Before You blame this idea as too radical, I just want to state - I understand, that probably I go to far with this, but would be great, if there is at least mod available for it
In PP soldiers can move for 1/2 AP or 1/3 AP, so I guess, there is a hidden mechanism, which works with higher numbers in AP system,
4 AP just want to look familiar with modern XCOM and Gears Tactics, but does not fit Phoenix Point well in my opinion.
I would suggest to increase AP system from 4p to 8p, this would allow to fix the heavy weapons use and open further balance options.
Heavy weapons (HW) simple needs AP’s value between Assault riffles(&Shotgun) and Sniper Riffles - HW needs more mobility to use. but if they cost 2AP (and shot 2x per turn), would be OP
Like this
general AP system would be increased from 4p to 8p
assault riffles 2p -> 4p
sniper rifles 3p -> 6p
heavy weapons 3p -> 5p
So Soldier with HW would finally get necessary mobility, but not too much and would not able to shot twice per turn
In fact, this is a question about the Precision of the Heavy.
About “accuracy HW” without Aim - from the position “on the hands, from the hip.” And the controversy of a single shot, in that case.
If you remove Aim, then let it cost 2AP.
add
“change Free Aim”
I see it like
cancel - slow down enemy animation when Free Aim
(preferably) put the camera over the HW and there should be a sense of the muzzle-to-target distance
This will give the feeling of being fired from a Heavy Weapon (at the cost of 2AP), without attempting “sniper adjustment without sniper accuracy” (for 3AP).
add 2
Let’s say, HW for 2AP will be exclusive for the Heavy class. Others for 2,5AP.
But, with the current Leaky / broken rules in Skills, this is …
I don’t see the increased AP cost of heavy weapons as aim adjustment time… this is represented by the larger circles, he can’t adjust the precision. I see the high AP as the time he takes to wield a very heavy weapon, the soldier must arch his back and lift that thing to shoot.
This is done by the player, Free Aim + “pixel hunting”.
Heavy does 2 things: 1 - turns in the right direction, 2 - pulls the trigger.
2AP is fast response, but also poor accuracy.
Therefore, a quick and inaccurate single shot has to be repeated “until victory or …”
Free Aim brings disappointment from Heavy.
This is your interpretation of how you want it to be, right? Because this is not how I see the game, at least. You seem to want the mechanics of the original X-Com, they surely have their value, but a lot of them don’t exist in PP.
I personally am not against a lot of the simplifications the new iterations brought. Firaxcom brought too much of them, PP is a step in the right direction, although I agree it’s not at the best spot yet.
I don’t think that at this stage (after Steam launch) PP will receive major overhauls of basic mechanics anymore. It’s perfectly OK to discuss them as they could be introduced in PP2 if it ever exists, just don’t hold your breath for things like snapshot / aimed shot / automatic fire in PP.
I would want to have full TU system and no AP.
IMO it would also be better to balance all the things, because you have one more value that you can tune more granular.
So going somewhat OT, but what game systems from Phoenix Point would you keep for Phoenix Point 2 “as is” (perhaps with minor improvements in implementation but no changes)?
Definitely the first person aim and the ballistics for every single bullet, both are simply good and the main reason why I love this game so much.
Basically also the mixed TU / AP system. Even when I would like to have a full TU system, the current is IMO a good compromise and not really bad. Much better than the rigid 2 or 3 AP system that has become so common.
Inventory (Edit: NOT the global beaming everything to everywhere inventory system of course), ready slots, weapon diversity are basically also fine, with some minor improvements.
Snapshot Games chose to call how a soldier/Pandoran moves in PP “Action Points” or AP not “Time Units” or TU. I like AP, TU is used in someone else’s game. It’s just a naming mechanism. My problem with how AP’s work is when it breaks down into fractions.
That shot I wanted to take at the max shooting movement range, highlighted in blue, just got nixed because on the way to the location my soldier stopped 10 times for every enemy and allied unit it saw and because of a fractional movement the shot he should have been able to make is now no longer allowed.
I call BS !! ( On not being able to take the shot anymore ) I think the number of AP’s available is just fine. If you want a heavy that can shoot twice, cross train as a sniper.
I overall agree with MadSkunky’s opinions about what’s best to keep for a PP2. I thought he would keep with the full TU idea, but I find the full TU disguised as AP from PP very good. It could just have more granularity as the OP suggested. Also, I would like very much to be able to choose the direction my soldier faces at the end of the turn - just that, not needing to make every turn of the head like in the original x-com to look to the sides.
The aiming system could be improved with some players suggestions, like having different shapes for different weapons.
I just don’t agree with the weapon diversity part. There are a lot of weapons, but too much of some types and too few of others. Also… the whole sidegrade system with very few upgrades (and almost none for armor) was a bad choice. It’s good for bringing up different strategies, but it’s just not that fun for a lot of players that crave that upgrade loot high. So, I would keep the system but improve it more into a hybrid with tiers of sidegrades, even if that meant lowering the amount of weapon types to keep things more simple.
I would also add the pandoran evolution as a mechanic to keep, although it would need to be the originally promised one with a lot more enemy types. I’m tired of seeing the 5 types of monsters (excluding the very small or rooted ones) that a mutating virus can produce…
Finally, not really a game mechanic, but the way the story/lore was conducted pre-launch was very cool with the great short stories and puzzle pieces to put together. Also the way the game incorporated those stories! It just needs more personality for characters and the PP faction itself. It would be very cool if factions could’ve tactical versions of special characters to be encountered throughout the entire game and help you sometimes, or join you with unique perks or skills, and even get killed. In a way, I would like the story a bit more on rails, with better in-game presentation. Just not as cheesy as firaxcoms
That is of course still a problem and should somehow get fixed, I totally agree. Especially when there is not any move at all. There are cases when a soldier is still on the starting tile, but spotted something by starting to move, literally “snaps” back to the tile he started and a part of one AP is gone without moving at all. It shouldn’t be like that.
On the other hand, I make use of the basic fact that the movement does not cost entire APs. I seldom move my soldiers up to the maximum of the “blue” range but look for shooting opportunities within this range and how much freedom of movement I still have afterwards, e.g. to take cover. This flexibility is usually only available with pure TU systems, which is why I think the compromise that SG has chosen is significantly better than the rigid AP system that Firaxis and many others use (regardless how far you move, it will cost whole APs. And additionally also some actions that doesn’t allow you to move afterwards, regardless how much this action really cost).
TU = Time, this is a hard limit for min and max values.
AP is some form of time / movement capable (in the correct design without broken rules) to harmoniously stretch and contract.
Cross-training of classes is not invented in PP, and is found in other games too, just maybe not in “mainstream” ones. (From turn based tactical games, Fell Seal: Arbiter’s Mark is an example, but Guild Wars had that too.)
It is true that in other games the “main class” usually gives something extra (can train some skills [higher], has different stat-growth, etc.), so A/B is not equivalent of B/A, but I’m not sure that would truly give more options/replayability to PP, sounds more like just another balance question (and players will just use the “stronger” version).
Using a slow-weapon class’ cheap attack speed buff on a quick-weapon class is the same too.
There are several more “cross class build being way more effective than single-class”, like 90% of the meta was that.
One should always think about opportunity cost when planning cross-class builds, what do you give up to gain that specific combo, just like how you can get either more melee damage for your berzerker with heavy or more mobility/attacks with assault cross-class, which (with vengeance torso reducing attack cost) might mean higher overall damage.
Same for heavy/sniper, depending on how the game balance plays out and your playstyle, Assault can give you the same “shoot twice a turn” with rapid clearance. Sniper spends 2x3 points fixed, Assault spends 5 points but has to kill something (which is absolutely possible with Heavy’s weapons), but both allows the heavy to shoot twice that turn.
with a lot more enemy types. I’m tired of seeing the 5 types of monsters (excluding the very small or rooted ones) that a mutating virus can produce…