Yes.
No, need more. (6 to 10)
No, need much more! (10 to 20)
oh no that's not confirmed. that's just me thinking of the only ways they could possibly implement the new base defense since the maps couldnt be procedurally generatedOriginally Posted by alexey7891
well so thats how they do the base battles ,i was wondering if they whould make some separate levels aka maps for diferent base atacks ,so tehnically you are above the base ?can you give me a link please
they could do that ,well at least we whould have base defense ,that whould be good
Is that a reference I should know? Google doesn't give much more then ringtones and a blank IMDB page for some Romaninan documentary from 1971 (I think....)
As for 'problem?', I've been involved in a lot of arguments and debates on the internet, and one thing stands out as a great annoyance: People who refuse to acknowledge that they were beaten.
Case in point: You suggested Base Defenses might be out. Indiku pointed out that you were incorrect. You continued to support your conclusion. Indiku provided a quote that flat out disproved your conclusion. You're reply? A deflection. He had you dead to rights, and you defect it by...I'm not even sure where you were going with that comment to be honest.
So yeah, sorry, but that's one of my 'net pet peeves. But that's enough for off topiciness.
Six squad members does seem a little low, as it makes a single casualty far more damaging to the overall success of the mission. Losing a man from your squad of six is a hit of approximately 17% squad strength. Compare to losing a man from a fifteen strong squad - only a 7% hit. My feeling is that the game will be balanced to a reload style of play - were any significant mistake on the player's part is simply wiped out with a quick load of the last good move because the tolerance for such mistakes and recovery from them is set so low (due to limited squad numbers).
Another possibility is that each individual soldier is now much more powerful (and I would guess harder to kill) so is the equivalent of three units from the original. Again, a valid strategy, but it would change the tone of the game somewhat, reducing the tension inherent from having ultimately fragile units.
Has there been any clarification about why 'six' has been chosen as a max limit? I would think that the refining of action points and inventory management would have made multiple unit control far smoother than the original, and wouldn't require further simplification.
EDIT: Just read the rationale for smaller squads. I'm wondering if the real-world effect will be more reliance on saved games rather than suffering the loss of a significant squad member? A case of more eggs in less baskets? I'm also wondering how this will impact base defence - if you have 30 soldiers at a base, can only 6 go up against the enemy at a time?
Last edited by wimlach; 04-03-2012 at 09:45 PM.
While I certainly enjoyed sending massive squads at aliens, I don't really require a whole lot.
My typical setups in both EU and TFTD (I'm actually more a TFTD fan, btw) were 8 soldiers per ship. Even Leviathans, only took 8. This gave me enough to cover one room with 4 exits; 2 soldiers per door. Or two search squads: 3 soldiers, 1 with a stunner, two groups of this. It was very easy to break them down into even sets of whatever I needed. Six is definitely too small for my tastes though. Eight, ten, those would be perfect. Four is ridiculously small.
That tells me right there that they've changed the basic fundamentals of the game, if it can be done with only 4 soldiers. What is it, 5 aliens per map? Or 12 aliens, but our 4 squaddies are like super-soldiers? That really kills it. I don't like my guys being squishy bullet sponges, but I also don't like them being indestructible hulks, either.
So far, I'm taking this game with a grain of salt. I am unfortunately extremely biased towards the originals, because I played them when they released, and I still play them to date. They're just great games. The UFO: AFTER- series were ok, but like what this new EU looks like they're doing, they changed it far too much and it just wasn't the same game anymore.
One skyranger? What? That's freaking lame as all hell. I loved having several squads at different bases. Once one of my guys hit a certain rank, he broke off and gained his own squad to command at a new X-COM base. He helped his soldiers cut their teeth, work up in ranks, and eventually one of them would break off and form a new squad, etc. Once the originals hit top rank, they re-formed into my elite squad of bad-asses. The other squads would handle the menial tasks, the elites were there for bases, artifact sites, dreadnoughts, that sort of thing. But now, it's one squad, one ship. LAAAAAAME.
Stop ☺☺☺☺ing with things that aren't broken. Stop trying to simplify something that doesn't need it. All the micromanagement and myriad tasks in X-COM is what really makes the game. Catering to the lazy asses of today is going to make this game tank, hardcore. X-COM is, and always will be, a niche game. Please top trying to bring it into the limelight.
is what we whould call in my country members of the comunist party when my country was under the comunist regimbut you whould n t know that i guess you re from usa right ?
ps did the developer say we have base defece missions ?..mmm ..no he just diverted the attention to something else right away
Last edited by Codex; 04-04-2012 at 09:13 AM.
+Jake Solomon: "Yeah. Later missions, we're not talking about."ps did the developer say we have base defece missions ?..mmm ..no he just diverted the attention to something else right away
Okay I get that read between the lines is a popular expression, but there's only one line. Sorry, had to do that. Now let's look at this.
Yeah. (Okay pretty straightforward.)
Later missions, (possibly in the late game)
we're not talking about. (Marketing is a bunch of jerks!... I mean, we've got to keep something to surprise you with.)
i don t wanna ☺☺☺☺☺ about it but i really hope it s in the final version of the game i understood they kinda finshed the game but still tweaking it ,it s what i understand from all the interviews where they say we are not talking about it now
but seriously talking i hope it is in the game
Last edited by Codex; 04-04-2012 at 09:12 AM. Reason: Don't bypass the language filter.
I agree it would be a nice touch but I really think the game would be fine without it. As for the six man squad cap I think it is fine. My ideal number would be about twelve but I understand their point. I agree that having too many men can be a problem. That is the reason that I stopped playing Civ Rev because If I was winning toward the end the turns would get up into 20 minutes per turn. that can get old quick. I do know that Civ Rev had been downgraded for consoles so it might be different on PC but I still think hat It is good if turns don't last for a long time.i don t wanna ☺☺☺☺☺ about it but i really hope it s in the final version of the game i understood they kinda finshed the game but still tweaking it ,it s what i understand from all the interviews where they say we are not talking about it now
but seriously talking i hope it is in the game
Actually, there is no Civ Revolutions for PC. Rev is often seen as a port of Civ IV. I heard nothing but positive reviews about it. Even IV games get on twenty minutes. That's the nature of the beast more than any porting issues.
Canada actually. A somewhat socialist nation, for the time being, unless our current government gets their way (which they can, although they'll likely pay for it in the next election if they forced things a certain way). Always the problem with using localized slang in a international forum: most people won't get it. I wouldn't expect you to know what hoser means.is what we whould call in my country members of the comunist party when my country was under the comunist regim
I would comment, but Inkidu pwned you on it already. Solomon gives a definate affirmative there.ps did the developer say we have base defece missions ?..mmm ..no he just diverted the attention to something else right away
4 – 6 man squad turning the game form X-com to Mass Effect?
A lot of games now days use a few powerful allies against a lot of week enemies to make the player feel strong. …. This is not X-com.
X-com is taking a full platoon of 12-24 aliens vs 6 – 12 aliens and being afraid you might lose!!
You’re afraid because your last mission had 1 ethereal and 5 floaters and on it. 4 of your guys died leaving the ship, but killed 3 floaters. The ethereal mind controlled one of your guys with a rocket launcher and fired back into your ship killing the 12 that had not gotten out yet. The 8 you had left panicked and killed 2 more of your men. Still you managed to take out the other 2 floater while losing 3 of more of yours to them. You now have 3 men left and 1 sneaky ether real. One of your men … demoralized, basically becomes his play thing and you have to put your own man down. The ethereal is found but guns down one guy and your last guy manages to put down the ethereal. You win if you can call that.. but the utter fear and dread of seeing ethereals on your hyperwave decoder is well ingrained.
… this is Xcom and we love it.
That can’t happen with 4-6 guys on 6 aliens. You have to be more powerful or the AI dumb as a rock in order for you to win. I don’t want another “Epic Hero” game like halo and Masseffect. I want to be afraid, to move but know I have to or I will lose. I want to know the enemy has fewer guys, but good tactics and better gear and in order to win I am going to have to take losses make hard choses and watch some of my favorites die in order to win.
I think six is just about right. Too many soldiers usually creates a mess. And turns take a long time to complete. Making the action feeling disappear.
Also if they set the limit at 10. You will -have- to have 10 members with you on all missions. That is what the game will have to be balanced around. In regards to enemy numbers and strength, etc. Or people who use more than 6 soldiers will have a very easy gameplay experience compared to people who go in with four.
Just look at the new Jagged Alliance. The gameplay there is frustratingly difficult, but very action filled with only four members in a squad.
Its not an action game its a strategy games... The point is not to be fast, but be challenging. You don't crate a challenge by making action... if you have non-stop action and your guys live then obviously the aliens are crappy shots. Like any action movie where 100 guys are shooting at one and he is running for dear life. sure its action and its interesting. But one guy how can shoot and the action is gone. He runs in the open and dies... that is X-com. you don't just run out in the open. you don't expect every one to live. You really need more men because they can shoot, they have defense advantage, and advance alien weapons and abilities. So how does it make any since for your 4-6 guys to take down 6 or more aliens? ... it doesn't!! They only way that happens is if you have 4 more powerful guys... and you shouldn't, they are SUPPOSED to be more powerful. Your only advantage is this is earth and we have a lot more people here then they have aliens ... so it becomes an attrition game and if you start 4 against there 6... you already lost.
I figured I would respond to this thread to bring it to the top of the forum list, so that we can completely beat a dead horse, and have three '6 man cap' threads going at once ;P
ClaytonCross was actually worried it was turning into ME3, but since we already had three of these types of discussion it got locked lickity-split.
Let's find out what the cap on these threads is?
Prolly starts at 4. We should research this.
rofl !!..
...
We're already at 4 on the frontpage and I really wish the mods would lock like 2 of them.
Spamming threads does not support an argument. It's just spam.
It's not like the arguments in either of them were any different...
I guess I should say something; I was meaning to reply back anyways:
Yeah, but he moved his stupid jarhead right next to the door! He was asking for the jarhead to be killed by the Berserker.
Most players aren't going to do that, and if they did, then they would just reload.
Last edited by podtech115; 04-20-2012 at 11:30 PM. Reason: spelling
Upon realizing this will be a compromise for many people, my next immediate action is to get answers to the following (2) questions:
(1) Will squad size be hard coded / capped?
AND
(2) Can more squad personnel be modded into the game?
Further thoughts on this topic: It seems, IMO, that if an alien force were to invade our Earth, there would not be a 1 to 1 comparison between "alien" and "human" in terms of intelligence and combat prowess. That is to say, I most likely would not be able to combat an alien and survive unless I used exceptional tactics and/or stealth, along side using knowledge of said enemies weaknesses (which in an "Enemy Unknown" scenario, would imply that we as the human race have very little if any enemy-Intel)...and so my point is that how is a fire-team of 6 men going to combat an equal force of aliens, let alone double or triple that amount, and expect to survive?
The original XCOM was probably more inclined to designate the aliens as a Superior Force right off the bat, and hence the reason for deploying basically an entire platoon on each expedition.
Military dudes past and present, weigh in on this with me. What do you think?
In closing to my first post on these forums every, I am super excited for this new XCOM vision and hey, if it turns out 6 grunts aren't floating our boat, we'll mod in more. After all, this is the Unreal engine. All that is left now is to determine the script/language used in development. I did some light modding in Civilization IV attempting to get a United Nations gameplay mechanic working, along with units, etc. Basically everything about CIV IV seemed to be mod-capable and controllable by using XML documents. If XCOM: EU uses XML, or something similar, then you can expect squad caps to be one of the first things addressed. Having said (typed) all of the above, I think that the fireteam/squad size is delicately in balance with the current game-play mechanics in the game already, and so if we mod squad cap size, we will have to end up altering many other aspects of the game that are symbiotic and sensitive to the exponentiation of team members. Basically, increasing squad size is going to send a ripple effect through the entire game experience.
Last edited by Freeman.Alex; 04-21-2012 at 07:51 PM. Reason: clarification.
Many of us have brought up this exact point, and others, several times.
And there has already been a discussion whether modding will be this easy or whether you would have to adjust other parts of the game (which is designed for 6 agents) as well. Its in one of these 100+ threads about squad size. Thats why I always tried to post a link to the original thread, when someone makes a new thread about squad size, multiplayer, ideas for devs or what not, but its in vain.
Democracy in action, my northern friend.
I wish people would just drop this subject - i was looking on the forums the other day and just on the first page alone there was 6 topics all relating to squad size - i mean how many times can you drown a rat.
Its just starting to become very predicable and bore the pants off me.
probably have to get used to it. we're still months away from release and as more people/vets hear about the game, chances are that one the first things they'd complain about is the squad size. it's such a huge jump from 28 to 6 that people would naturally complain about it.
What does this even mean? lol. Can you clearify?
Well I made one and they closed it in under 30 minutes. I hope they will lock one to the main list. They should really pick one and make it s sticky thread and have an admin close all but the sticky, after placing an entry to redirect to the sticky thread.
My Humble opinion, for what that is worth.
I am a former Marine in real life and a X-com veteran. I agree with you 100%.
@Inkidu
You seem to be the most reasonable defender of the 4-6 man group size. Let me ask you this, are you defending the size as "leave the developers alone" stance and would you except 8-14 option (skyranger crew size) if they decided to change it or do you actually want a 4-6 man group?
I ask because you seem to argue that it is fine, but I have not seen any clear argument saying that is actually better. If you have a max size of 14 you can choose to only use 4-6 like Chibi-San did as you keep pointing out. You can't cap at 6 and use 14 though.
Also I keep hearing the argument 1 death out of 4 is a higher percentage than 1 of 14 so it will mean more but when I play I lose 12 out 14 at the start of the game (started a new game on the original x-com last night, steam download for windows 7) so are you going to lose 3.4 men out of your squad of 4? So he has no legs or arms and he is shooting with the gun in his mouth? Lt. Dan Fights again! lol. Its just not the same impact on the player when you loose 3 of 4 guys as it is when you loose 12 of 14. 12 of 14 makes the aliens seem ALOT scarier.
Also I did not see anything saying that Chibi-San did not save before each mission and play it and if he lost a guy, he quite and replayed it until he got it perfect. I did that once with a 8 man group, no tank. But I consider that kinda off a false positive. I am playing this time with a rule that I could only reset once this way (and I already used it) an never again, especially after I get heavy plasma and power suite. Part of the fun for me is that you can fail and have to start over. If he used the save-load method then he knew he would not fail which kills the need for large squads any way because they will all live and upgrade to be "Epic Heroes".
Now if your just defending the Devs and saying we should wait and see. I can't really argue that. I am afraid of "Epic Heroes" in the game. They already have "special abilities"... what do the aliens have?
I would point out the 14 man unit capacity of the starting Skyranger has real world relation in the military.
In the Marine Corps we used: (I do not know what the Army uses, and my fire-team position names are off. I have been out of the marine corps for a little more than 5 years and I didn't feel like looking it up. If some one wants to post the correct names please do.)
-A fire-team is 4 men (Forward Gunner/scout, Support/heavy gunner, Squad leader, Rear guard)
-A squad is 3 fire-teams (12) and a squad leader (13) <--
-A platoon is 3 squads (39), a Guide, Platoon Sgt., and a Commanding officer (42)
So I see 14 man Skranger as carrying 1 full squad (w/squad leader) and a commanding officer
.... obviously a full platoon is too much and yes a 4 man fire-team also has real word relation. It just seams like your not taking the aliens seriously if you only send 1 fire team. lol
To put it in short: I defend the developer's reasons for 4 to 6 people. They said that it is too easy for testers (and if they're smart they didn't pick an XCOM fan) to impose their will on the battlefield. Is it gamey? Yes, but I've diddled with UFO Defense and I can see where they're coming from. So, I probably wouldn't support 8 to 14, because the developers don't support the idea, and ultimately you've got to give them some faith in that they know what they're doing.
Far enough, I can't really argue against giving developer's the benefit of the doubt.
I do wander if the testers are required to play it at hard or classic difficulty if they think it is too easy. There is more than one way to balance if its too easy for more than 4-6 guys, couldn't they just make the enemies harder? The 4-6 isn't the correction its the cause. They made enemies easier so that 4-6 man unit could take them, then play testers were asked, hay was this too easy with 14? Sure it was. They could have made the aliens harder so that it took 10-14 man unit to take take them down. They chose this on purpose.
If seems to me from there comments in videos emphasizing unit abilities and constant action and your comment "(and if they're smart they didn't pick an XCOM fan)" that the intent of designers is not to make an X-com game but instead to make an "Epic Hero" action game that just happens to be turned based and use the X-com name to draw attention to it and draw profit. Not that I have a problem with that, it will very likely be a good game as it is. However looking at the forums I am not alone in my frustration as an X-com fan, where we as a group have been waiting for "true" remake of the game for nearly 20 years. Every time someone says they are going to, they end up just drafting the name for something else. Sure some aspects are there but the remake we really want never comes. That being said they are STILL selling the original game to people like me. I have now bought 3 different copies over the years, and would be more than willing to pay a new game price tag for an improved version of the original which would be less work for an almost guaranteed big pay off. (graphics, map generation, AI, and maybe fix the research tree so you have to research pistols, rifles, heavy in order and lasers before plasma so you can't just research heavy plasma after the first mission)
X-com's biggest attraction to me is the "That's it man, game over man, game over! What the f*** are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do? -Pvt Hudson" factor of fighting a Superior force but I don't want to be Rayner fighting Zerg for a change. I want to be a squad fighting off an elite alien force that are completely superior. It seems like an time some one makes a movie or game remake they stray away from what made it great and go to something new for the masses the mimics every other top selling game and movie and is really just another one of many. This could be something they strays from the path an allows for some thing really great and different but they won't because the marketing department says "if you make it like Masseffect or Halo it will sell big!" and they say $$$? ok! But I honestly think they could make more in the long run by changing this one in aspect to reflect the original game and lending it more to a classic that really stands alone in a land of semi-clones. But I too guess I see why the debate is really over and why they will not change. It is very rare that a classic is remade for the avid fans who made it a classic. Instead they make it a main stream watered down and adrenaline filled version that never lives up to the original but pulls a lot of initial money by selling out the name. But it looked so much better then all the other attempts, we fans had our hopes up. I really feel unit size changes the whole game in this case and it is the make it or break point. The rest I can live without..... well I need Chryssalids and Ethereals too, but after that!!!!! ... hmm... okay so maybe not the only thing, lol.
.... I might have a little bit of pent up frustration here, lol.
As you can tell by my posts I can't "put it in short" anything. I am sorry for that, it's just the way I write, believe it or not I have edited most of my posts to try and reduce size, I am just that bad. lol
Last edited by Clayton Cross; 04-23-2012 at 09:47 PM.
@Clayton Cross:
Couldn't have articulated a more concise argument myself. You pointed out very sound and succinct reasoning why a real-world squad size made the original XCOM so compelling. I played for about an hour today and in one mission lost 11 out of 14 men. 6 of them were picked apart during the disembark from the dropship within 2 turns by enemy fire coming from 3-4 different directions. My guys got shredded on their way to cover! Now THAT is going to get your blood pumping and send home the message lighting quick that these aliens are stone-cold killers who don't **** around. I want that feeling in the new XCOM game. It's one of those essential ingredients that made the original scary.
But no worries bro, and to all the others who want true squads; modding will make this possible, we will have to, of course, adjust the other aspects of the game to balance things. No problem though, we'll roll with it. Firaxis will craft an excellent game no doubt, and the community will tweak things to suit their own preferences.
Last edited by Codex; 04-23-2012 at 09:39 PM. Reason: please don't bypass the language filter
@Freeman.Alex
Thanks very much and I look forward to the patch. Until then I send thanks to steam for the windows 7 compatible version of the original.
For me part of the charm of XCOM was sending in 12+ operatives, suffering 3 casualties, and deciding to live with it rather than spend the time on a do-over. If you are handling situations with 6 guys there are 3 scenarios I see:
1) The missions will be very small to match the squad size. (That would make me sad)
2) The soldiers would have to be more buffed to make a 6 on 20 battle more practical... but I thought aliens were to be genetically engineered to be tougher than humans?
3) Loss of even a single soldier would result in a reload. If the game turns into a matter of taking a shot and reloading the game if you miss, that would just be weak (not knowing much about what they have planned for gameplay...)
There's no indication of this. I've taken out squads of ten or twelve with six people, and in the new game that's four groups of three aliens, which would totally be doable.
A quite common logical fallacy that gets thrown around in this forums a lot, but isn't inherently true in the least. They don't have to buff the soldiers' health or anything. In point of fact, we're seeing HPs of 15 with alien weapons doing up to like 14 regular damage.2) The soldiers would have to be more buffed to make a 6 on 20 battle more practical... but I thought aliens were to be genetically engineered to be tougher than humans?
I've played original with six, I did it iron man. The desire of someone to reload has more to do with the person than the gameplay in my experience.3) Loss of even a single soldier would result in a reload. If the game turns into a matter of taking a shot and reloading the game if you miss, that would just be weak (not knowing much about what they have planned for gameplay...)
So your saying the original game is not correctly balanced... that does not justify breaking the balance in this game. We are saying we want to have aliens superior so 4 soldiers cant take 12 aliens one map and your saying you don't mind fighting week aliens or equivalent aliens spread out and unprepared. Opinion can't be argued, its just our preference. The argument is really more about play style, we want a big game designed for a more scary / survival atmosphere and your happy with a typical hunt and destroy, If you can kill 12 in a mission with 4 they are just not as scary.
They can't one shot them then and they could from the start of they first game so you just proved they did.... Also regarding soldiers being more "hardy" lets continue that on the spin off thread.
http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...-squad-caps%29
I agree with this but, they could remove the ability to save and only allow auto saves to store changes, positions, and deaths so that is not possible. It would not be the first game to do so. Maybe restrict that to hard difficulty and above so people who are scared and want an easy game can still wimp out.
Last edited by Clayton Cross; 04-26-2012 at 06:10 PM.
Don't put words in my mouth. His argument is that because he has less people means that there has to be less aliens. This is not true. It's a false corollary. There's more to game balance than pound-for-pound ratings. The aliens have superior tech, in fact one of the best ways to win in the original without relying on the spot=and-snipe method is to actually rush the aliens and get them in the open. Also, proxy mines can provide early-warning and butt covering. The tank can also be useful.
I think the second thing does need to go to the spin-off thread, but I just don't like that error in logic.
For the the third thing, they're putting in an iron-man mode.
Hehe now that I have had more time to think about it let me put it this way... I realize that many FPS games have one person killing off armies but hey, they are the only ones left so they have no choice right?
I'm not sure about where everyone else lives, but where I live if one HUMAN shows up with a HAND GUN a lot more than 6 cops show up...
Now a detachment of aliens with weapons unknown? Even if I'm an elite soldier... if the group I'm working for can't muster a dozen or so comrades to take part in the operation I'd be whipping out lines used by Eric Cartman from South Park...
...unless I missed something and part of the story here is that earth is severely depopulated?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote