Things we *don't* want Phoenix Point to have


#42

Not quite correct, AFAIK. Nu-XCOM set the random number seed of your guns before you fired…

…but this was a deliberate design decision to prevent save-scumming.


#43

This is correct. Shots weren’t pre-determined at the start of the mission, but rather at the point before you fired. When you’re aiming at an enemy and seeing the hit chance, the game has already decided if that shot is a hit or a miss should you decide to take it. If you save before the shot, then reload, the outcome of that shot will always be the same. However, if you take a different action before shooting (such as moving to a different location or moving a different soldier) then the shots get recalculated.

Luckily (or rather by design), Phoenix Point isn’t like this. When you aim in Phoenix Point, the game does simulate the shot multiple times in the background to so that it can display how much damage it thinks you’re likely to do - but the shot doesn’t happen for real until you hit fire.


#44

To be fair, it only matters when you savescum. There are plenty of things to complain about in FXcom, but the RNG’s fairness isn’t one of them. It’s been decompiled and dissected and everything proved that it’s fair (aside from aim assist which is strictly in favor of XCOM)

Should a game actively discourage savescumming? Why not, but I don’t think it’s worth too much effort as long as it’s a solo game. If player A decides to savescum every shot made to make it turn in their favor, it’s their right. I think it’s a bit silly and they’re kinda “missing the point” of the game, but that doesn’t affect me.


#45

Interesting: how many shots are simulated? Did you take a look at the :sunflower:? :grin:


#46

Couldn’t tell you. Obviously there has to be a limit, as those simulations eat into CPU cycles.


#47

Precisely :slight_smile: Spread 'em like a sunflower for minimum variance! :face_with_monocle:


#48

I guess it’s the simulation of each shot that’s costly though, no? The Unity stuff – seeing where things hit?


#49

Yes, certainly. Running the shot in simulation multiple times over to see which shots hit and which shots miss. Working out where they all hit, and how much potential damage they can do. Then giving the player an average of those results.


#50

Which means you want to make do with as few shots as possible, while still providing a fair estimate … which again means you want a maximally representative sample from the underlying probability distribution. This, is why you want a sunflower – it has the most uniform distribution of points around a centre of symmetry possible, and you can scale the radial increments of each new point to match your desired aim accuracy distribution perfectly :slight_smile: I’m shamelessly (self-)referring to this post, in a somewhat horrid thread.


#51

One more thing that we probably don’t want in PP :

Panicked soldiers shooting teammates or lobbing grenades at them.

This apply mostly to regular panic though, the kind that can happen on a semi-regular basis in missions. If a powerful alien can make your men hallucinate, then it’s fair game. I just don’t want Rookie McClueless to shoot Owen O’Luckless because Private Redshirt got clipped by a crab!


#52

I agree to some extent(i.e .no “shoot a friendly” as a possible forced action for panic in general), however there are situations where shooting a friendly can make sense for a panicked soldier:

~ Friendly being overran by aliens. Panicking soldier might not be shooting a friendly per se, but he will consider him being as good as dead and thus disregard any hesitance when firing.

~ Friendly being attacked by an “infesting” enemy type(i.e. a crysalid) or being affected by a mutation-inducing substance. Panicking soldier might consider such friendly as lost to the mutation and might actively seek to shoot this friendly to “end the pain” or prevent a new monstrosity form spawning,

~ Friendly might be in a line of fire between the panicking soldier and an enemy. Panicking soldier might be so focused on killing the enemy due to his mental state that he will simply ignore any collateral damage or wouldn’t even register a friendly presence.


#53

A panicker is prone to be shot by friendly units like a ship’s captain shoots a panicked Marine.


#54

Would like to get away from the fixed weapon upgrades. In the past, you get a scope and it gives you xx better aim and so on. If the quality and the improvement of the upgrades will vary - bigger weight but better stats - and so on, it could mean a bigger variation and more fun to test setups. And please make it possible to remove the scope again from a gun after you have fixed it onto it. It should not be the number of variations like in Fallout 4 but a little bit more variation would be appreciated.


#55

Absolutely agree! A limited field of view allows for “realistic”, interesting tactics. Formations are not only about where each soldier is standing, but also what “sector” he is securing. IRL it’s important what sector the main firepower is covering and if - for example - a formation provides good security to the flanks or not…

PP will lose tactical depth if limited viewing angles and sectors aren’t implemented…


#56

Eh! You can turn your head a lot faster than a tank can turn their turrets so no limited angle spotting. However, I will go with limited angle Overwatch as effective overwatch require you concentrate on certain area.


#57

Just FYI, as was quite extensively explained out by @Avenger93, tunnel vision is a thing. While human peripheral vision might cover a good amount of space, actually noticing things on your sides, not to mention behind you, is quite problematic when you’re preoccupied with something important, like moving from cover to cover in a combat situation.


#58

Yes, allowing 360° return fire is just too much. But not just “Overwatch” and return fire should be limited, unseen movement behind a soldier/enemy should also be possible. Viewing angles are such an important thing for tactical combat…


#59

Hi UnstableVoltage!

Please include an UI option to disable the damage prediction (and enemy hp symbols, the body part info box etc.), a lot of people like the approach of the original X-Com and a more realistic, pure gameplay.

It doesn’t take a lot of extra work to make such UI options/toggles and they would make a lot of us backers happy! :slight_smile:


#60

It would be even better if it was tied to research! :stuck_out_tongue:


#61

Haha, yes… I know this thread… :grin:

But I think even if you researched a creature, you shouldn’t get exact info (on the battlefield) of how much “HP” it has left and will lose every turn because of wounds etc…

Research should lead (for example) to better ammunition. Like in real life: If you research an enemy tank this will eventually lead to the development of better kinetic energy penetrators and standard procedures how to deal with this type of tank…