My long feedback is getting out of control

Phoenix Point Game Feedback
116

Stop with the theoretical math and actually play the game. What I sited was not the double damage bug. It happened and no theoretical math can undo what’s happening, if one actually plays the game.

I am sorry that you feel have you have to counter anything I say as “not possible - just do the math”. I’m also sorry that you appear to take what I say as anything personal. I am only reporting my actual experiences during game play. I am not necessarily attempting to undermine any of your comments. But, when my game play illustrates an issue, I feel the need to differ.

EDIT: I reply to the contents of the post, not the poster. I rarely pay attention to who the poster is, just the contents of the post.

117

No problem. In some part it is interesting and good that Devs will see the issue more clearly. If that would still be on topic then it would be really short thread.

1 Like
118

TBH, it’s not as bad as the complainers make out, but they have just introduced Impact Players, which pretty much does what you described in your post above.

OK, back on topic… Though I think Yokes’ thread has got way out of control by now - for good reason :smirk:

119

Unless there will be other reasons to argue in it, it soon will be dead, but I will bump it when I will finish my rambling. I’m really intrigues how people would welcome changes I would like to see in Phoenix Point. That also makes me little excited and worried at the same time that reception can differ greatly. :thinking: :face_with_raised_eyebrow: :unamused: :roll_eyes:

120

Some will love them, some will hate them. Most people won’t even notice.

That’s the nature of a game and a forum like this. You’ll never be able to satisfy everybody, because each individual wants something different out of the game - especially one that’s as ‘Marmite’ as Phoenix Point.

The key thing is to find a way to let as many people as possible have an enjoyable experience playing the game.

1 Like
121

So… actually going back on topic…

I mostly agree with what you say.

The game is best until somewhere mid-game.

A lot has to do with character progression and the flood of SPs.

I have to say at this point I actually prefer the previous system. Yes, yes the TFs were giving more Exps than combat and that was wrong, but the (soft) cap made for more interesting builds where you actually had to think about what skills and stats to invest in.

(As I have said a few times elsewhere I would like number of SPs given per mission to be inversely proportional to the number of missions, so that at first you get more SPs and then eventually much, much, much less, and 30 SPs per level instead of 20, to make recruits that go through TFs slightly better).

I prefer a faster, soft capped progression to a slower one, so that you can get powerful soldiers fairly quickly, but they are never too powerful and where soldiers are all different, built for different roles. Right now (playing on Legendary, mid February in game time, allied with all factions) all my veterans look very similar: all have 20 in speed, 12+ in WP and 20+ in STR and a lot of skills they don’t really need for their roles…
IMO, 300SPs is the sweet spot for a soft cap, just as it was in the previous system. After that SP acquisition should slow to a crawl (2-3 SPs per mission?) and if the players really want to improve their characters they should dip into the common SPs pool.

There is another thing about character progression that I have been thinking about and that’s the role that augmentations play in it. I think ideally they should be shortcuts to more powerful low level troops, which makes sense given that they appear around mid game.

Finally, I think there should be an option to recruit higher level recruits from havens, and raw recruits from bases, though I would make both options contingent on diplomacy (that is, raw recruits in small numbers would be available unless at war with the faction/haven and higher level recruits only if in good standing with the faction).

The point is to have different paths obtain the necessary human resources, so you could spend time with the TFs training raw recruits, “buy” experiencied troops taking advantage of good diplomatic relations, use augmentations to quickly turn raw recruits into better troops, or take them on missions to give them combat experience, probably alongside veteran troops (as I’m sure many players are doing now).

EDIT: As to geoscape, I wish that diplomacy & base/resource management were much closer integrated in a single system, either as I suggest here Diplomacy and base management overhaul proposal, or something else along those lines. It just seems a pity that all the things to make for a more engaging system are there (the havens with their districts, leaders, population, etc.) but it’s not really used for much.

For combat I’m really excited to see what will happen with the new Panda evolution/research…

2 Likes
122

Good point with previous ones leading to it.

123

There is a lot of great ideas here, but from my experience as a not so good player, a lot of focus is only on half of my problem with the game. Combat wise, everything pushes to an alpha strike. Hit points are low, weapons and skills are all very high damage. Armor just delays the quick death a turn, since it’s a consumable steel cage around a weak shelled egg. The entire combat side seems focused on high loss, quick brutal combat.

However, the entire rest of the game mechanics seem to say, everything is rare, don’t lose anything, soldiers can’t be lost, gear is super expensive. For me it seems like the game is fighting with itself, with me in the middle getting hosed. If combat is quick death and brutal, fine, make me able to replace combat losses easily.

TLDR: Combat says quick death, lots of losses. Rest of game says no losses, that’s bad. That leaves me save scumming with no other options.

Edit add: The initial NJ mission is a great example. That could be the very first mission that happens in a game, if NJ is first contacted. In it are enemy with return fire, high armor, and good weapons. That screams gonna lose a soldier. The rest of the game screams, no you can’t replace that soldier, they are rare. Heck, I might not even have the research to even recruit a new soldier at that point at all, much less afford one if I could.

4 Likes
124

Early on the game tends to push the novice player into thinking they must alpha-strike. Don’t take the bait. Sometimes the best offense is defense. Find cover and make them come to you. That’s when they are most vulnerable. Don’t be afraid to take a few hits, as this will stall the ramping up of stronger enemies.

125

Most combat missions prevent that entirely. Haven defense, nest, and scavenge I can’t sit and wait, the enemy will entirely ignore me. The geoscape side punishes me if I dont do scavenge, because there is no way to increase my resources besides food, which other than luck of a haven trading, I can’t influence in any way. I have no long term control, and it seems like two developers made the game and mashed it together. One made combat and went with brutal, high loss, intense action, the other made the Geoscape and went with post apocalypse, super rare everything, and very few if no way for the player to modify it.

1 Like
126

Yep, that’s pretty much it. I believe this is what is commonly referred to as the ‘uneven’ difficulty of PP (IRRC it appeared on quite a few professional reviews of the game on release, and the difficulty was even more uneven back then) . And the first NJ mission is a great example of that, BTW.

Now, I actually like the quickness & brutality of the combat, and there are ways to raise the survivability of the troops quite a lot (bear in mind that each point invested in strength gives 10HPs, so with max strength a soldier has 300 HP, clad him/her in heavy armor - that gives margin for a lot of punishment).

Also, the game can quickly go from “I have no resources” to “I have so many I don’t know what do with them”. (For example, if you invest in food production facilities early on and then get the Anu tech that raises it by 50%)

As to combat, though quick & brutal, it’s quite predictable - meaning you can accurately predict the results of your actions. I have played +1500 hours of XCom EW, and I still dread the moment the Thin Men appear, because then much is in the hands of RNG. PP, by contrast, has a much smoother start once you know the mechanics.

And that’s the other thing, the game makes very little effort to explain itself…

Lastly, IMO, getting the balance right gets really complicated because there are exploits in the game that experienced players know how to use to get over the rough bits, while the players who don’t, or refuse to use them have a much harder time even on the easiest difficulty setting…

So when I (and many others) call for getting rid of stuff like first-turn strikes, or double electric reinforcement, the point is get rid of the exploits so that you can actually properly evaluate the difficulty of the game at different settings, and then balance it in accordance to the players’ expectations.

127

I agree about the combat pace, I love the quick and brutal combat side. Quick and intense for me is a lot more fun. Personally my issues are having no control or ways to help myself on the Geoscape side. I can’t increase recruiting numbers, because it’s locked to having a found Haven, and luck if they have a recruit. As a player I can’t do anything to affect that. Resources I am locked to having a Haven offering trade for food, if any are, and if they have some left. As a player I again have no means to affect that.

128

I forgot to comment on the balance I do agree on the exploit removal part, no issues here at all. I can’t even imagine how hard balancing a game must be. Just trying to think of all the variables gives me a headache. I have immense respect for everyone who does this.

129

I understand your likness of it, but in my opinion it doesn’t fit the theme of the game. It should be suspense, unknown of what pandoran thing is hiding over there in the darkness… Slow scouting, and removing threats. Of course there could be mission which end in few turns, but I think they should not represent more than 25 maybe 30% of fights.

Hah I wish it would work all the time… Imagine that I need a lot of materials now, and almost every haven has food and factory in it. That prevents trading food for materials. :smiley: There is option o raid for material, but I don’t want to spoil my reputation with factions.

That is right, but heavy armors are expensive, and you still need time to progress to those 30 str points and necessary skills (even when abandoning speed and willpower). Nevertheless (as it is possible to do that) I again think game should not produce soldiers which are hard as rock. This:

Should be good description. Armor should give good protection for at least few turns (then crumble from hits) but you still could counter enemy and survive.

1 Like
130

Haven defense is the real source of tech, materials and food. The main goal in haven defense is not protecting facilities or civilians (this only gives a minor bump in shared skill points). Knowing the goal of the enemy, is the key to taking then out. You now know their goal, so move your troops to take out the enemy. Saving the facilities or civilians is a secondary goal, not the primary one.

131

These objectives are the main source for the base experience for your soldiers in heaven defenses (and for that also the shared skill points that you mentioned because these are 1% of the Exp). In the early game, when you have no level 7 soldiers, then you gain a remarkable poor amount of Exp when you can’t protect these objectives.

But all in all you are right, these objectives didn’t count for the amount of resources you gain for a successful defense. For that you only have to complete the main goal and that is simply kill all enemies.

132

Shouldn’t the game really dial down on what it wants to be first, though? Sure, you want it to be as approachable as possible, but one can’t design Dirt Rally and Need for Speed at the same time. My biggest problem with PP, isn’t that it isn’t what I want it to be, but that I am not sure it knows what it wants to be. It seems to be very complex and very streamlined at the same time - in some aspects it goes for over-the-top simulation, and in the other for abstract gamey rules. And they just don’t play nice together at the moment.

7 Likes
133

From what I see Snapshot Games plan to address few core issues. I wonder how it will play out. All of them are in my feedback, maybe except redesigning Lairs. :smiley:

134

I see it that way too … PP can stretch “something”, but if it is to serve all types of players, it will be lame everywhere.

IMO: The first half of the game, as well as the complexity and presentation, should not appeal to most “click around” kids. The Superheroes skills make the wonderful game mechanics from the first part almost superfluous in the second half, which will disappoint the veterans. Maybe the “click around” kids might like the second part, but they won’t get there until then.

So that I am not misunderstood now:
The first part of the game can be frustrating. Both the player and the opponent have unfair strike methods, with the difference that the unfair panda methods can appear in the first part of the game. I just want to say that with “click around kids” I do not mean players who have difficulty with the first part. Rather, I mean players who simply want to feel overwhelming power on their side and want to see quick successes without familiarizing themselves with the game. ( I like to exaggerate just to make it clear and do not mean pejoratively.)

135

Haven defense is a mid to late game mechanic for getting resources though. Early game the most common mission by far is scavenge, which most combat advice says don’t even do. A lot of the proposed changes look to change a lot of this, but current state that’s just another example of combat and Geoscape having opposite design goals.