[QoL] Quick-save multiple slots

[0ros]

I'm suggesting multiple slots for quick-saves, since saving the game is noticeably intrusive.

Non-quick-saving takes us out of the moment and makes us waste several seconds every time. That's why quick-saving is a thing...

Loading isn't an issue, compared, since it's infrequent enough, and is done when we are abandoning our current activity.


So, something like 1-100 slots for quick-saves, adjustable in the "options". Quick-load brings the list of quick-saves (separate from "manual" saves).

If possible, have quick-load auto-select the latest quick-save, so that the player only has to select "load".

Needless to say, they'd be numbered (possibly "#1", "#3" and such), have dates.

[Delian]

On one hand, saving and loading should be intrusive, otherwise savescumming becomes too convenient.
On the other hand, games have long since moved away from giving names to save files, and instead simply use nameless slots, the slots themselves showing all the important information to the user...

Personally, as a player, I think a single quick save slot is enough. As a developer, I think this feature would not be useful enough to justify the coding time investment.

[psavola]

This essentially already exists for geoscape (except it's autosave multiple slots, not quick save slots): https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php?topic=11956.msg165704#msg165704

I suppose you want this for battlescape. This was apparently at least once (in 2017) briefly discussed for OXC (not OXCE) and Meridian did not seem very enthusiastic: https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php?topic=5269.msg78716#msg78716

[Meridian]

I suppose you want this for battlescape. This was apparently at least once (in 2017) briefly discussed for OXC (not OXCE) and Meridian did not seem very enthusiastic: https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php?topic=5269.msg78716#msg78716

multiple autosave slots for battlescape exist even longer than for geoscape: https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php?topic=9512.0

[0ros]

@Delian

The current level of intrusion won't discourage save-scumming in any way, since it takes only 5-10s. It's just noticeable for QoL. It'd be up to the players how much ease in reloading they want to have. They could have only a few quick-save slots, geoscape auto-save frequency more far apart, not use manual save... (Although I'll probably set to the maximum possible slots--so that I can load a save I'm more comfortable with.) If the dev added a maximum of 1.000 save slots, it'd also possibly help with bug reporting, yeah? Since, as mentioned in that topic, the average player must have a set number of manual saves, for convenience.

Personally I'm interested in this feature mainly to ease (significant) micromanagement. If something wrong happens, I'd rather not have to redo the aforementioned.


@psavola

It's more for QoL due to micromanagement.

Look at this guy's reaction, heh (26min20s).

A possible fear in this game is having to go through some significant micromanagement.

[Unit]

How ya gonna CTRL+99 to load that 99th slot tho'? 🤔
Ya only need the 1 slot, about 3-4 progression saves & a save called combat start

[0ros]

How ya gonna CTRL+99 to load that 99th slot tho'? 🤔
Ya only need the 1 slot, about 3-4 progression saves & a save called combat start

Loading isn't an issue, so can be normal (except quick-load bringing up the list of saves directly). "Load 99th" is extremely rare, so the player can just scroll through the list.

[Meridian]

"Load 99th" is extremely rare, so the player can just scroll through the list.

Why would using slot 99 be extremely rare?
All slots would be used equally by the game... the player doesn't choose which slot the game would use (there is no GUI to choose anything during saving, remember?).

Also, if you need 100 slots (or anything more than 10), it means you are not interested in any slots at all.
I will just implement "unlimited slots".

(except quick-load bringing up the list of saves directly)

I'm not going to change quick-load, quick-load doesn't need any GUI.
If it needed GUI, it wouldn't be quick anymore.

You can use standard loading GUI for your new "insta-saves" or "nameless-saves" or whatever new name we shall use for them.

[0ros]

@Meridian

They meant a key for loading a specific save slot, and I meant loading a save 99 times back. Hm.

Unlimited slots? Then how about "1-10", then "0" for unlimited? If both's not possible, then the latter is best.


Indeed. This quick-saving would replace standard saving, anyway, so might as well use the same GUI...