Phoenix Project base personnel poll

Phoenix Point Game Feedback
1

I got intrigued by recent Q&A as I’m currently wondering about game design aspects which I would like to see in game. This poll probably won’t change my point of view on this idea, but I wanted to ask you people what do you think about lack of base personnel in the game.

  1. Do you think it is good design choice and adding them would only complicate game without any value added? Don’t be discourage by my flavour text on voting option as this is still viable design choice.
  2. Or maybe you would like to manage some civilians in base without making disctinction who they are, but still would like to decide how many of them work in each buiding and give some small bonus to overall progress?
  3. Or maybe you would prefer hard old way, where there was distinction between scientists and engineers and each of them could start separate research and manufacturing process (this point is not asking about separate processes but about personnel handling it)? Please vote below:
  • No base staff - let bases be shallow and lifeless as they are now - I need to focus on other aspects
  • Some general base staff to fill slots in buildings without distinguishing between roles could be nice, just make them as icons in base and show them as helpless civilians during base defence
  • Separate scientists, engineers (some other?) are needed and each of them should matter in each base process and maybe should be separately equipped to take part in base defence - no matter the cost of game pace

0 voters

Thanks for the votes! Whoops sorry for resetting poll. There was 1 vote for separate staff and 1 for general staff

2 Likes
2

I voted for the separate scientists/engineers/etc (like the old games basically) as it’s my personal preference. That said, it’s far from a big deal either way for me, and I’m a-okay with the devs prioritising other stuff first.

5 Likes
3

Just an observation, Not sure if you intended for the options there to be extremely biased or not but the…

Bit of a harsh way to word that. May make people who think it’s fine the way it is not wanna vote for the option just for the simple fact that it’s made out to sound obviously wrong. In case you’re looking to be fair…

4

It is my observation on how base is boring. :slight_smile: But yes, it may discourage to use that vote option. Unfortunately each change to the voting text resets whole poll, so I won’t change it now. But will edit text above.

5

I liked what Hristo said in this regard, ie that if there is some meaningful way to implement it, they will do it, but not just for the sake of it.

If it’s just going to be about bringing back scientists and engineers for ol’ times sake, or to add a worker/tile placement mini game (as in FXcom), please leave the bases lifeless and shallow. :slightly_smiling_face:

Edit: correction - shallow, not boring

1 Like
6

I expressed in the past my disappointment with base management of PP. I understand, that removing such mechanics are ship refueling, personel, and individual base output and storage were cut because they were not fun.

Making them fun, however, I see as important aspect of making such game work.

Whenever, strategy layer base depth will come from personel, diplomacy or other system, isn’t that relevant to me, but it’s lack does limits my interest in returning to the title.

7

Well I kind of understand that there could be low fun in extensive designing of this aspect of the game. I also understand that people want something more that is right now. I also see that people like extremes. All or nothing. :slight_smile:

8

Talk about framing…

Regardless, I really can’t imagine what kind of entertaining part the manual management of scientists would add to the game? Can someone come up with some good examples?

I don’t remember at all how that was handled in xcom, which is to me a pretty good indicator for being quite meaningless.

1 Like
9

Great for the poll idea! However, from a lore perspective where will all these scientists, engineers or workers come from? With previous xcom genres, it was during the initial ufo sightings and attacks. But civilisation existed so spending money on hiring personnel was viable. But in the PP era earth has been shattered and the normal systems that we were used simply can’t apply anymore. Perhaps you could once allied with factions make requests, but clearly in exchange for something. I believe an important concept of this game is that mankind is on it’s last legs. The havens are the remnants of mankind. Hence we are using high tech solutions to replace manpower where possible. I think this can be seen in much of the research upgrades that some factions develop. But I would love to engage in a little bit more depth in base management if an way could be implemented story-wise and once the developers have time.

1 Like
10

That’s because it was :wink:.

They had a hiring and a monthly cost, and required living and lab space. It was all about expense management. That’s it.

11

The way I see it …
You would need a “research lab” in a base so that your scientists have a working place. And you’d start the game with 1 scientist (so you can do some research).
You could hire scientists (either from havens, for food, or get some in events) and affect them to a base.
A lab could host 2 scientists ?
They could be a special type of unit and have a progression and abilities (including some that would be useful in base defense - booby traps that would lower the number of invading enemies, …).
They would cost a food upkeep and count for living quarters space.

The same with engineers but for “production factory”.

Sure it’s more complicated than simply building a new building and make sure it has enough power. But I don’t feel it would be tedious or too much micromanagement.

1 Like
12

Ok I see. But in all fairness, what’s the big difference to just adding another building at the end of the day. Or progressing the research lab in some ways. From a gameplay perspective i don’t see this very meaningful. At the end you set it up a few times and forget about it.

13

i think it would be better if manufacturing and research was not just matter of buildings, but also people in them…

14

Functionally or graphically? The latter I could understand, but wonder if it’s really worth it, considering how much time is being spent in the base view.

15

I think your proposal illustrates very well the problems that arise.

IMO, these are very big changes for an uncertain result that might well be that you get a small, but unnecessary amount of micromanagement with no meaningful impact on gameplay.

What about if this was tied into diplomacy and the micromanagement skipped entirely?

The various havens could pay tribute, or protection to PP and based on the type of haven they could send different things - food, research, materials or recruits, and the amount would vary depending on relationship with PP. Visually the amount of help received from the havens could be represented in base view, including showing some civilian personnel.

2 Likes
16

You could also do rescue missions, for particular scientists that unlock special research or a capture data mission.

1 Like
17

Just to be clear, I’m fine with the way it is.
But if they were to do a change and add scientists and engineers, that’s the way I would see it.
Very little micro-management:

  • move your scientist engineers to the right location
  • they cost food upkeep and space in living quarters => so you need to build more of some buildings
  • have them gain some experience, levels and perks that would help in various ways for base defense, research, engineering, food production, training, …

So it would be a nice addition I think with very little added micro-management (unless I oversaw something).

1 Like
18

Yes, that’s the way I understood it. But when I think in terms of what the player would have to actually do, it seems to me like either there would be quite a bit a more micro, or just very little micro with no impact on gameplay.

For example,

If the player has to manually fly them around, it’s a lot of micromanagement and I don’t see any good reason for it. However, if you can just choose what base they are assigned to, what’s the point?

By contrast, remember Xcom Apocalypse? It made sense there because the whole city was simulated, and your scientists/engineers though automatically transported could get killed on route. Similarly, bases could get attacked by ground troops or bombarded, and the real estate they were on, the neighborhood, your relationships with the various factions all tied in to that.

Again, either it would have very little impact because food consumption, space requirements and the buffs they give through their skills would be very little, or it would turn into an optimization problem, ie what is better to have x factories and y labs, or z scientists and w engineers?

I don’t mean to shoot your suggestion down, but rather to use it to illustrate the problems that arise out of a legacy implementation approach.

Personally, I think it is clear (and I so gather from the Q&A) that diplomacy needs a rework, because currently it’s little more than a placeholder. Resource acquisition and management has to tie into diplomacy, because that’s where there are some core foundations in place (ie the havens with different districts) to make for engaging mechanics.

And IMO it is better to approach this without considering legacy XCom mechanics, which call for individual scientists and engineers and assigning them to labs and workshops.

But I insist - that’s just my opinion. I also understand that some players really want to see bald fellows in white smocks.

1 Like
19

That’s not true. The selling point of doing it the old way, at least for me, is being able to split your resources however you want. Want all 50 of your scientists researching armour? Go for it. Want one team of 20 on armour, one team of 20 on laser weapons and one team of 10 on medikits? Go for that then.

Like I said earlier, it’s small potatoes either way, just wanted to point out that you neglected to mention what is the best thing about the ‘individual worker’ system IMO.

1 Like
20

That is true. Though, TBH, I never did that and never saw the point in doing it. Why split the research when if I don’t split it and do it in turns I get all the research done in the same total time and some of it relatively faster?