Realism Vs Gameplay

I think that a fairly “simple” (when is it ever, really?) way to deal with limb crippling is to decrease the chance and allow for permanent crippling of limbs (bosses included). Stay with me because this is where i think it will actually add to the world.

PP (the in game organization) can still use maimed soldiers, for training other new recruits, being sent as operatives to other organizations, acting as support crew at home base, acting as diplomats, being sent to settlements to train local militia (because giant crabs and spiders are no joke), and possibly much more.

Adding in the possibility of robotic (maybe weaponized) prosthetic replacements from New Jericho, or possibly regrown arms from another faction, i feel like the possibility of maimed soldiers should be in the game. I think the possibility would add a lot of character to each of the soldiers. Thoughts?

2 Likes

and you are far from having comprehension… while the best games are far from being realistic, they are still built on LOGIC… try reading my post again

2 Likes

Jumping on rocket explosion, eating mushrooms to get bigger, stomping on a mine with armed worm, and rescuing Earth with the crowbar and gravity gun… logic in its full potential! :wink:

There are some assumptions which make it more playable and less complicated (frustrating in being too much realistic and logic).

1 Like

i see you dont get the difference between logic and realism :smiley:

1 Like

I get it. But they are not far away from each other. Logic is not always required to have fun.

1 Like

well, they are quite far from each others. like in your example an armed worm stepping on a landmine exploding is not realistic but its logical

1 Like

Not really, worm is too light to detonate landmine, don’t you think?

1 Like

nope, thats a big worm. again, its not realistic but taking the size of the worm and the mine its logical, you just cant seem to separate these things. the positive side of the logical games that they are more intuitive and thus easier to enjoy (you dont have to learn illogical mechanisms, you can just use your lifelike experiences, like hiding behind a brickwall will actually protect you while hiding behind a wooden crate might not so much. a concrete bulwark will protect you even more etc). opposed to this in games like pp or xcom you have to learn which wall is totally invulnerable and you can hide behind and which one will disappear if the enemy hits it (like we have seen in the demo how the sniper destroyed a bulwark with one shot)… logical vs illogical and it says nothing about realism.

1 Like

All right so let me comment on your illogical inconsistencies:

  1. as developer announced it will change so cover will be more resistant, your point was right, although this is first demo release, not final product. I would say that even now it is quite fun to demolish map with machine gun
  2. too many instant kills would ruin the game
  3. I wonder what are you talking about, maybe you are right, but didn’t saw anything like that in Phoenix Point
  4. if you can kill crab queen with few bullets then please show me this tactic - maybe you talk about bleeding but I suppose she will have some ability to stop that bleeding. Otherwise you need to use quite many bullets to bring her down. And as you said she is giant and she can apply powerful force to anything in front of her just like tank does, I would say she is capable of such destruction, but still game is not finished, maybe something will change in this matter and she would have to use some special abilities to destroy more resistant buildings
  5. turning doesn’t change much from tactical point of view, and it requires less effort from the soldier to do so. If you would have something like that then you would need to make turning cost like 1 AP, and moving 4 AP, that would lead to AP pool equal to something like 60, maybe 80 points instead of 16. Too much micromanagement - means too long turns - and eventually more boring game. I prefer dynamic turns over calculating every leg and hand move for each of my 16 soldiers.
  6. if it could be streamlined then why not, but again it would mean to much micromanagement, and right now soldiers crouch automatically near lower cover :wink:
  7. soldiers can turn their heads and it is quite natural move, which can be performed in fast manner. Additionally soldiers can warn each other about dangers in their surrounding, I don’t see anything illogical here. But developers mentioned something about fog of war and stealth system so maybe it will change. If so then ok, but still I don’t consider 360 degree field of view as something impossible if soldier has at least few seconds to act.

So not much illogical things there, at least from the game point of view. Remember you will be controlling up to 16 soldiers so micromanagement must be limited to some reasonable amount. Otherwise you will play each mission for many many hours. And I like to respect my time, I’m not a kid anymore which can play games for 12 hours a day. And raising children will take away huge part of my free time. :wink:

2 Likes

1: sadly it will still be dumbed down but hope for the best
2: why would it? old xcoms, sry, i meant x-coms were full of onehitkills and they were the best and most fun xcoms of all time. no it wont ruin anything. get better (on the other hand your headshots would be onehits as well so surprise attacks and ambushes would have a higher value AND looks better than math based kills like in new xcoms)
3: of course there it is in pp. aim at an armored part of a crabman, insted of bouncing off shots it just deducts from the damage. logically it should either go through the armor and deal damage or bounce off with no or minimal damage. armors/shields dont reduce the damage, they either stop it or not
4: yeah they said about this too that it will change some but even if she is huge for our measure she is nothing for a 7.0 earthquake. and modern buildings can withstand that and even tanks so she shouldnt be able to destroy solid concrete buildings. maybe small brickhouses, thats logical
5: sadly it doesnt because there is 360 degrees view instead of seeing what we are looking at. again silly dumbed down system. and no 60 80 or 100 ap like in the old x-coms means no more micromanagement than 16. really you wouldnt even notice. the only thing you would notice is that you have more options. and more options are good even for casuals
6: see above. its not micromanagement, you dont HAVE TO use it, its just an option. now no matter what you want, your soldier will go after his own head. but imagine a situation when you are one step behind a low cover, it could save your life with a manual crouching option or prone option but he wont crouch automatically because you are not right behind the cover, you are dead. only because you dont have the option to crouch manually. would it hurt if its there and you dont want to use it? no, it wouldnt, nobody forces you to use it, but it could help when you need it. and again. its logical to have that option.
7: so you have never benn a real soldier :smile: , no, even 4 of you together doesnt have 360 degrees view. stealth system will probably be just the same scrap xcom2 had :frowning:

there are many illogical things here, i think it depends on how logical the players thinking is generally, that might be the reason for “demanding” more logic in games too…

1 Like
  1. In old X-Com you didn’t get bond with soldiers. Here you will be customizing them and leveling up with many skills so I prefer system where death comes from really bad choice rather than single bullet killing your scout and ruining your sophisticated tactic. And remember that spare soldiers are sparse. We wont recruit another one, when we want to, just throwing money at him.
  2. So bullet after penetration of armour has the same power as before hitting it? :slight_smile:
  3. do not underestimate the power of the dark side :wink:
  4. believe me I would notice because I would be calculating where I can move, to be able to turn in desired direction (unless there would be an option to cap some action to allow turning at the end of turn for particular soldier - if I well remember there was such option in old X-COM, but it slowed down the pace). This is not an additional option, this is additional obstacle.
  5. all right, I will agree that this one is what could be actually implemented, but still it would make turn of each soldier a little bit longer… but worth it.
  6. come on, you could make each soldier to look around for 8 AP in new location, so from >=50 AP (like in original X-COM) pool it is 16% APs for rookies and less than that for experienced soldiers. When you have 16 AP system like now it would take something like 2 AP at each turn. That is what is mostly left after you move to new cover. So directional field of view can be skipped. Especially when your soldiers can hear and sometimes smell enemy - so they know where to look. Of course there could be cone of view in enemy turn - If you didn’t notice some sneaky enemy behind corner and he runs at your back then ok, let it be a surprise. But if you had line of view to the enemy at the end of turn and even turned soldier in other direction you should be able to see what he is doing - soldier should be able to observe such movement because he is aware of that enemy and wouldn’t ignore him just by turning his side in that direction.
1 Like

Pls don’t make this game a real-life simulator. Thank you.

2 Likes

What is logical to you might not be logical for others. You’re making some weird statements long before game’s launch. Many things will change, there is still much to do, so saying that some things are dumbed down is unnecessary and not quite polite. If you’re interested a bit in this game you should already know that pre-alpha build just contains some ideas, mainly in rough, unpolished state.
But with your logical mind I suppose there is no game to make you 100% satisfied - neither finished nor being in development.

3 Likes

2: ohh you very much did, they were strong and limited in numbers, if lost one, it did hurt. you just didnt grow attached to EVERY soldier. it actually added to the tactics. you really had to decide who to send in and who to get on overwatch
3: again you havent been a soldier… if it gets through it will still have enough to kill you
5: for you maybe obstacle, for others options, anyway, in old games it took a lot less tu to turn so nearly always you ended up with enough tu to look around and kneel it cost so little and there were options to save tu for overwatch or other stuff at the end of the turn. you know in the movies when you they set up soldiers to watch into different directions? its not accidental. thats how it works, thats how its logical and it adds to the feeling of a combat. it does not take away from it. of course there are always people who just want some pew pew (dont even mention the feeling when you snake up behind an enemy, it a lot better than just shooting each others from covers to and back and just hope the stupid 95% misses will be over)
7: and again, thats how it worked in old times too. you spotted somebody he was visible until he walked away somewhere you couldnt see. as long as he was in range after being spotted he remained visible… the good parts of both world

1 Like

thats the nice thing in logic, its not like opinions, its like facts… ohhh, and of course, many things will change, and many others wont. lets come back to this when its released…

1 Like

I don’t like that my soldiers are unable to use a weapon due to losing a limb while in combat. I think that when a soldiers has an arm or leg severely injured they should just get a big reduction in aim or movement. Then after the combat is over, there is a chance that they will lose the limb depending on how well their medical expertise is. And as more soldiers get critical injuries, their medical knowledge gets better.

Soldiers that have lost a leg or arm, are then no longer able to fight in combat, but become part of the team that can train soldiers to increase those soldiers stats. For example a marksman loses a leg, but they still have their arms. They can be used to train soldiers to increase their aim.

Then at some point, a player will be able to research the ability to replace lost limbs, enabling injured soldiers to return to combat. But make the cost significant enough so that it may not be worth it to replace a lost limb on a critically injured soldiers with low stats.

1 Like

Realism in games might be good but to some degree - otherwise fpp shooters wouldn’t be playable at all.

2 Likes

At what point does realism take away too much from the game. If I had a broken arm and I was being attacked by aliens, I would find some way to give it my ALL. If that meant pushing through the pain to keep myself alive during combat, I WOULD find a way. Thus… my suggestion about not allowing a players soldier to completely lose the use of an arm or leg. It takes too much away from the game. Under the right circumstances, I person can do extraordinary things, and I think being attacked by aliens would qualify.

1 Like

Some yes, but others hide or panic.

1 Like

Well this thread seems to be focused primarily on limb damage, and there are some passionate voices.

How does everyone feel about the steady development of the enemys power? This is a useful tool to provide an achievable challenge, but in reality, as soon as the virus discovered you were a threat that wanted to wipe it out, it would throw it’s full force at destroying you.

Looking back, FXcom2 should have had a system whereby if your raids are linked back to the resistance, enemies improve or double. Using stealth or other tempory Comms jamming was perfect for the guerilla style, but apart from Reapers stealth was soon limited.

I’ve always been a fan of having “zones” that I have to remember and return to in the late game, because they are either too hard or need “unlocking”. It rewards memory and patience. It would be nice if there were some “hot zones” that could facilitate this in some manner.

1 Like