Spawning Alien Points


#21

I agree, please PLEASE get rid of spawning points. There is nothing worse in a game than infinite enemies. it utterly breaks immersion and where’s the satisfaction in, the enjoyment in our strategies paying off and slowly whittling down the enemies <- this is one of the more enjoyable aspects of turn based strategy games.
I think so many other people would agree spawning points that don’t end would ruin this and also make the game far less playable and enjoyable.


#22

In our current system there aren’t infinite enemies. There are a set number per mission. Half start on the map, and half come in over time as reinforcements via the spawn points.


#23

Spawning points aren’t bad per se. There could be specific missions with reinforcements and other ones with all enemy forces deployed at the start.
What I would like to see is monsters patrolling maps in different manners, solo or even in groups sometimes. Some of them could be just lurking and waiting for good occasion to attack (or sleeping, or even eating etc.) Diversified behaviours like these would be a nice touch and feel fresh at the same time.

Infiltrator units would give us a chance to see some of these non-combat behaviours more often.


#24

If there won’t be enough space on the map for all initial enemies then please PLEASE retain spawning points. :wink:


#25

IF space is the problem, ENLARGE the map space

IF map size and enemy num is dependant on number of soldiers WARN da people, introduce
spawns for 8+ or alien base missions only.

That is intelligent AI and what one would expect from LS style games. Spawning points are easy n dumb workaround.


#26

why not implement both spawn points and full complement of enemies depending on map type. so alien base has spawn points, the scavenger sites have them all on the map as they dont have a support system to reinforce. the havens that are in the red zone have both enemies on site plus access to reinforcements.


#27

I am good with spawn points AS LONG AS THEY CAN BE DEACTIVATED / destroyed.

Permanent teleport point, no matter the squad progress, is … … …


#28

Gotta say, I like that idea.

Personally, the only real issue I have with spawn points is Crabbies suddenly popping up behind my squaddies if they’re sitting right next to a spawn point.

If it isn’t too difficult to implement, I’d put in a suggestion that Pandoras do what JG says if you can’t see them, but if the Spawn Point is in LoS, the Pandora simply appears DIRECTLY ADJACENT to the spawn point and has to stop there. That way, you can set up a fire zone covering the most dangerous Spawn Points that threaten your back as you move thru the hive, and don’t suddenly find that something has materialised behind your guard lines.

I really DO like the idea of the Crabbies continuing to appear at the Spawn Points even after you’ve passed them. It adds the the immersive feel of being intruders in a vast warren, which you’ve stirred up and the inhabitants are riled…


#29

suppose you could have some spawn points that you could disable/destroy and some that are permanent depending on the scenario you are dropped into, so tou could end up with 1 or 2 spawn points behind you just to keep thing interesting but not a full complement which could potentially be overwhelming.

the spawn points you are close to could disable when you get to a certain proximity then reactivate when you leave the area or are out of line of site.


#30

Not a great fan of disabling Spawn Points, as it reduces the element of danger.

My only issue with them is Kane’s one, that you identify the point, set someone to watch it as the rest of your squad goes past, and then suddenly a Crabbie’s teleported behind him before he has a chance to react.


#31

I definitely see no issue with spawn points. I do think the main determination should be how long the enemy has been there and how important an objective it is. A base is far more likely to be reinforced than a scavenging trip. Further, if the enemy has only just gotten to a scavenging site, it should be more likely to have more moving into the area than if they’d been there for several days already.

The second part is, reinforcements serve two main purposes - they either show up to replace injuries on the lines, or they show up to flank/delay their enemy. Currently, the spawn points work for the latter. If you want to play it safe, you simply bunker down and eliminate reinforcements as they arrive before proceeding to objective. Rushing ahead carries an element of risk.

As they currently work, you can easily reduce your chances of getting hit in the back simply by waiting. Once you kill reinforcements, there’s no longer any risk in move past spawn points.


#32

May be a limited no of reinforcements, but they tend to spawn at very unconvinient moments :slight_smile:


#33

That is the idea. The enemy forces aren’t trying to be convenient.


#34

Specially in heaven defenses I thought maps were small because you hadn’t implemented many things like additional plots and the 3 way fights in the tactical layer. Bigger maps would help with the enemy spawning system since they would have to walk a bit to get in your line of sight instead of spawning in your face, and larger maps would add to the feeling of exploring a dead wasteland where danger might be hiding anywhere. I do was hoping there would be bigger maps in the final game. Correct me if I’m wrong, but maps in other similar games like XCOM 2 feel a lot bigger.

With that said, I want to ask. Are there any plans on making larger maps in the final game?


#35

I do not believe so. The maps in the BB are pretty much as big as they’re going to get. Some of our maps are bigger than those in XCOM2.

Once we have added in the perception system, line of sight will be reduced. The current spawning system may also undergo changes.

While we do want to include hiding places, we don’t want to have massive maps where you’re searching for hours for that one last enemy.


#36

Interesting, I guess the lack of limited LOS is what makes them feel so small currently. Thank you for the answers UV!


#37

That is unfortunate. :frowning: I sometimes feel that maps are really small. Especially haven defence missions, because maps generated in BB2 were slightly bigger than in BB3 (64x64 squares compared to current 48x48).

And you are saying that some are bigger than XCOM 2 - maybe Alien Bases are that big, but at least I have not seen anything that big while on scavenge or defence missions. Or maybe you see big maps in development build? Because BB3 offers quite tight places.


#38

The 15% time unit explains a lot. I’d gotten to the point where I would aggressively clear a level, then cover the spawn points. On crab men that’s deadly, as their limited actions mean they are no threat.

Facehuggers are a bit of a pain, because apparently attaching takes almost no action for them, as I would have them run onto the board and attach. But I would have nearby allies to pistol to the face, so the benefits tended to outweigh the risks. Now I better understand why they were attaching but the crab men weren’t shooting/slashing.


#39

Deploy shield and pincer slam also take 0% of TU, but they have range of 1. Gun and grenade attack take something like 50% TU and gun is not limited to one action per turn. Fraggers just have this luck to have some range with their jump attack (up to 8 squares?)


#40

Most of Xcom2 maps are too small. They don’t allow surrounding/side-tactics, they are just too straightforward. I mean, no matter where and how you go, you will always grab all enemies on the map, in some rare cases 1 pod won’t see you during the mission. Maybe this is good when mission objective is to kill everyone, but bad, when the goal is other than that.