KickStarter Phoenix Point - the new game from X-COM creator Julian Gollop

[UnstableVoltage]

I'm pretty sure the answer is yes, but I'm going to double check tomorrow to be sure and come back to confirm for you guys.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

I'm pretty sure the answer is yes, but I'm going to double check tomorrow to be sure and come back to confirm for you guys.

Yes it is visuals or yes it does have game play effect?

 

[UnstableVoltage]

Sorry. I mean to say, as far as I am aware, fire should have a gameplay effect on the environment much like it did in the original X-Com. But I still want to confirm with Julian for you.

 

[Alienman]

Good question my pyro-brother. I suffer from the same thing

Auto-canon with fire ammo in X-com Apocalypse. Good times.

Original had the same thing.
Incendiaries were quite useful for area denial, only robots and silacoids (and who cares about those) could ignore fire.

Yeah that is true, but have you tried it in X-com Apocalypse in real time?

Better bring your fire hazard suit.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

Yeah that is true, but have you tried it in X-com Apocalypse in real time?

Better bring your fire hazard suit.

I prefer it in real time.
Just wanted to point out the usefulness of much ignored tool from the original.
Way too easy ignore in comparison of the new toys unless one is playing self imposed "no lasers, no alien weapons, no flying and no telepathy" - challenge.

 

[kris]

Just a tiny bit of science from the Fig comments:

Sapistas
Is the geoscape gonna look like this?
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/m...ntent&sf94476425=1#/ice-melt-globe-opener.jpg
JulianG
Yes

Thanks. Love maps and that was interesting even if I could mostly imagine how it would look. As most know Holland, denmark and Bagladesh would be fucked. interesting though how intact Africa would be with only Egypt being fucked up real bad. Also that sea creeping up to the Caspian sea was not something I would have considered.

 

[UnstableVoltage]

OK - I have spoken to Julian and can now confirm.

Fire is planned to be a big part of Phoenix Point. It will spread, damage the environment, deny areas, damage units who touch it and spread to other things.

 

[Space Satan]

Fire in Long War 2 was imba as fuck. Enemies can't use skills, can't fire, can't melee. It was the most powerful effect of them all that rendered enemy defunct just by hitting them.

 

[ArchAngel]

Fire in Long War 2 was imba as fuck. Enemies can't use skills, can't fire, can't melee. It was the most powerful effect of them all that rendered enemy defunct just by hitting them.

It was already like that in vanilla Xcom 2. Long War 2 in next patch is actually nerfing it a bit (and already did in this patch by reducing AoE of it to very low).

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

Ok.
I've backed it now.

 

[LESS T_T]

In the first development VLOG of August, X-Com and Phoenix Point creator Julian Gollop takes you on a brief tour around the art an animation department of Snapshot Games to see how some of the early models are shaping up for Phoenix Point.

Phoenix Point is a squad focused turn based tactical game with 4X strategic elements. Phoenix Point was successfully funded on Fig in Jun 2017 and is scheduled for release in late 2018

There's still time to back Phoenix Point, and there are many physical and digital backer rewards to claim: https://app.crowdox.com/projects/100260/phoenix-point

 

[Lampros]

Looks awesome.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

https://www.egx.net/egx/news/legendary-game-designer-julian-gollop-to-speak-at-egx

Legendary game designer Julian Gollop to speak at EGX

Julian Gollop, the creator of Laser Squad and X-COM, will deliver a talk on his brand new strategy game, Phoenix Point, at EGX 2017.

Phoenix Point brings together turn based tactics and open world strategy in a fight for survival against a terrifying alien threat. The game has enjoyed huge crowdfunding success and is set for release in 2018.

In a session titled 'From Laser Squad to Phoenix Point: The Evolution of a Game Genre' Julian will explain the history behind the development of Laser Squad through X-COM and show how Phoenix Point evolves the genre further along with his ambitions for the game.

The session will take place at 2pm on Friday and those not at EGX will be able to catch the session live on Twitch and it'll be available to watch later on our YouTube channel.

We're celebrating the tenth EGX event this year and plan to make it our best ever so why not join us at the NEC in Birmingham on the 21st to 24th September.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

http://forums.snapshotgames.com/thread/realistic-ballistics-progress-report/

Realistic Ballistics - Progress Report

• 147 Views
• Last Post 47 minutes ago

Admin
Julian Gollop posted this 1 hour ago
We have implemented a 'realistic ballistics' system which works in a similar way to the original X-COMs. It does make combat quite fun. Each bullet has a separate trajectory and damage whatever it hits.

• Snipers can make headshots against enemies who think they have good cover
• Heavies can unleash a hail of 12 bullets with their machine guns - but they are not likely to hit - but then they do frequently blow away any light cover
• Assaults fire a burst of 6 bullets normall, but 4 with overwatch, and 3 with return fire.

Range is a very significant factor with this system since there is an inverse square deterioration in accuracy with distance (as in real life).

For the interface, we have created a first person view with a couple of probability circles - one for 50% of shots expected, and one for 75% of shots. It allows the player to judge the enemies cover visually, and accurately.

It's simple and definitely makes fire-fights tense. There are some issues though

• Cover is basically WYSIWYG - therefore it is difficult to give the player much info about cover unless he is able to 'see' from different positions. There are no numbers worth displaying. A cover system similar to new XCOM doesn't work.
• It's would be difficult to give the player meaningful data about expected outcomes from an attack. We could show 'average expected damage' mayber, although it's not easy to calculate.
• Firing from a first person view all the time would slow the pace of the game. It's not important if the optimum target point is always calculated, but that's not easy. At the moment the player can adjust the precise firing position with the mouse (in the future, you would be able to click on a body part to aim at it, but that's only useful if your accuracy circle is not too big).
• Soldiers do crouch down next to low cover - but their precise pose is very important because it would determine how much of their body might be exposed above the top of the cover.
• Stepping out from cover to shoot exposes soldiers completely - to overwatch or return fire. A partial step-out pose may fix this. Similarly, popping up to shoot from low cover also exposes the soldier to return fire - again, maybe fixed by a special pose (depending on weapon).
• There is no simulation for the difficulty of shooting a moving target, which has always been something that bugged me about turn-based games. There may be a way to do this, but I don't know what it could be.

Overall, I like the visual/naturalistic feel of the shooting, but it might not be everybody's cup of tea. You can expect a video demo of it soon.

 

[udm]

• Cover is basically WYSIWYG - therefore it is difficult to give the player much info about cover unless he is able to 'see' from different positions. There are no numbers worth displaying. A cover system similar to new XCOM doesn't work.
• It's would be difficult to give the player meaningful data about expected outcomes from an attack. We could show 'average expected damage' mayber, although it's not easy to calculate.

Maybe I'm crazy or something, but I'm not seeing the "issues" here. I'm all for gamism, but if there's one thing tabletop games do right, it's that they explicate the rules but let players figure out for themselves how the mechanics synergise with one another.

• There is no simulation for the difficulty of shooting a moving target, which has always been something that bugged me about turn-based games. There may be a way to do this, but I don't know what it could be.

CBT solved this issue perfectly, and those rules are over 20 years old now.

EDIT: Jimmious If it's CBT, you can see the modifier tables here: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/CBT_Tables#Attack_Modifiers_Table. If it's for the first part about tabletop games, well pretty much every tabletop tactics game leaves it to players to figure things out, which is why you have guides for probabilities and optimisation.

 

[UnstableVoltage]

The thing to remember is the shooting mechanics of Phoenix Point aren't like a board game. Sure, you have a stat that determines your accuracy, and you have a dice roll to determine if the shot goes off target, and by how much - but it doesn't rely on positive/negative modifiers like NuXCom. Whether or not a shot connects it dependent on if the simulated projectile actually makes contact with the target. The issue is making a simulation like that work with a moving target before all of the targets are technically stationary in a turn based game.

 

[udm]

I see your point; I guess it's about choosing what to abstract and what to simulate. Given that movement is tied in with the time aspect, which already is an abstraction in itself by being turn-baesd, it might just have to come down to a numbers game in the end, as far as emulating attacker aim vs target movement is concerned.

 

[UnstableVoltage]

Overall, we'd sooner just not worry about a moving target mechanic, than have to introduce board game-like modifiers to have to make it work. On of the great things about computer games is that you can have mechanics work in a much more complicated way than with a board game. We really want to make the most of this, and make something closer to good, old-fashioned X-Com.

 

[Raapys]

Assuming enemies are wider than they are 'thick'(i.e. like a humanoid), then they'll be presenting a much smaller silhouette when running(perpendicularly to your firing vector) and thus be harder to shoot with the current mechanics, no?

On the other hand, that could presumably be exploited by both players and AI when no cover is available; rotate until you are sideways to the enemy to minimize the chance of getting hit?

 

[Cyberarmy]

"We have implemented a 'realistic ballistics' system which works in a similar way to the original X-COMs. It does make combat quite fun. Each bullet has a separate trajectory and damage whatever it hits."

 

[Alienman]

It sounds good but I'm still a bit confused.

Snipers can make headshots against enemies who think they have good cover

wut? There is just one thing I would like to know. If I place my guy behind a solid 1 meter thick wall, will he be safe or can he still be killed because it's simulated that he pops his head out and in of cover or something?

 

[UnstableVoltage]

If there's enough of him sticking out to hit, he can be hit. If it's possible for a bullet to path to the target, you can still hit them (though of course to more them behind cover, the less likely it is to hit).

 

[Alienman]

So my guys will always stick something out?

 

[Jimmious]

I guess they should have a way to tell your guy to be fully in cover but with some other disadvantages when he does that

 

[UnstableVoltage]

(My insert quotes doesn't work anymore).

But yeah, each piece of cover will be different depending on its size and shape. This is why the manual fine tuning system is added to aiming. You can look around to see if anything is poking out from behind cover and try to hit it.