Maps doesn’t have to be bigger (despite I would prefer them to be). But yes, lower detection, lower accuracy, lower speed, and current maps will be enough to create such environment. If I’m not mistaken maps from original X-COM were not much bigger than those in Phoenix Point and there you were afraid of what you may encounter.
Most maps (except scavenge and ambush sites) so even alien bases will have sources of light. It will be AI’s and player’s decision to keep away from them. Btw enemy will also have problem with detection and aliens won’t have easy way to produce light (but their mist can be handy for them). From what I understand one of scavenge mission types will require enemy to come to you so you will be on better position.
Of course enemy will also have lower accuracy (or just lower damage output) so it won’t be so easy for them to create conditions for massacre. Who says that you won’t be able to create sources of light on quite nice distances? And who says there won’t be a way to negate low light conditions? There will be, but for that you will need to sacrifice some other gear option (probably before the mission) to be safe in low light conditions. There will be choice.
And you know, in many situations player will have the choice just to wait for a daytime.
I tell you something…Slow scouting and suspense combat is the ONLY way this game should be designed and I don’t know what the heck devs were thinking to make it exactly opposite…Phoenix Point simply does not feel as X-com/UFO successor signed by its creator itself; therefore it does not feel as a game for people who loved it these days. And what other purpose is of advertising the game of Julian Gollop if not to please his long-time fans? So whether you like quick combat or not, Phoenix Point NEVER should be designed that way. Now it’s just this weird hybrid between both X-Com and XCOM, with results well known: it couldn’t please fans of first or second title or even both of them.
And I don’t agree with the pattern/routine/protocol problem you’re speaking of. There always should be some breathing room in tactical missions, with firefights being a reward for slow and suspense exploration rather than being a constant feature of these missions, from the first to the last turn. TBH these constant quick firefights are more of a routine to me than slower and more suspenseful exploration with occasional but more meaningful/memorable/scary fights could ever be. Where is the horror in the game you prefer to play?? What is the purpose of introducing more “scary” enemies over time where all that matters is whether you manage to kill most of them in first 2 turns??
So we nerf perception all around (including enemy’s double-perception)? Nerf accuracy (especially on long range weapons)? Nerf movement (including enemy’s frenzy)?
I just completed a Synedrion haven defense and it took several before most of the enemy were even heard, let alone spotted. I didn’t even know that there were 4 Tritons until 4-6 turns in. On another defense mission I thought I had finally taken out all of the enemy. However, the mission never ended until I worked clear across the map to discover 2 Arthrons that weren’t interested in blowing things up, until I showed up.
If the AI wasn’t so bent on only 1 objective, and instead also deployed defensive pickets and ambushes during the missions. But since they basically rush head long to their objective they are easily spotted.
Those doesn’t have to be big nerfs in most cases. But yes fastest aliens would need to slow down, Chirons would need to have lower range of fire or lower damage per projectile or less projectiles - I haven’t decided yet as I’m still working on it - currently 4th iteration on perks balance (later come abilities of aliens). Tritons should not have double perception but maybe like +50% bonus and lower base perception. Weapons can even have their accuracy like it is right now, it just require to eliminate all buffs that apply bonus of 50+% to accuracy currently.
If you will recall, that’s what basically happened in the original UFO. If you had the choice, you waited until daytime to avoid having to throw flares around.
If there is a relevant impact from the mechanic, countering it will take priority.
So if night/dark means that everyone shoots a bit worse, maybe you won’t even notice (I mean, right now there is apparently something like night time and penalties to perception, bonuses to stealth or something… There is even gear/bionics to counter it, but who has noticed it?).
On the other hand, if the penalties are too heavy, the optimal solution is to counter them, and you really only have gear to play with. It just isn’t enough, IMO.
What I mean by focus/specific systems is something like:
Light shows where the enemies are, but also “awakes” them, making them more active.
Some enemies are sentries, so they can awake other enemies in their vecinity.
PP operatives have different stances - like stealthy, aggressive and normal. The stealthy and aggressive stances consume some kind (different kinds?) of “energy”.
The idea is that PP operatives are scientists, not special forces, they become nervous, scared, they lose it, etc. At some point they want to go guns blazing, so you can’t just go slow and scout ahead because that depletes their ‘coolness’ meter. So it becomes about managing a group of characters who face unimaginable terrors and you go about this with different game resources.
And then you get a very different game.
Just to be clear: I’m not saying that’s the only way to do it, or even that it would work as a game at all, my point is that you really have to commit to this theme, and build a set of systems around it to make it meaningful.
I’m not sure if you don’t expect too much of it. It could be just a feature but feature you need to take into account. Not the whole new mechanic that game revolves around.
Currently night isn’t really night and scary. About balancing it properly? It will require some work but not another process to make it viable.
I can’t answer to whatever expectations people had of this game. I will say for the record that the original X-Com is probably the game I most played as a kid, and I kept playing it until I had kids myself (they really cut into my gaming time, they do…)
Personally, I don’t want another X-Com game - it’s already there, not to mention the countless iterations. However, if you feel like that’s what was advertised and what you bought into, you have every right to be upset.
Why does it have to be like this? I would rather have all my choices matter and be meaningful. If I want a breather, I can go make myself a hot beverage.
Note though that I’m very much against first-turn strikes being possible in the game and missions ending in 1-2 turns.
There are always choices to be made in TBS games, like regrouping your soldiers or collecting some things from the ground (when not being in the middle of the action). I understand you may prefer that kind of fast-paced battles, it just isn’t appealing to me at all because there is no balance between tension and action which I would like to see. Some missions could be like that, but why all of them? I know PP is not X-Com but I backed this game specifically for that kind of experience, you know. And I’m disappointed with what I see.
I’m not saying you are not. And these problems could be solved with some things mentioned before like slowed down action, bigger maps, limited vision and movement, rebalanced skill system etc.
I felt the same. I knew that it will probably take some things from Firaxis remake, but I wasn’t expecting that Phoenix Point will beat that game in being ridiculous. And I think that we don’t expect a remake. But a new better iteration without many flaws '90s versions had.
They wanted to remove class-less system? Ok, it is easier to balance while having lower number of soldier’s statistic combinations (as we can see, not really),
They want to cut number of bases and disallow player to select their placement? Fine, story fits that and it will cut number of player mistakes in this regard (but we have seen this part is problematic)
There won’t be aerial combat. Seems not so big lost and it fits the setting (but eventually we know it will be introduced with the DLC),
They cut the economy system, which may be sad, but still fit the lore (thankfully there will be trade improvent introduced, as I wanted to criticize that element)
They cut TU system into 4 action system with light cost movement, well ok, it will cut the calculations from players side (this helps to have faster combats, but there are crazy results of that system in conjunction with skill system)
They want to cut soldier stances. Hard choice but ok, it will additionally remove tedious calculation which don’t bring much of tactial depth (debatable, but well let them streamline this, but we see some frustrating outcomes like shooting from the roof or from the windows on higher floors, which should be sorted out)
Each weapon will have only one attack type? Why not, maybe abilities will take care of that (and now we see mutliplication of single attacks like there were no time constraints).
There won’t be equipment tiers? That’s fine. It was boring after first playthough. If they will bring more diverse attack types then it is bettter (but some types just don’t make enough to catch players attention).
But they also want to add (gosh I needed to edit this part with text in parentheses):
vehicles (not worth player attention after some progression of soldiers)
free aiming, (they did it!)
bosses, (only one and to be true one of the easiest enemies to deal with)
partition of bodies with function of disabling abilities of enemies (it works, but could be improved),
mist in the missions and on the globe (only interesting phenomena in the geoscape)
3 factions fighting with each other and 1 neutral decentralized faction (but we need to wait for more interactions with them)
incredible lore and references to different culture and history elements (second best if not the best element of the game!)
That all seems to be ok or in some parts even great! And it really differentiates the game from original X-COM. But why they cut almost everything else that was great in original game?
Where are:
free flight system
base management
research diversity
manufacturing queues
transfering stuff on the globe
nice and easy recruitment
enemies ambushing us from different angles and from different floors
unknown parts of tactical maps
soldier different behaviour dependant on the mission status
enemy progression (or at least feeling of it - as we currently have 5 enemy types split and dependant on 3 types of alien bases)
many elements of the non lethal equipment (flares, flashbangs, smoke grenades, grapling hooks, scanners, hacking devices, etc. - maybe some are not from original game, but why don’t take examples from other games?)
probably something more I can’t think of right now…?
I’m sad. But probably that is why I write my ‘balancing feedback’, just to feel how great that game could be. I hope that after ‘publishing’ it at least few ideas will be welcomed as something interesting.
Sure, and you can always move from one place to another, or arrange the soldiers in formations. But that’s why I say that they have to be meaningful choices - choices that have a relevant impact on the outcome, and that doesn’t necessarily mean shooting at things.
Opting for one defensive position, or another is a meaningful choice, as is choosing between rushing there in one turn, or taking your time and getting there in two.
However, having to take 3 turns to get there because of low mobility and low detection - and as it takes 3 turns ending each turn with overwatch - is not. Yes, it involves opting between different tiles, hiding behind a tree, a bin, or a bush, but these are not meaningful choices, at least IMO…
There are missions in PP that are more about maneveuring troops than shooting, such as the nests and the lairs (though you have to play them with self imposed restrictions to appreciate it, particularly to curb the extreme mobility), and they get the tension pretty well, IMO, as it’s all about getting to the objetive(s) before you are overwhelmed by reinforcements.
The ambush missions, by contrast, are a missed opportunity, because the deployment of enemy troops is just silly (yeah, yeah you got me surrounded… Right )
Hiding behind trees is a joke, it pretends to be high cover, but in most cases one is in plain LoS. That’s been my observation in almost all instances. Same goes for your other low cover examples. Or, is that what you are trying to imply?
I’m not referring to something that actually happens in PP at the moment. I’m trying to make the point that being able to choose between different alternatives doesn’t imply meaningful choice.
It would be great to know how the creative process was… But I wonder if they approached it like this at all? The original X-Com was always much more than the sum of its parts, and I think what made the good parts and why is very subjective even for those of us who really love the game.
For example, I never liked how easily and seemingly unavoidably your soldiers would die (because they were ambushed from top floors at different angles at night). I was very attached to them and always reloaded the game when my favorite soldiers died, because it made me sad. I didn’t think of them as “easily replaceable”.
BTW, with this I completely agree (and it’s a no brainer, really):
A lot of the other things are very subjective, like stores micromanagement. I would rather have some mechanic that prevented transferring items from one team to another instantly. Not (only) because it’s unrealistic, but because it provides a tedious optimal solution, which is bad design IMO.
There is actually a pretty good base mechanic for hacking, with the techie class. TBH the way you can use them to take control of different things (like spider drones) is really nice, and better than anything I can think of in other games. It would be nice if they could have the ability to take control of enemy toys at double WP cost (6WP) and if there were some things to control in the environment.
I agree it was painful and felt unfair many times. But at the same time I think that it was the best element building tension on the missions. There were couple components making this atmosphere, but rapid death of subordinates was the most stressful and building that special ‘setting’ from all of them.
I understand. I’m from the kind that loves spreadsheets, logistics and transport tycoon games. For me it was superb that X-COM incorporated such elements.
But unfortunately it is limited only for NJ. I would like to see infiltrators doing the same thing. Technician could be just better in this field. For me WP cost shouldn’t be assiociated if you want to control own robotic/mechanic things. It should only take AP. But for enemy stuff it would be great to hack and use WP to do that. And definitely Sentry Turrets which were tested should be implemented in the full release at some point.
I stumbled across this video and remembered the discussion here (invulnerability cheat in PP)
It’s pretty funny and just ridiculous at the same time …
So here, enjoy it;
From what I understand one of scavenge mission types will require enemy to come to you so you will be on better position. 
About balancing it properly? It will require some work but not another process to make it viable.
But probably that is why I write my ‘balancing feedback’, just to feel how great that game could be. I hope that after ‘publishing’ it at least few ideas will be welcomed as something interesting.
)
). I was very attached to them and always reloaded the game when my favorite soldiers died, because it made me sad. I didn’t think of them as “easily replaceable”.