Early Backer...So disappointed in what this game devolved into

Phoenix Point Game Feedback
1

I backed this game early on because I believed we (the customers) would see something revolutionary in TTBS games.

The Backer Builds demonstrated the game could meet the current standard of the genre. The game appeared to be on the right track in being innovative early on, but as time went on the game just seemed to fall back onto the same old template games we have seen before.

Towards the end of development WE were promised more detailed character customization. We to my surprise this turned out to be a sub-standard cosmetic customization system as opposed to any meaning full character customization. In the end WE are stuck with character/avatar development that is just flat out Lazy Development or the result of a development team that was just sub-standard to begin with. I wouldn’t consider myself a avid gamer, but I have been playing computer games since the 80s. I say this to qualify this statement, “I have seen better character development systems in games that are decades old.” It is as if the development team gave zero thought into anything beyond the main archetypes.

The most recent patch is a classic example of the same mistakes that I am sure many backers were tired of seeing in other franchises. Rather than addressing the root problem of attempting to define a character in three stats (seriously, seen games on cell phones that did a better job) and start changing the skill sets that were perhaps one of the few saving graces of the game. Now I get that at some point the game needs to start making money, but when a company promises a game will be different from other franchises and spews out something very similar that company breaks trust with its supporters. Outside the fanbois, fool me once shame on you…fool me twice shame on me. Sadly the game was different, just in this case it is arguable whether it even meets the standard set by its main competition.

Not sure I would by any future products, but a few things to think about:

Stats that actually mean something, and have enough depth to make choices have consequences (e.g. maxing out willpower should have a significant trade off). Under the current system this is impossible but with the addition of modifiable stats like Agility, Perception, Endurance, Focus, and Morale, players would have to give some real thought to character development and understand the consequences of trading off advancement along specific stats.

The other thing that should be given consideration is a more flexible skill tree on that offers specialization and generalization. It should be fairly obvious that specialization should provide provide bonuses to a specific set of skill, while generalization should allow for less technical actions with bonus/penalties based on associated stats. In the current system, a character can have any two skill sets regardless of how dissimilar they are. Any new system should allow for the individual to specialize/generalize as they see fit under a set of rules that provide appropriate bonus for similar skill sets while applying a significant penalty for dissimilar skill sets.

I still have hope that something good can come of this bland offering, but for now I hope they use the money they go from me and other backers to actually build this from a two star game to at least a four star game.

3 Likes
2

In my opinion soldier need a cap for global skill points used, this is breaking somehow a lot of things. But I understand how difficult it is and all the consequences it can has.

What you ask is a less flexible tree. I’d pinpoint that a part of the problem is from the lack of cap for global skill points used for a soldier.

This “no limit approach” destroy the choices between attributes, and two set of skills.

Otherwise you want a more guided building, game spirit is build your own class.

3

There doesn’t need to be an arbitrary cap. More points spent on soldier A means a weaker soldier B. That’s the tradeoff. You can have totally maxed out troops at the sacrifice of having fewer troops overall or you can have ten squads of troops at the expense of lower stats.

1 Like
4

I am not a backer (though now I wish I was) but I like the current character development system. I find it simple and elegant.
I’ve played other similar games (X-Com 1-3, UFO: Aftermath/Aftershock/Afterlight, Jaggered Alliance 2, XCOM 1-2) and though I have seen more complicated systems (as well as less complicated - I am speaking about you, XCOM!), I find that Phoenix Point is fine as it is.
Right now I am playing my first campaign at Heroic difficulty and have nearly all the tech tree researched. The game has some balancing problems and needs more end-game content. But overall it is a hit and I am waiting for the future DLC packs.

1 Like
5

I wouldn’t be surprised of PP character development is merely a placeholder system. If that’s the final version then is just sad for a 2019 game. The OP was right about the stats - str does nothing for melee, the skills are lackluster and few and far between. And, why spend all this tech making a realistic ballistic system to then just make players rely on abilities like every other game?

There’s also no way of personalizing your soldiers like you could in the Firaxis games, so there’s no emotional attachment to any of them. They’re all just generic soldiers with generic voice quips.

2 Likes
6

Yeah - I’m not sure that we’ll get more stats at this stage, but at least make all three that do exist be worth investing in.

+1 My thoughts exactly.

2 Likes
7

During all presentations of the game in the past years, soldiers looked like normal men that try to make the best of a situation.
With the game as it was released, we had FiraXCOM WotC ĂĽbersoldiers with magic powers.
As much as I love the FiraXCOM (until WotC came out), I think the patch went in the good direction in making them less ĂĽber.

The major complaint about the game being too difficult is because “rookie” level is already punishing. Replacing a soldier is expensive and it does not seem like “rookie” is easier than “legendary”. Currently playing “legendary” and it’s not much harder compared to “rookie” (but granted I changed my tactics since my first campaign - no timers - so it could help).

It’s normal for “legendary” to be … well … legendary.

8

This is just cosmetic and emotinal, I have 35 soldiers at end of my first campaign finished, not one is the same to other, not one.

No way XCOM2 nor Long War 2 compete with that.

1 Like
9

Which one isn’t worth investing into?
As far as I know only Strength can be neglected if you are playing Infiltrator build not going to be shot at ever AND not going to carry heavy equipment AND not going to throw grenades.
In other cases all 3 stats are useful.

10

Yes I don’t see how STR can be ignored, looks bad game knowledge or it requires a detailed explanation.

EDIT: Sorry but Im’ in rage against “good” players (what they believe) that whining lead to some crap nerf.

11

Clearly it’s strength.

How does strength connect to not being shot at?

I’m not going to carry heavy equipment due to the accuracy penalties, grenades I might use, but they’re very much a secondary piece of kit.

And even if I were, it’s by far outmatched by the universal utility of speed and will.

12

Strength is your hitpoints.

13

It’s also for the point Spite quoted himself, better armors.

14

Ahh, I get what you mean now.

15

You should also learn use heavy armors.

16

I genuinely feel that it’s not even a decision to make in avoiding heavy armour. For I how I like to play the accuracy penalty is worse than any bonus to protection that it gives.

It’d be interesting to see Snapshot’s figures on which players are using what exactly.

1 Like