Mildly dissapointed with the general direction of the game

[ACbattery]

@omenomaho

What’s baffling here is that it’s the same game designer behind both games. This is really quite a mystery to me.

If I had to guess a large problem with PP is because the dynamic difficulty is actually working and creating feedback loops to the devs. Or more likely it hasn’t been declared broken yet. Julian seems to have a battered wife syndrome with dynamic difficulty systems, and the games work despite them.

[walan]

@ACbattery

If I had to guess

I bet they don’t play the game themselves or maybe only the first half of the game. It could also be that they are simply too bad in their own game and do not even notice the OP exploits and FTS.
I absolutely cannot understand why this problem is not communicated to the community. There are countless threads in this regard …

The fact is:
These problems have existed since release
First DLC brings even more super toys into the sand box

Edit:

@VOLAND

My point was that if Snapshot had intentionally decided to create a virtual sandbox for playing with toys, rather than a tactics game, they should have fully committed to the idea by leaving character progression entirely in the hands of the players. And also market it as such.

But that would be a shame, at least honestly. I and maybe many other tactics fans could then peacefully say goodbye to PP.

[VOLAND]

@ACbattery

I think you can only fix the current system by taking one of two progressions. The first is embracing the rambo RPG mechanics and eliminating character death entirely.

@ACbattery

The second option is to do away with as much of the active skills as possible, and embrace x-com’s roots by adding more soldiers and tying progression to equipment.

I see where you are coming from, but I have to disagree.

Do you play any miniatures games? There are two distinct fun parts to those games - the kitting out and the battle itself. Phoenix Point is kinda like that but with character progression and severe balancing issues.

It’s not about number of clicks, it’s about choices.

Phoenix Point has a huge variety of possible builds that all play differently. With the previous system, replacing casualties was not an issue because there was a soft cap and recruits would hit it through TFs. So when you lost a soldier, you went to the ‘stables’ and got another one of similar worth. I usually went with a completely different build, so losing a soldier was an opportunity to try out something new. There were issues with that system, but it had its advantages. Also you didn’t get the maxed out beasts by late game you get now. IMO the game needs to move back in the direction of a soft cap on SPs and make replacing casualties easier (and more fun).

@ACbattery

PP has 10-20 soldiers worth of AP on their turn, but only 6 soldiers of HP on the enemy turn. Pandas meanwhile have 10-20 soldiers on either of their turns thus willpower becomes the only relevant mechanic for most of the game since before you can make any interesting trade-offs you first have to pare down the pandas so that they only have 6 soldiers on their turn. If you can’t manipulate willpower that well then you lose.

I have been playing the game for a long time, on the hardest difficulty and with severe self-imposed restrictions. You don’t have to take the enemies out before they have a chance to have a go at you. There are always very different ways of approaching any tactical problem. The problem is that more often than not it doesn’t emerge because you can usually do an overwhelming, reliable and safe First Turn Strike that leaves the opponent unable to respond. And turns the game into a braindead clickfest, or a (map) cleaning simulator.

Playing with self imposed restrictions you can mostly (but not always, because there is some absurd enemy deployment) deprive yourself of that opportunity and then a different game occasionally emerges, which is not the original XCom and not the Firaxis XCom, and not a mix between the two. That game I really like.

[etermes]

@Yokes

It depends who likes what. I like to set my team equipment. I lake to plan their training. I like to manage storage and supplies including manufacturing. I like to manage and equip air crafts. I like to plan bases…

I like micromanagement, too

back in the days of X-COM UFO Defense and TFTD you had a real inventory for every base and soldier, required hours sending objects from one place to another.

Right now it is magical stuff. Worst case scenario: you have an aircraft in North America and you need weapons/armors/ammo , just access to the pool and voilà . Now you have another aircraft for a mission in Europe, you can use the weapons or armors from the other squad just clicking. No time at all to send stuff from base to base (bc it’s a common inventory) and personal armors sent to soldiers thousands of miles away just because.

I guess that TBS games are a broad ecosystem, making everyone happy almost impossible

[ACbattery]

@VOLAND

Do you play any miniatures games? There are two distinct fun parts to those games - the kitting out and the battle itself. Phoenix Point is kinda like that but with character progression and severe balancing issues.

Yes I’ve played miniatures. Loved making unique armies with a particular theme, and strength. Never understood the people that would just sort the units by descending points and put the biggest ones they could find. Never liked playing with the people who would cheat a couple extra inches on their move turn either.

[CardboardMike]

I think they have aimed at reaching a medium between nuXCOM and X-Com but ended up closer to the former.

Perhaps this is the intent - this approach has undoubtedly been successful for Firaxis. Arguably making it more accessible will get more sales. Unfortunately, the hardcore that is still following the game on the forum at the moment is unlikely to be representative of the player base when it hits Steam.

[walan]

For kids: PP has too little presentation and is far too complex (ammo, status, body parts, flexible AP distribution).
For tactic fans: it’s too arcade (clickfest from mid-game).

[MichaelIgnotus]

@omenomaho

What’s baffling here is that it’s the same game designer behind both games. This is really quite a mystery to me.

Not really. Most people remember X-Com 1994 and TFTD through rose-tinted spectacles. They forget the annoying idiosyncrasies - like the long, slow, bullet trajectory of Death; or the never-ending Alien ships in TFTD - and let’s not get into the mess that was X-Com: Apocalypse. Or rather lets, because X-Com: Apocalypse had an awful lot of systems very similar to PP - most notably the faction politics and a DDA - and its teething troubles were legendary. Half of the systems that were advertised were eventually dropped because they proved too complex to implement.

But most people forget that, preferring to remember the glory days of UFO Defence and TFTD.

But JG has a long track record of overreaching himself and then trying to fix things on the fly.

[Yokes]

But I think that people don’t want those old games. Just something similar. Equally complex and also better than old games.

[etermes]

@MichaelIgnotus

But most people forget that, preferring to remember the glory days of UFO Defence and TFTD.

I feel quoted with this paragraph, of course I don’t want the same 25 years old game, I remember those flaws,

things improved along this time, I want an updated version , evolved version

as @Yokes replied

[Nattfarinn]

@MichaelIgnotus

But most people forget that, preferring to remember the glory days of UFO Defence and TFTD.

I play OpenXCom Extended right now. Sure, it is improved here and there, but the core remains the same. With great modding support it is by a huge margin a better game than Phoenix Point will probably ever be.

[Ementrude]

@MichaelIgnotus

But JG has a long track record of overreaching himself and then trying to fix things on the fly.

Does he? I’m not disputing it, but what makes you suggest this? His games were mostly released in an era before there were patches available online.

[VOLAND]

@Ementrude

I’m not disputing it, but what makes you suggest this?

Well, the case of XCom Apocalypse… The saddest game development story ever, IMO. The game was incredibly ambitious and it was actually made, but tons of content had to be brutally cut out because it couldn’t pass Q&A, until what was released was a shadow of the game it was supposed to be. And it was still awesome in many ways.

The reason why it’s the saddest game development story is because that is a game that now can never be made - too many intricate, wonderful simulation mechanics to create a living world, completely unfeasible from a cost/benefit analysis.

[Nattfarinn]

@VOLAND

The game was incredibly ambitious and it was actually made, but tons of content had to be brutally cut out because it couldn’t pass Q&A, until what was released was a shadow of the game it was supposed to be. And it was still awesome in many ways.

OpenApoc seems to be entering very advanced state (and is supposed to be highly moddable), so there is a hope you’ll receive the game JG wished for.

Edit: Here’s their todo trello board: Trello

[MichaelIgnotus]

@VOLAND

Well, the case of XCom Apocalypse… The saddest game development story ever, IMO. The game was incredibly ambitious and it was actually made, but tons of content had to be brutally cut out because it couldn’t pass Q&A, until what was released was a shadow of the game it was supposed to be. And it was still awesome in many ways.

Sound like Phoenix Point at all…?

[Nattfarinn]

Yeah, apart from “awesome in many ways” part.

[Ementrude]

Okay, so I’m not sure where I read about it, but wasn’t that the point of PP? It was based on some of the amazing ideas of X-com Apocalypse. I loved that game too.

Strangely, a I’m repeatedly seeing in this forum, is that PP is great in it’s creativity and not complete. Additionally, people are happy about ideas being implemented, but then want more and then complain about it. An example would be weapon health and then afterwards suggesting that it would be better if said damaged weapon should lose accuracy etc. This leads the developers to an unending request list. Just because of their open minded approach, everyone seems to expect everything plus.

I congratulate snapshot for creating legal addictive stimulants.

[MichaelIgnotus]

@Nattfarinn

Yeah, apart from “awesome in many ways” part.

Oh I don’t know. The free-aiming system is pretty awesome. So’s the AP system and interruptible movement. And the idea of the open skills sandbox, even if the implementation of it is far too open. The concept of the Factions is great - and I personally quite like the execution, though I know that many don’t. WP are pretty awesome if you don’t abuse them with Terminator Builds. Personally, I think Sirens are pretty awesome too, though I know many would disagree. Oh, and the story, I really like the story…

So there’s a lot of awesome stuff in there, it’s just so unpolished and unregulated at the moment that the good can get swamped by the bad if you allow it to. Which is why many of us play with self-imposed limitations that take this game at least part of the way towards the fantastic tactical sim that it could be.

[VOLAND]

@Nattfarinn

OpenApoc seems to be entering very advanced state (and is supposed to be highly moddable), so there is a hope you’ll receive the game JG wished for.

I was looking at it, but there doesn’t seem to be a lot going on, and no ETA of any kind.

[Nattfarinn]

Oh, I know PP has some unique features, but most of them is so flawed I can’t call them awesome. They could be awesome, but game is not there yet. Lets take a free-aiming system for example. In theory? Great. In practice? Doesn’t work well with turn-based combat and all the other board-gamish approximations and compensations for game not being a real-time (like balistics + overwatch doesn’t work very well). Enemies evolution in form of completly random mutations and HP/AP gain? DDA deliberately designed to make casulties in a game designed that you can’t handle heavy casulties?

Those features are what I consider the game main selling points (and what make PP different from other games) yet all of them failed to be good at what they were designed for. This is half year after release and game still feels like an alpha. This is very disapointing. Just give me modding support and I’m gone Or I’ll wait 25 years for OpenPhoenixPoint.