giving this turn limit.
What’s wrong with making it more RPG? It will be nice to have missions with very limited dialog interaction with NPC in battlescape, like trade items, follow XCom soldiers to exit points. Expands the scope of mission types.Then you will also need the big alien boss villains, and the cellar "alien rats" mission for lv1 characters, instead of proper terror missions. And skyranger will get unlocked only half-way through the game, with early game being limited to a single area.
I think the best way to avoid it is to not act like a damn clown and ruin your experience for yourself, then blame the game for not stopping you.Well we have to think what is the point of XP system in RPG games. Initially experience was a lazy game design method to lock out the higher level abilities and dungeons in D&D games, which had a dungeon master, who punished players for role playing clowns. Basically getting level 3 meant just that instead of module level 2 you should now move to play the module level 3, as opposed to explicitly linking the dungeons together in a linear progression. Now XCOM is not really a D&D RPG and has no DM, while the tech level and the end game is locked behind research, money and base building, instead of experience. So what is the point of soldiers having D&D like progression at all? Will the soldiers becoming higher level open previously too high level dungeons (UFOs) for them, which are accessible from the beginning? Is XCOM a World of Warcraft wannabe, where you first grind to the level 99, and only then the game begins?
You can get supersoldiers in an even cheesier way than honest battle experience (honest only on their side of course, mostly abusive on your side).
You can (ab)use active "training", for example mind control and disarm a muton, and shoot at him at point blank range until you're out of bullets in your pistol; or even better put him in a circle of soldiers and let them reaction fire and train reactions too. Or mind control him many times to improve psi skills.
Does this feel right? Don't answer, it was just a rhetorical question...
How about AI reacting to player progress, while at the same time introducing a time limit, which can be extended by player with some effort? Make it easy enough that most people will be able to get into the mid game, but only the real luck and commitment will make you win the game. And these psi soldiers are the end game thing, but since they are really OP, they should be sufficiently rare (i.e. only 1 out of 10 soldiers could have aptitude towards it) and have something like exhaustion level, so can' do psi non-stop, or start losing health and sanity. Then some alien race can be immune to psi, and if player overuses psi, these aliens can appear more frequently. I think i would also make sense to lower the difficulty in many areas, like soldiers not dying after the first hit (unless it is some headshot), but becoming incapacitated and require a quick medic help, and really lengthy recovery, with maybe expensive high tech prosthetics (think robocop style soldiers, where only the brain was left in the end game) or losing say an arm or an eye, which obviously lowers abilities or forces you to retire them, but at less reputation cost than if they are killed in combat. Same could apply to civilian casualties. That will make support roles more useful, and the soldiers feeling less like cannon fodder. Such features shouldn't require large changes to the code base or additional graphics.
In geoscape, there is very little potential to make the game truly harder (and a lot of potential to just make it annoying instead).
