I take it the budget was rather limited then. Thats a shame. This game should be showered in money to make it as good as i know it can be.

If modding tools get released i hope modders can increase the games longevity and improve it. I really wanna love this game.
Waypoints would be awesome. Then we can at least pretend windows would break cover and just avoid going through them when in stealth.

So I assume that we don't have the ability to set waypoints during a move ala XCOM/XCOM2? That's a shame - I imagine it would also be useful if you're in combat and you want to stay out of an enemy's overwatch zone while seeking a better position. This is... strange. Especially considering that starting any other mission type requires the agents to be present - so the lack of consistency is kind of bizarre.

Personally I have no problem with not being able to start a tactical mission because my guys couldn't get there in time - IMO if that happens then it's too bad and I'll just have to deal with it. The same could be said about not starting one of the other options because agents aren't in place and can't get there in time - surely those are also (potentially) frustrating?

Actually until this was mentioned I didn't even know it was possible to insta-transport people since I always ensured they were at the target site before I started the tactical mission (because I thought that's what you had to do). I'll probably still do this as a "house rule".

Yeah, very strange how they dealt with these kind of things explaining things away kind of. Wouldnt it be simpler to just show the airplane travel to the assault location?

As far as I am aware the setting has currently mostly cosmetic value and will just reduce the amount of unnecessary jumps through windows without any major impact on the pathfinding.

We did consider waypoints even before XCOM 2 got them but we really wanted to automate these things and the pathfinding already avoids anything that would cause combat whenever possible (that is, a safe path is available and you have enougoh AP) - waypoints wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) allow safe moves that the pathfinding can't find already.

Also, to increase maneuvarbility instead of adding waypoints we increased the amount of AP available in the game because waypoins are a fairly obscure feature and many people would miss them - everyone sees and understands more AP. And you actually get more AP as characters develop, adding waypoints would reduce the benefits from extra AP.

Yeah, but those are optional. It's one thing if you can't doing something optimally, it's another when there's an enemy job still going and and you can't do anything about it anymore other than stare at how its negative consequences are inevitable. It's really an uncomfortable kind of situation we wanted to avoid and one where many players - in our opinion justifiably - would blame the game rather than themselves for not being prepared enough.

And originally every job did require some preparation time but we ourselves didn't like this solution so we tried leaving tactical assaults as a last resort option that always works and gameplay-wise it was a MUCH better solution.

And you know, it's a more complicated problem. The icons and panels for enemy jobs are there to allow you to interact with them. Once you're out of options, there's no reason for them to be there anymore and they only distract you from stuff you still can do. Then there's the thing that we wanted to avoid a delay between the tactical loadout and the launch of the mission.

Maybe we'll be able to add something that will make this stuff a tad more clear.

I'll elaborate "mostly cosmetic" for you. With the option disabled your agents will rather use doors than windows to get to a certain tile unless using the door would trigger combat (not considering what's hidden by fog of war of course) if you have enough AP to still reach that tile. With the option enabled your agent will always take the shortest path that would not trigger combat which may affect your AP spent especially on shorter distances.

An example. Your agent is placed behind a window, around the corner (maybe 1AP distance) is a door. Now you want your agent to move to the other side of that wall, just two tiles in. With the option disabled you will spent 2AP as you take the door, enable it and you will use 1AP instead by jumping thru the window.

Well, when the feature was introduced a while back, and the last time I tested it, the game would only visually alter paths but not affect costs. So, for instance, if you pointed at a tile behind a window that was in range of a 1 AP move, your character might visually make a 2 AP walk through a door, provided that this visually more sensible move won't trigger combat etc. - the actual costs would remain 1 AP, though. If the feature currently works the way you say, it's a change I was not aware of, possibly done for technical reasons uncovered by QA.

Yeah, those are great suggestions and exactly the kind of stuff we've all along been considering to add in post-release stuff. We may also tweak the frequency of the other mission types already in the game, like the ones where you have to save a VIP and defuse bombs. Those seem to occur a tad too rarely.

Yeah, encouraging players to engage in open combat is a complicated topic because there's no realistic reason why someone would want to give up the advantage of stealth most of the time. Like with additional generated mission types, adding features and mission types that justify open combat are stuff we might add post-release. Currently the best reason to engage in combat is for farming experience points because each kill is worth twice as much during combat. So if you want to quickly level up your guys it's viable to stay around to slaughter some reinforcements before evacuating.

Yeah, we really wanted to make Breach accessible and easy to use, that's why we went with the automatically generated waypoints there. However, I think we might add the possibility to optionally specify waypoints.

It's one of those things we did consider at some point but we didn't go with because they would further complicate the already pretty massive UI. But it's still a good point that is worth considering.

Don't worry, got it all. And thanks, that's some really nice feedback.

Yeah, encouraging players to engage in open combat is a complicated topic because there's no realistic reason why someone would want to give up the advantage of stealth most of the time. Like with additional generated mission types, adding features and mission types that justify open combat are stuff we might add post-release. Currently the best reason to engage in combat is for farming experience points because each kill is worth twice as much during combat. So if you want to quickly level up your guys it's viable to stay around to slaughter some reinforcements before evacuating.

I get this point, I didnt mean mission where you flat out go in guns blazing, but especially in the earlygame missions, where you lack supressors it would be nice to have ways to make going to combat less punishing, for a cost even.

Yeah, we really wanted to make Breach accessible and easy to use, that's why we went with the automatically generated waypoints there. However, I think we might add the possibility to optionally specify waypoints.

I see, but I feel like, that made it a little worse than it could be, especially since you can tell wich of your agents reaches a certain point earlier than the others and by that triggering the alarm (at least thats how I understand it).

Now I just want to say that I don`t think any of us wanted a game that encourages open combat. It technically shouldn`t not if realistic. In fact, in this type of situation (as in reality) open combat should be something used as a last resort. Stealth is always better if you can pull it off. I always try stealth first- I only succeeded once, but it was good when it happened.

If open combat is done with realistic mechanics, then nobody`s going to want to fight openly unless they have overwhelming fire and surprise- or are desperate.

The real issue is making the mechanic make sense to us, that`s all. The best way to do that is making stuff do things most of us interested in these kinds of games know intuitively. People miss, flashbangs blind and disorientate, distance limits hit chance, etc, etc.

I know I keep mentioning reality (yea, I know some people hate that word, however it exists and cannot be escaped), but if the game made combat reasonably realistic with weapons and LOS doing what it should with an RNG mechanic; the issue would`ve pretty much solved itself.

Yeah, its simply more realistic to miss on long range shots with anything but a sniper rifle. So experimenting and introducing this new RNG free revolution to turn based tactical games while innovative, was simply not needed. Why change what works?

Oh, that makes sense - though in that case would have expected it to be a toggle switch (e.g. keyboard shortcut) and not an option in the option menu (unless there is one and I missed it?).

I would have expected open combat for a base defense mission - for some reason I thought when "agents will attack your base" that we'd get a massive firefight, where we'd have to scramble to save as many agents as possible.

Naturally I'd expect these fights to be really hard - massive assault, continuous reinforcements, you'd have to scramble, possibly not being in the best positions(?), possibly also requiring an agent to feed as much intel as possible (or you dare) into the furnace before leaving (with any intel you didn't burn potentially compromising someone's ID and/or getting agents not at the base kidnapped or assaulted shortly after the base attack).

Since base assaults appear to unfortunately just consist of an instant action (leading to lost agents and compromised ID, plus forced relocation costs to a marginally better location) - it would be great if proper "base assaults" against your HQ could become part of the game some time in the future. I guess XP would have to be adjusted (or nulled completely) for base assaults, otherwise they'd just get abused.

Not the most important thing to add - especially since it's possible to avoid them entirely - but it would be nice. And it would (IMO) be the only mission where combat from the get-go makes sense.

BTW I'm already liking this more than XCOM2, despite issues raised - the stealth mechanic is already way better than XCOM2's, except for the lack of waypoints in PD.

I`m afraid Xcom 2 still wins in my book. I had my issues with combat in that game, but nothing ever as bad as with this, mostly ammo count, the limitation in equipment you can carry (one grenade?) and not being able to pick up fallen items. It`s pretty much the same in this game.

In Xcom 2 they can miss or you could induce them to miss. Improving technology always helped. Of course standing in an open area meant you were dead which makes sense, but if you had cover, distance or moved fast there was a chance they might miss. It all actually made sense. Yes, people whined about the RNG because they don`t like things they can`t control, but I simply looked at it from the pov of reality and maths don`t lie- 85% chance to hit is not a guaranteed chance to hit. 99% chance to hit is not guaranteed. it will ALWAYS feel bad when you miss on a 90% chance to hit, even if it`s fair to both sides.

Remember these were ALIENS with an added advantage of better tech, a least at the start, unlike Doctrine which are all Humans.

And yes, i`ve sometimes said, "How can you miss on 90% chance to hit?" But that`s just natural HUMAN frustration. You know it`s right, but as Humans we don`t like losing. I recognise that so i don`t whine it away like they have with Phantom menace (lol, I mean Doctrine) and now ruined the whole shoot mechanic.

Devs need to understand that just because some people get annoyed with a realistic mechanic like RNG doesn`t mean we all want it removed completely. Having some frustration is part of a good game; but just give the Player an intuitive reason (ie realism) why it`s frustrating and he`ll handle it.

Why do you think Xcom, despite it`s RNG is SO successful. It frustrates a little with misses, but people still love the suspense and challenge and they intutively know this happens in reality, despite those loudest minority who would whine it away and kill the game. Firaxis understands this.

I remeber another Dev House that made a UFO Xcom type game. They got rid of anyone actually dying - the game was horrible because there was no investment in your people. Y`see we don`t want our people to die, but there must be that chance or the game loses any thrill, suspense or feeling of reality. Just reload if you can`t handle it. The same principle with RNG which is why I was rather disappointed when I heard the Devs really don`t want it.

Even stealth worked very well, although Phantom`s is also good. So no, Xcom2 is still the best and I find myself wanting to install and run that every time Phantom`s uses its weird combat mechanic on me.

And I loved the customisation options which allowed me to really make individual people- Phantom Doctrine is sadly light on that. Also, nothing sexy for the ladies, I hope they add more options later, but that`s besides the point and a different issue.

Anyway, I`m only talking about the combat; I do like the strategic side of the game.