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


#123

I like that. I would still say that having absolutely good-for-nothing rookies should be a no-go but starting with serviceable and advancing to fairly good recruit quality by improving conditions of independent human settlements is a very good idea.


#124

One more thing came to mind about Xcom2 that (I think) shouldn’t happen in PP… bad balance in destructibility. I mean, buildings in this game are like made of plastic. Walls are easily destroyed by sword swinging or firing conventional pistol. Floors are felt like a thin ice (this is why it is always a very bad idea to fight on the 2nd floor or higher). At the same time trees can survive a direct hit from rocket launcher. A grenade puts a car on fire, and a shot from conventional pistol does it as well.


#125

We will need to scream and spam in this forum about wrong object durability. :wink: I hope we won’t have to.


#126

The destructibility of the structures and what not are temporary and will be balanced when everything else gets balanced towards the end of development. No point balancing now because as soon as they add a new feature or weapon or something, they’d have to balance everything again. Better to balance just once.


#127

I think what is more important here is destructibility that makes sense. You should be able to look at an object or a building and make a reasonably correct assumption about how much fire it can withstand. If something looks solid and sturdy, it should make a good cover. If something looks flimsy it should fall apart after a round or two or even present no obstruction to bullets whatsoever. If something looks like it can explode if shot at, it should.


#128

the downside to that is that most people are used to Hollywood movies and NuCOM where everything is made of explodium


#129

Yeah, I think they’ll also add different ‘destructibility’ values to the varying types of terrain as part of the balancing later on :smiley:


#130

Explodium? Must be next element to Elerium :slight_smile: But, yes too many destructions spoils.
Keep it real.


#131

You asked for it.


#132

Can’t really build a good story without explodium, unobtainium and carefully applied phlebotinum, just to name a few.

Regarding explosion rules, there’s two things to take into account :

  • Can/Should object A explode, which is a binary attribute. FiraXcom wasn’t too bad in that regard. Stuff that you’d expect to explode did, and stuff that you didn’t expect to mostly didn’t.

  • How much stress should obect A sustain before it explodes. FiraXcom was disastrous in that regard. A stern look is all it takes to blow up a car.


#133

Offtopic:
That’s the problem, don’t just look at explosive stuff, it’s dangerous :stuck_out_tongue:

YouTube Explosion!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqz5dbs5zmo


#134

In relation to real world physics I totally agree with you, but on the other hand, it is a fun mechanic to view or play with.


#135

That is true, but I think this can be countered with a more conscious approach to visual design. If all explosive objects will be “colour-coded” by having distinctive markings(i.e. orange strips and/or “danger, explosive” signs for human-made objects and, say, pulsating neon-blue veins for mutant objects), players will be able to easily learn what such markings mean and then easily identify new objects’ of the same nature.

Keep in mind, I am not advocating for or against having a ton of exploding stuff everywhere(though I would probably be against the abundance of it), I simply want players to be able to easily identify what type of objects(indestructible, destructible, exploding etc) a particular prop belongs to. I strongly believe that in any game with destructible environment, “rules” of destructability must be clear and obvious so that players will not be confused by a patchy amalgamation of video game logic and real world logic(think dreaded “paper lampposts, ferro-concrete bushes” problem of racing games).


#136

I always tried to avoid taking cover behind red tanks labeled “flammable” in the PP demos ;o But of course, they haven’t implemented explosions of terrain yet XD


#137

always a good idea. Not because the tank could explode, but because said contents are flammable and will usually force all the oxygen from the air if they leak


#139

I hope your guys have a chance for developing psychic powers. That was one of the things I really disliked about Xenonauts which otherwise is an absolutely stellar game. I’m also really iffy on buying Xenonauts 2 if they make it more akin to the Nu X-Com games.


#140

Personally I don’t like psi in Xcoms - neither in original nor in new FXcoms. They were there simply because of lore, but ruined the gameplay for me. In X2 they tried to do something out of it, but it looked out of place, like a fantasy hero in sci fi game.


#141

I loved the 1994 one system: soldiers can resist it, you could panic aliens
and mind control is hard to do and limited.


#142

There won’t be any psionic abilities in Phoenix Point.


#143

Got it. With current face huggers insta ability :slight_smile: