Arcen Games

Games => Bionic Dues => Topic started by: x4000 on September 08, 2013, 12:00:10 PM

Title: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 08, 2013, 12:00:10 PM
Rather than respond to these in the main thread with all the other feedback and such, I figured I would pull things out here, in a new thread that can be just devoted to Q&A.  If you have further questions or followups, free free to also log those here.
Quote
Misery: Initial question upon entering mission:  Why can I fire through walls?  This is the part that makes the least sense so far.

We're using a permissive field of view, and saying that you can shoot anything you can see: http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php?title=Permissive_Field_of_View

Why?  Because it felt awful when we used a system where we used a strict pessimistic line of sight.  There's not much in the middle, I'm afraid.
Quote
Misery: Is there some way to look at Exo stats during missions?  Or look at my inventory during missions?  Both would be useful.

Hovering over the exo itself button on the left tells you some of this, but clicking your character (or right-clicking the exo portrait) tells you more.
Quote
Misery: Music on the map/customization/shop screens would be nice.  They're too quiet, since nothing is exploding or shouting hilarious lines.

Music is not done yet!  There are over 100 minutes of music slated to be done, but it won't be ready until sometime in October.  Unlike in the past, most likely we will be adding this to the game as it is ready.
Quote
Tridus: but there was also no "clicking" noise when you click on icons or menus, and that absence was odd.

We felt like interface clicks were annoying, and a goodly number of games don't use them, so we figured we would not as well.  The only sound effects that are planned but missing at the moment (sound effects being distinct from music) are more voice prompts from robots.  We're open to suggestions of course, but I feel like it is super hard to get a good mouse click noise that doesn't make me really annoyed with the noise pretty fast.
Quote
Tridus: What's a "speciality unlock code"? Typing something in there ("1") doesn't appear to do anything, it just took me back to the main menu with no message about what it did. Also when the prompt to type it in appears after clicking the button, the keyboard cursor isn't in the box so typing does nothing.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. ;)  As it notes on that screen, it's not required to play the game.  Shattered Haven and Skyward Collapse also have this, it's just part of our internal debugging stuff for the engine.
Quote
Tridus: A click-to-move option (ala XCOM and most overland TBS games like Age of Wonders) would be AWESOME. Using WASD overhead is really awkward and confusing to me. (Particularly since WASD is typically go forward/go backward/turn left/turn right, and here it's just the four directions to move in, like the arrow keys.)

Yep, we actually implemented this, and it was terrible.  It is just so easy to accidentally move to the wrong tile since there is not a visible grid, and a visible grid looks terrible.  And moving multiple tiles at once when near enemies is almost always stupid.  And there have to be all these secondary rules about when it should stop a move in progress based on new enemies coming into sight, and the list goes on and on.

In short, it felt incredibly bad to play with, and we couldn't see a way to make it work well, so we cut it.  I really don't plan on adding it back, as the basic gameplay just isn't supportive of it.  Nor is keyboard-only viable, come to that.  WASD + mouse is pretty common for a lot of games with ranged combat on the PC.  I'll grant you that most roguelikes are not about ranged combat, though.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 08, 2013, 12:00:23 PM
This space reserved.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 08, 2013, 12:00:29 PM
This space reserved.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Tridus on September 08, 2013, 01:15:00 PM
Tridus: A click-to-move option (ala XCOM and most overland TBS games like Age of Wonders) would be AWESOME. Using WASD overhead is really awkward and confusing to me. (Particularly since WASD is typically go forward/go backward/turn left/turn right, and here it's just the four directions to move in, like the arrow keys.)

Yep, we actually implemented this, and it was terrible.  It is just so easy to accidentally move to the wrong tile since there is not a visible grid, and a visible grid looks terrible.  And moving multiple tiles at once when near enemies is almost always stupid.  And there have to be all these secondary rules about when it should stop a move in progress based on new enemies coming into sight, and the list goes on and on.

In short, it felt incredibly bad to play with, and we couldn't see a way to make it work well, so we cut it.  I really don't plan on adding it back, as the basic gameplay just isn't supportive of it.  Nor is keyboard-only viable, come to that.  WASD + mouse is pretty common for a lot of games with ranged combat on the PC.  I'll grant you that most roguelikes are not about ranged combat, though.

In my second map (when I understood more how movement and turns work), it felt more natural to use WASD. So you made the right call I think, it just took a bit to understand it.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 08, 2013, 01:46:00 PM
Cool. :)
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Cyborg on September 08, 2013, 05:20:57 PM
New question about mines. How do I turn the direction of my robot to place the mines without spending a turn? Also, they seem kind of exploitable. My enemy doesn't run into them, but they sure like to waste all of their ammunition on them.

Also having trouble throwing grenades. What's the trick here?
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 08, 2013, 05:23:50 PM
New question about mines. How do I turn the direction of my robot to place the mines without spending a turn? Also, they seem kind of exploitable. My enemy doesn't run into them, but they sure like to waste all of their ammunition on them.

You can use the arrow keys (not WASD) to turn your bot -- it now says that in the tooltip, although you may have been playing (or still be playing) on the version prior to us putting that in.

In terms of the enemies wasting ammo on the mines, I've not seen that; they're supposed to truck on over them and die stupidly, not attack them!  Do you have a save with that happening?

Also having trouble throwing grenades. What's the trick here?

Those just get fired like anything else -- am I missing something?  If you want to ground fire, hold shift.  Maybe there's some sort of new bug here's that's affecting you or something.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: orzelek on September 08, 2013, 05:32:42 PM
Grenades work for me - they have a bit strange explosion pattern tho.
They explode in X pattern and are quite hard to use. Also damage is not so great.

 I'm heavily disappointed by being unable to blow up enemy mines by firing at them - didn't try grenades or rockets yet.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 08, 2013, 05:33:36 PM
I need to look at the mines thing, that's actually a bug.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: madcow on September 08, 2013, 06:48:54 PM
Yeah, the mines thing bugged me.

I also agree that grenades are basically not worth it, could use a bit of a damage buff (maybe 100?) - wouldn't mind seeing ammo on it go down in exchange to keep the assault exo from being too OP while still having grenades as a panic/crowd control button.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: orzelek on September 08, 2013, 06:58:35 PM
Also grenade explosion pattern could use an upgrade. Or maybe it's bugged.
Description states it's radius 2. For me it's always an X centered on hit place.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 08, 2013, 07:14:43 PM
The grenades I shifted up to make it so that they would actually be different from the rocket launcher, which is a radial pattern.  The X pattern is really useful for hitting some forms of bots, but is less blanket-force than a radial, so you can use it closer to yourself.  But you also can't carpet bomb an entire room.  So I felt justified giving it higher ammo (much so) but much less damage.  When you need to kill a lot of smaller guys with just a couple of shots to them in general.

That was the thinking, anyhow.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Coppermantis on September 08, 2013, 07:42:20 PM
Understandable, but its damage is so low that the only time I use it is if my Siege Exo is low on rocket ammo or otherwise unavailable. The pattern is fine, but I'd rather have it do more damage with less ammo.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 08, 2013, 07:44:45 PM
Okay, fair enough.  I've upped them for now to 400, from 300.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Cyborg on September 08, 2013, 07:45:34 PM
New question about mines. How do I turn the direction of my robot to place the mines without spending a turn? Also, they seem kind of exploitable. My enemy doesn't run into them, but they sure like to waste all of their ammunition on them.

You can use the arrow keys (not WASD) to turn your bot -- it now says that in the tooltip, although you may have been playing (or still be playing) on the version prior to us putting that in.

In terms of the enemies wasting ammo on the mines, I've not seen that; they're supposed to truck on over them and die stupidly, not attack them!  Do you have a save with that happening?

Also having trouble throwing grenades. What's the trick here?

Those just get fired like anything else -- am I missing something?  If you want to ground fire, hold shift.  Maybe there's some sort of new bug here's that's affecting you or something.


Upon further play through, when I laid those mines, those aren't actually mines. Those are hacking terminals graphics! I had never laid a mine before, so I didn't really recognize it, but that's what it is.


I can't reproduce it, but I am laying mines everywhere in the hopes that I can get this to come up again. That is bizarre!


In other news, this game is freaking fun. Now that I know what I'm doing, it's all good. Takeaway point, we need to make sure people have an idea on what this game is about when they are starting to play. And I think the marketing needs to be on target for this as well. You have a lot of depth here that is not readily apparent, but the more I play the more I realize what I can do as a "pilot"or whatever you are calling it. So, bravo, this is one that's a keeper. Good job.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 08, 2013, 07:47:54 PM
New question about mines. How do I turn the direction of my robot to place the mines without spending a turn? Also, they seem kind of exploitable. My enemy doesn't run into them, but they sure like to waste all of their ammunition on them.

You can use the arrow keys (not WASD) to turn your bot -- it now says that in the tooltip, although you may have been playing (or still be playing) on the version prior to us putting that in.

In terms of the enemies wasting ammo on the mines, I've not seen that; they're supposed to truck on over them and die stupidly, not attack them!  Do you have a save with that happening?

Also having trouble throwing grenades. What's the trick here?

Those just get fired like anything else -- am I missing something?  If you want to ground fire, hold shift.  Maybe there's some sort of new bug here's that's affecting you or something.


Upon further play through, when I laid those mines, those aren't actually mines. Those are hacking terminals graphics! I had never laid a mine before, so I didn't really recognize it, but that's what it is.


I can't reproduce it, but I am laying mines everywhere in the hopes that I can get this to come up again. That is bizarre!

Oh yeah, that was something fixed in 0.901 I think it was -- that was a testing thing left in by accident.  What version are you on at this point?

In other news, this game is freaking fun. Now that I know what I'm doing, it's all good. Takeaway point, we need to make sure people have an idea on what this game is about when they are starting to play. And I think the marketing needs to be on target for this as well. You have a lot of depth here that is not readily apparent, but the more I play the more I realize what I can do as a "pilot"or whatever you are calling it. So, bravo, this is one that's a keeper. Good job.

Wow wow wow, that means a lot coming from you in particular.  And I don't mean that at all in a negative way.  You're just extremely hard to impress, which is not a value judgement.  So when we impress you, I agree we have a keeper. :D

And you are absolutely right in the rest of what you said, too.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Cyborg on September 08, 2013, 07:54:50 PM
I am on .902. Do you have a patch notes page or mantis area I can keep track of?
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 08, 2013, 07:56:02 PM
I am on .902. Do you have a patch notes page or mantis area I can keep track of?

Okay, then that bugfix did not actually take, apparently.  I'll look at that again, thanks.

And regarding the changelog, it's here: http://arcengames.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Bionic_Dues_Alpha_Release_Notes

You can also get to that by the What's New link in the game's main menu.  There is also a Bionic section in mantis, but the changelog is a better source.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 08, 2013, 08:14:18 PM
Hmm, I cannot duplicate this at all on 0.903, which I will push out soon.  So either I think it is a bad state from an older save (does not seem likely based on the code I just looked at), or it's something that didn't properly go out in 0.902, which is possible.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 09, 2013, 09:51:56 AM
Quote
Aeson: It would be nice if the item shop carried a few more items, especially lower-tech items (which would presumably cost less). This could be done as a reward for successfully completing missions, too - since you're presumably securing more of the city (sort-of), the shop people have more area to scavenge in and therefore have a wider variety of stuff to sell you, though not all of it is necessarily an improvement on what you have.

The reasoning for the current mechanic only having high-value items is so that you have to anticipate those for a while, being unable to get them too frequently.  I was thinking about this sort of anticipation while playing Civ with my wife.  They basically have all these systems that increase anticipation between turns, helping lead to that "one more turn" nature.  Specifically I am thinking of the polices, the technologies, the production per city of various things, and so forth.  All those things having somewhat-long timers on them, but not all lining up and finishing at any one time, lets you anticipate things constantly, and thus never be at a point where you want to stop.

Here when I thought of the shop, I thought about making it fit into that same sort of thing.  You have the missions that you can see but not yet reach that you can anticipate, you have the shop items that you can see but not yet afford, you have the customization of your exos that you want to do but might not have all the parts for, and I think that's it.

Keith and I discussed adding "candy items" in the shop: basically those that are very inexpensive but also not really worth it, and thus which "rot your teeth."  We have some candy techs in AI War as well.  But that's really kind of entrapment for the player, and in this case also undermines the anticipation.

Anyway, hopefully that thinking makes sense.

Quote
Aeson: If shields and health are meant to be identical, please use only one name for it. If, on the other hand, shields are meant to be a restores-over-time health bank or something like that, please have the statistics distinguish between shields and health.

This seems to be a common point of confusion, and I made a change in the next version to say "shield-system stats" instead of "shield stats."  Hopefully that alone will help clear up the confusion some, but also in the help sections in the customization screens where it explains all the stats, it will be addressed there.

But basically there are no shields, per se.  The shields are a system, just like propulsion and computer and the weapons.  Health is the actual stat, like attack power or hacking points or stealth points or whatever.  The shields system is responsible for things like health, system damage protection, regen, and so on.  So the words shields and health aren't interchangeable.

Any ideas from anyone on how the game can make this more abundantly clear from the start, aside from what is already done and planned?

Quote
Aeson: I don't know if there's something like this in the game already or not, but it might be nice if there were, say, a rechargeable powercell for energy weapons, which allowed you to pass turns to gain ammunition for the weapon it's installed in but reduces the total number of rounds available between recharges.

Basically anything that wastes player time in exchange for a tactical advantage is out.  Where the player is just running around or hitting spacebar, there's no point to a mechanic because they will just do that between battles.  Ammo being really scarce in the main (good ammo, anyway) is also a big part of the mission structure. 

Though less so lately, given how we shrunk the mission map sizes so much right before starting the alpha (they were interminably long prior to that, turns out).  I probably should drop the general ammo of your exos by half or more (for the high-ammo weapons at least), so that you wind up having to use more exos in a single mission.  What are people's thoughts from anyone on that?  It could be troublesome given exo mortality rates. ;)

Quote
Tridus: It's not at all clear how the enemy bots react to my movements. I moved a bit and nothing happened, despite a Wyvernbot being visible in the open. One more move and it started moving too. Did I run out of movement points?

This is a side effect of all the art and animations not being in place yet.  If the bot does not have pessimistic line of sight on you (as opposed to your permissive line of sight that your bot gets and that is used for firing lines once activated), it won't activate.  So most likely there was some cover between you and it.

This would normally be more clear, because the bot would look deactivated and not be animated, etc.  But as it stands now, it's just a subtle particle effect difference on some of the bots, including this one.  If you look at bots like the DumBot or similar, that's how it will work in the near future for all the bots, which should hopefully alleviate this trouble.

The other part of this is: you act, they act.  There are no action points.  We had those  for a long while and it was slow and fiddly and confusing.  So we moved away from the more tactics-game like feel (which is pretty slow) to the more roguelike-game feel (which is much more fluid).

Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Misery on September 09, 2013, 10:15:58 AM
Hm, as for the enemy bot activations, what about noise?  I can understand the bit about line of sight, but it seems in so many cases that it SHOULD be nearby explosions and such waking them up, yet alot of the time, it never happens.   Sometimes even when those explosions are directly adjacent.

Overall I've had a hard time understanding the mechanics of just what attracts the bots towards you, and what doesnt.  Aside from the whistle, but even that sometimes doesnt do it when it seems like it should.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Gemzo on September 09, 2013, 10:24:42 AM
But basically there are no shields, per se.  The shields are a system, just like propulsion and computer and the weapons.  Health is the actual stat, like attack power or hacking points or stealth points or whatever.  The shields system is responsible for things like health, system damage protection, regen, and so on.  So the words shields and health aren't interchangeable.

Any ideas from anyone on how the game can make this more abundantly clear from the start, aside from what is already done and planned?
That mechanic certainly sounds a lot more like a "damage control system" than a shield system. When I hear shield I would imagine it would protect my health.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Tridus on September 09, 2013, 10:29:35 AM
Quote
Aeson: If shields and health are meant to be identical, please use only one name for it. If, on the other hand, shields are meant to be a restores-over-time health bank or something like that, please have the statistics distinguish between shields and health.

This seems to be a common point of confusion, and I made a change in the next version to say "shield-system stats" instead of "shield stats."  Hopefully that alone will help clear up the confusion some, but also in the help sections in the customization screens where it explains all the stats, it will be addressed there.

But basically there are no shields, per se.  The shields are a system, just like propulsion and computer and the weapons.  Health is the actual stat, like attack power or hacking points or stealth points or whatever.  The shields system is responsible for things like health, system damage protection, regen, and so on.  So the words shields and health aren't interchangeable.

Any ideas from anyone on how the game can make this more abundantly clear from the start, aside from what is already done and planned?

The simplest way is to have the items say +health. Like I have an item that says something to the effect of "+1% Shields", but since I don't have a "shield" stat and it increased my health by one, I can only assume it really means "+1% Health".

I got another one that said "+33 health" and understood exactly what it did. The issue to me is that one thing (health) is being called by two names (health, shields). If that "shield-system stats" bonus really means health, it should just say health. Now if it really means "boosts health from items in the shield system only", that's a bit different.

(I kind of think "shields" is a loaded word here because shields are a thing in so many games. Maybe if you called the system "Protection" instead it would be less confusing.)
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 09, 2013, 10:30:28 AM
Hm, as for the enemy bot activations, what about noise?  I can understand the bit about line of sight, but it seems in so many cases that it SHOULD be nearby explosions and such waking them up, yet alot of the time, it never happens.   Sometimes even when those explosions are directly adjacent.

Overall I've had a hard time understanding the mechanics of just what attracts the bots towards you, and what doesnt.  Aside from the whistle, but even that sometimes doesnt do it when it seems like it should.

There are some secondary rules with some bots waking up with noise and with others being alerted by sentries being attacked, etc.  But yeah, that's difficult to convey.  The wake-on-nearby-guy-getting-shot is something I do want to get into better, though, as otherwise it makes less sense.  That seems like it overlaps pretty well with the noise concept, for the most part.

But basically there are no shields, per se.  The shields are a system, just like propulsion and computer and the weapons.  Health is the actual stat, like attack power or hacking points or stealth points or whatever.  The shields system is responsible for things like health, system damage protection, regen, and so on.  So the words shields and health aren't interchangeable.

Any ideas from anyone on how the game can make this more abundantly clear from the start, aside from what is already done and planned?
That mechanic certainly sounds a lot more like a "damage control system" than a shield system. When I hear shield I would imagine it would protect my health.

Well, the idea is that your health really is your shielding.  I guess that we could rename health to shields if that would make things more clear.  That might do it, actually.  Although then it's confusing that something that increases "shield system stats" also affects things like regen and the system hardening.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 09, 2013, 10:31:45 AM
Quote
Aeson: If shields and health are meant to be identical, please use only one name for it. If, on the other hand, shields are meant to be a restores-over-time health bank or something like that, please have the statistics distinguish between shields and health.

This seems to be a common point of confusion, and I made a change in the next version to say "shield-system stats" instead of "shield stats."  Hopefully that alone will help clear up the confusion some, but also in the help sections in the customization screens where it explains all the stats, it will be addressed there.

But basically there are no shields, per se.  The shields are a system, just like propulsion and computer and the weapons.  Health is the actual stat, like attack power or hacking points or stealth points or whatever.  The shields system is responsible for things like health, system damage protection, regen, and so on.  So the words shields and health aren't interchangeable.

Any ideas from anyone on how the game can make this more abundantly clear from the start, aside from what is already done and planned?

The simplest way is to have the items say +health. Like I have an item that says something to the effect of "+1% Shields", but since I don't have a "shield" stat and it increased my health by one, I can only assume it really means "+1% Health".

I got another one that said "+33 health" and understood exactly what it did. The issue to me is that one thing (health) is being called by two names (health, shields). If that "shield-system stats" bonus really means health, it should just say health. Now if it really means "boosts health from items in the shield system only", that's a bit different.

(I kind of think "shields" is a loaded word here because shields are a thing in so many games. Maybe if you called the system "Protection" instead it would be less confusing.)

See, but it never said "Shields"  it said "shield stats" which is unclear.  But now it says "shield system stats."  And it affects a lot more than health, so it's not just about the health and could not be renamed to that.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Tridus on September 09, 2013, 10:36:12 AM
See, but it never said "Shields"  it said "shield stats" which is unclear.  But now it says "shield system stats."  And it affects a lot more than health, so it's not just about the health and could not be renamed to that.

Well that shows how unclear it was, because I had no idea it did anything other than boosting health. :)

So based on that, I really think the word "shields" should be removed because it's a word that carries expectations for gamers. "Fortification" gets the same idea across without people expecting it to behave like a shield. That also includes system hardening or other protections, as it's a generic term. ("1% to Fortification system stats" doesn't sound too bad, either. :) )
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: madcow on September 09, 2013, 11:06:35 AM
Since there was mention of the shop here. What about "candy items" in terms one mission buffs - it could take the form of an actual buff. Or more supply crates being spawned out in the open.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: orzelek on September 09, 2013, 12:40:14 PM
I'm all about changing of health to shields.
I wrote it before but it's quite confusing to find stuff that buffs shields which you don't seem to have.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Aeson on September 09, 2013, 01:00:58 PM
"Well, the idea is that your health really is your shielding.  I guess that we could rename health to shields if that would make things more clear.  That might do it, actually.  Although then it's confusing that something that increases "shield system stats" also affects things like regen and the system hardening."
Perhaps what we need is a window that breaks down the Exo statistics by system, preferably off to the side of the customization screen. You could have

Propulsion System
 - (propulsion attributes)
Shield System
 - (shield attributes)
Weapons System
 - (weapon attributes)
etc.

Part of the problem is that we, as players, don't really know what is in each of the systems, and the only way we can tell what is there is when the bonuses actually cause something to change in the part of the customization window that we can see (and unfortunately, the tool-tip describing the item frequently blocks ~half of the area describing its on-vehicle effects). Another part is that certain attributes, like Regeneration, are usually so low that it's not likely that I'm going to notice a change due to a +X% system attributes bonus, because you'd need 10%, 15%, 20% bonuses to make the regeneration numbers change.

I might suggest that you change the customization screen a bit so that the center is still the same, but the stuff that currently pops up as an item description tool-tip instead gets displayed to the left of the part selection area and the full vehicle statistics window that pops up in the 'hover here for more information' tool-tip gets displayed to the right. I know that my display has room for it, but I don't know how well it would work for other people, so if that went in it would be something which required testing.

I also agree with changing all mentions of health over to shields, or all mentions of shields over to health (in which case "shield systems" could become "hull integrity systems" or "damage control systems" or something like that), because there's no good reason for us to have two names to refer to the same thing (which is confusing), and getting rid of one side of the name gives you room in case you decide to add something that is separate (e.g. plasma shields a la StarCraft Protoss) that would reasonably be called by a similar name.


"I probably should drop the general ammo of your exos by half or more (for the high-ammo weapons at least), so that you wind up having to use more exos in a single mission.  What are people's thoughts from anyone on that?  It could be troublesome given exo mortality rates."
You'd probably need to rebalance the +ammunition capacity items. +2 or 3 ammunition on 50 isn't terrible, but it's not great either. +1 ammunition from the same part on the same weapon isn't worth it, particularly if I'm still paying ~60-100 power for it (other bonuses still apply).
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 09, 2013, 01:56:51 PM
See, but it never said "Shields"  it said "shield stats" which is unclear.  But now it says "shield system stats."  And it affects a lot more than health, so it's not just about the health and could not be renamed to that.

Well that shows how unclear it was, because I had no idea it did anything other than boosting health. :)

So based on that, I really think the word "shields" should be removed because it's a word that carries expectations for gamers. "Fortification" gets the same idea across without people expecting it to behave like a shield. That also includes system hardening or other protections, as it's a generic term. ("1% to Fortification system stats" doesn't sound too bad, either. :) )

Bear in mind that this is a literal system that you can visually look at.  I guess we could call it Hull or something.  But calling it by an adjective really isn't the idea.

Since there was mention of the shop here. What about "candy items" in terms one mission buffs - it could take the form of an actual buff. Or more supply crates being spawned out in the open.

Maybe post-1.0 or in an expansion, but bear in mind the game is essentially already feature-complete for 1.0.  We're into polish and balance now, and I don't want to sabotage that by trying to add new features right up to release for once.

Part of the problem is that we, as players, don't really know what is in each of the systems, and the only way we can tell what is there is when the bonuses actually cause something to change in the part of the customization window that we can see (and unfortunately, the tool-tip describing the item frequently blocks ~half of the area describing its on-vehicle effects).

That's changed in the next version.

Another part is that certain attributes, like Regeneration, are usually so low that it's not likely that I'm going to notice a change due to a +X% system attributes bonus, because you'd need 10%, 15%, 20% bonuses to make the regeneration numbers change.

Specific feedback (and savegames) on things like this is super welcome.  Probably best for mantis on this sort of thing, though.

I might suggest that you change the customization screen a bit so that the center is still the same, but the stuff that currently pops up as an item description tool-tip instead gets displayed to the left of the part selection area and the full vehicle statistics window that pops up in the 'hover here for more information' tool-tip gets displayed to the right. I know that my display has room for it, but I don't know how well it would work for other people, so if that went in it would be something which required testing.

Unfortunately, we have to support 1024x720 screen resolution, and there is literally not one iota of room to expand anything anywhere on that.  We have some more room in that blank spot in the lower left above where you can hover, and that's it.  We really crammed it in there.

I also agree with changing all mentions of health over to shields, or all mentions of shields over to health (in which case "shield systems" could become "hull integrity systems" or "damage control systems" or something like that), because there's no good reason for us to have two names to refer to the same thing (which is confusing), and getting rid of one side of the name gives you room in case you decide to add something that is separate (e.g. plasma shields a la StarCraft Protoss) that would reasonably be called by a similar name.

I'm leaning toward just calling it Hull.

"I probably should drop the general ammo of your exos by half or more (for the high-ammo weapons at least), so that you wind up having to use more exos in a single mission.  What are people's thoughts from anyone on that?  It could be troublesome given exo mortality rates."
You'd probably need to rebalance the +ammunition capacity items. +2 or 3 ammunition on 50 isn't terrible, but it's not great either. +1 ammunition from the same part on the same weapon isn't worth it, particularly if I'm still paying ~60-100 power for it (other bonuses still apply).

Yes, this is true.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 09, 2013, 02:06:25 PM
Actually, looking at all the references in the code and text, I decided to go with shields.  There are too many things that would not make sense if it was hull all over the place.

Some enemies do reference hull strength, and the hull repair bays still say that, but I think that's acceptably clear still.  The main thing is with parts, and those say Shields universally now, and even the hull repair bay says it repairs shields.  Which are presumably part of the hull.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Breach on September 09, 2013, 02:07:35 PM
I don't think there's any chance of confusion over hull repair bays, especially once the effect has been seen the first time.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 09, 2013, 02:08:09 PM
Awesome -- thanks.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Aeson on September 09, 2013, 03:19:16 PM
With regards to the hull repair bays - if we're renaming everything from hull somethings to shield somethings, we could just call it a shield recharge station. But I agree with Breach that there's little chance of confusion, at least after the first time you use it.


"Bear in mind that this is a literal system that you can visually look at."
In this case, then, is each system just whatever happens to be in the section labelled as such on the vehicle? In other words, if I have a 5% bonus to shield systems, does that bonus apply to the components in the section of the Exo labelled "Shields", or does it apply generally to all bonuses to shields/regeneration/regeneration window/etc?
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 09, 2013, 03:22:26 PM
With regards to the hull repair bays - if we're renaming everything from hull somethings to shield somethings, we could just call it a shield recharge station. But I agree with Breach that there's little chance of confusion, at least after the first time you use it.

Done.  Good point.

"Bear in mind that this is a literal system that you can visually look at."
In this case, then, is each system just whatever happens to be in the section labelled as such on the vehicle? In other words, if I have a 5% bonus to shield systems, does that bonus apply to the components in the section of the Exo labelled "Shields", or does it apply generally to all bonuses to shields/regeneration/regeneration window/etc?

All things in the shield slots.  There are other things that affect shielding (generally Auxiliary) stuff that go in other systems, but those would not get the bonus from things that are affecting the shield system specifically.  An auxiliary system is like putting a power cell in your gun in a place where you might have put ammo.  Actually we have that.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Aeson on September 09, 2013, 05:52:48 PM
"All things in the shield slots.  There are other things that affect shielding (generally Auxiliary) stuff that go in other systems, but those would not get the bonus from things that are affecting the shield system specifically.  An auxiliary system is like putting a power cell in your gun in a place where you might have put ammo.  Actually we have that."
Just to make certain I'm understanding this correctly - the bonus applies to anything at all which is located in the appropriate section? So if I put an Auxiliary Reactor with 100 power generation in the Shield section and had a total of +15% to shield systems, the Auxiliary Reactor would effectively output 115 power? Or would the bonus only apply to shield-specific statistics on components in the Shield section? Sorry that I'm kind of beating this into the ground, I just want to make certain I understand how it works properly.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 09, 2013, 06:00:57 PM
It should be anything at all in that system, yes.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: orzelek on September 09, 2013, 06:35:29 PM
Is there a point in attacking factory as first mission?
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Aeson on September 10, 2013, 01:39:22 PM
Is it intended that Axis can run missions which are one mission further out than other commanders can, which essentially allows her to bypass certain missions by hopping over them?
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 10, 2013, 01:59:42 PM
Is there a point in attacking factory as first mission?

It's actually a super bad idea, yeah.

Is it intended that Axis can run missions which are one mission further out than other commanders can, which essentially allows her to bypass certain missions by hopping over them?

Yep!  Otherwise her bonus would be kind of stinky.  This is compared to having things like 50% better loot (Meg) or a weaker ending robot army (Tuck) or two epic exos from the start (Genji).  I think these are pretty fair equivalences.  Though some commanders are "better" than others potentially, which is okay; doing intentionally-hard builds is part of the fun of these games (like doing all Fighters in FF1, which I liked; or doing all White Mages in FF1, which I always thought was insane. ;)).
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: orzelek on September 10, 2013, 02:07:10 PM
From what I can see there is currently sensor range and sight range for each bot.
Sensor range is being talked much about... but I have problems finding the sight range.
Is it shown somewhere?
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 10, 2013, 02:23:42 PM
Sight range is the same for all exos except the sniper, which does indeed note its increased sight range as an inherent stat.  I think. :)
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Histidine on September 10, 2013, 02:24:23 PM
Is it intended that Axis can run missions which are one mission further out than other commanders can, which essentially allows her to bypass certain missions by hopping over them?

Yep!  Otherwise her bonus would be kind of stinky.  This is compared to having things like 50% better loot (Meg) or a weaker ending robot army (Tuck) or two epic exos from the start (Genji).  I think these are pretty fair equivalences.  Though some commanders are "better" than others potentially, which is okay; doing intentionally-hard builds is part of the fun of these games (like doing all Fighters in FF1, which I liked; or doing all White Mages in FF1, which I always thought was insane. ;)).
Hmm, that should probably go in her tooltip.

On that note: I haven't played with him yet, but I don't really see the point in Tuck's bonus; it doesn't take effect until the end of the game, and it doesn't really do anything that you can't accomplish by taking a Siege Exo with a full rocket load into a Lion's Den mission.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 10, 2013, 04:07:20 PM
All true.  I'd been on the fence about him for a while anyhow.  So just in for the next one:

* Completely redid Tuck's bonus, since he was kind of useless with his other bonus:
** Tough and resourceful, Tuck's skills at sleuthing lend him an enormous tactical advantage in missions: he can see both his objectives and the location of all terminals and loot without first exploring to them.

* The description of Axis has been rewritten to make it clear how powerful she is:
** A professional scout drone pilot before she became an Exo driver, Axis has the ability to see 4 missions out on the city map instead of the usual 3.  Even more importantly, she has the ability to undertake missions that are 2 away rather than the usual 1, thereby letting her skip missions at will.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Aeson on September 10, 2013, 09:26:12 PM
Tuck's new bonus sounds really good for the regular missions. I'm not sure that I'd say that his old bonus was bad, but I would agree that it wasn't quite up to par with the others when you could kill off roughly 30% of the non-boss robot army in a Lion's Den.

The new description for Axis is much better than the old one, in my opinion.


A question, though - if I have a Fuel Depot mission next to a Lion's Den, a Manufacturing Plant, a Command Center, or an Assassination mission, will completing the Fuel Depot mission count as a success or failure of those missions? I would expect that since those missions are essentially a 'destroy everything over here' you'd get the benefits, but since I've never seen a Fuel Depot next to any of those I've never been able to test it. In other words, will destroying a Lion's Den by completing a Fuel Depot reduce the Bot Army by a similar amount to actually completing the mission, will destroying a Manufacturing Plant via a Fuel Depot reduce Bot levels, will destroying a Command center via Fuel Depot cause the Bots to attack 5 days sooner, and will destroying an Assassination mission via Fuel Depot destroy the boss bots that were the targets of the Assassination mission? Or is the Fuel Depot more or less meant as a way to more rapidly advance through an area?

Edit: One more question - I currently have a 13-range Plasma Cannon with 9 AOE radius on an Epic Siege Exo. However, I'm not capable of safely using the Plasma Cannon because I can only target tiles up to 8 range away because that's where my sight range ends, and I can't blind-fire beyond that with the Plasma Cannon. Is this supposed to be possible, and are there components that can increase the sight range (not sensor range) of my Exos?
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: mrhanman on September 10, 2013, 09:52:19 PM
A question, though - if I have a Fuel Depot mission next to a Lion's Den, a Manufacturing Plant, a Command Center, or an Assassination mission, will completing the Fuel Depot mission count as a success or failure of those missions?

I just completed a Fuel Depot mission, and it looks like the surrounding missions were marked a draw, as if they never existed.  The consequences of success/failure don't seem to have happened.

Edit: One more question - I currently have a 13-range Plasma Cannon with 9 AOE radius on an Epic Siege Exo. However, I'm not capable of safely using the Plasma Cannon because I can only target tiles up to 8 range away because that's where my sight range ends, and I can't blind-fire beyond that with the Plasma Cannon. Is this supposed to be possible, and are there components that can increase the sight range (not sensor range) of my Exos?

There's a Mantis suggestion for this very thing here (http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=12279).
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 11, 2013, 05:19:17 AM
Fuel depots never appear next to robot command missions, and I believe not next to lions dens either. If you see one next to something like that, pleased do let me know.

Fuel depots "crater" the adjacent missions, knocking them empty without giving you any benefits. Besides not having to do those missions, and obviously the direct rewards of the fuel depot mission. That probably needs to go in the fuel depot tooltip.

Regarding the sight range thing, I saw that was also mentioned in another thread by you in greater depth, and I have some neat ideas there that I think you will like. :)
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: keith.lamothe on September 11, 2013, 10:37:01 AM
"All things in the shield slots.  There are other things that affect shielding (generally Auxiliary) stuff that go in other systems, but those would not get the bonus from things that are affecting the shield system specifically.  An auxiliary system is like putting a power cell in your gun in a place where you might have put ammo.  Actually we have that."
Just to make certain I'm understanding this correctly - the bonus applies to anything at all which is located in the appropriate section? So if I put an Auxiliary Reactor with 100 power generation in the Shield section and had a total of +15% to shield systems, the Auxiliary Reactor would effectively output 115 power? Or would the bonus only apply to shield-specific statistics on components in the Shield section? Sorry that I'm kind of beating this into the ground, I just want to make certain I understand how it works properly.
Actually the "+% to shield stats" effect just increases your overall values for the following stats:
- health
- regen
- regen window
- damage resistance

It pays no attention to what slots those effects are coming from, and doesn't do anything for any other stats even if they come from a shield slot.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Misery on September 11, 2013, 11:27:29 AM
Actually the "+% to shield stats" effect just increases your overall values for the following stats:
- health
- regen
- regen window
- damage resistance

It pays no attention to what slots those effects are coming from, and doesn't do anything for any other stats even if they come from a shield slot.

This bit, I found this bit very confusing.   Might warrant more explanation or different representation in-game?   

What I assumed it meant was that it'd take everything from that section that was coming out of it and increase it, regardless of what actual stat was coming out of the items in that bit.  That explains why some things werent increasing in the way I thought they would.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: keith.lamothe on September 11, 2013, 11:35:23 AM
Actually the "+% to shield stats" effect just increases your overall values for the following stats:
- health
- regen
- regen window
- damage resistance

It pays no attention to what slots those effects are coming from, and doesn't do anything for any other stats even if they come from a shield slot.

This bit, I found this bit very confusing.   Might warrant more explanation or different representation in-game?   

What I assumed it meant was that it'd take everything from that section that was coming out of it and increase it, regardless of what actual stat was coming out of the items in that bit.  That explains why some things werent increasing in the way I thought they would.
Yea, and it's not that it can't work the way you were thinking, I just thought it was more interesting this way.  Conceptually, your shields still all come out of your shield generator, wherever it's being piped from, and the idea is that this just magnifies what your shield generator itself is doing.   But concept and intuitive UI oft do not correspond ;)

In a lot of ways, it's much more "+% to shield-related stats", etc.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 11, 2013, 11:37:53 AM
In a lot of ways, it's much more "+% to shield-related stats", etc.

In fact, in the new version, I renamed it to that. :)
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: keith.lamothe on September 11, 2013, 11:42:49 AM
Cool :)


Y'all player-type folks: would you find "+% to everything in a shield slot" more interesting than "+% to shield-related stats"?

One question is whether it would continue to apply the +% to your base health (which is a shield-related stat).  Though I'm guessing that's a mild balance issue right now due to health being so variable by difficulty level.

But would +computer-stats play off your base sensor range, etc?  Currently it does.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Aeson on September 11, 2013, 05:24:40 PM
To me, having either or both of those bonuses available is equally interesting, as long as something makes it clear how the bonus works, for example by having the bonus being "+X% to the Shield Section" for the section-specific bonus and "+X% to shield-related stats" for the Exo-wide bonus.

"One question is whether it would continue to apply the +% to your base health (which is a shield-related stat)."
I would say that, for a section-specific bonus, I would only apply the bonus to components in that section, primarily because I can't think of a base stat that could come from the Propulsion section. I can see Power from the Reactor section, Health from the Shield section, sensors from the Computer section, damage or ammunition or range or splash from the Weapon sections, but I can't think of anything from the Propulsion section, which would make that bonus inherently weaker if section-specific bonuses were applied to base vehicle statistics. For Exo-wide bonuses like +X% to shield-related stats, I'd be fine with it applying to base vehicle values.


Speaking of these bonuses, though:  is the following more or less correct and complete?
 * Shield-related stats: regen, regen window, shields, system protection, damage reduction
 * Weapon-related stats: damage, range, splash radius, ammunition
 * Computer-related stats: hacking points, virus points, sensors
 * Propulsion-related stats: stealth actions, consecutive stealth actions, trap avoidance

If not, what's missing and where does it go, or what should get moved?
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Winge on September 11, 2013, 06:18:11 PM
To me, having either or both of those bonuses available is equally interesting, as long as something makes it clear how the bonus works, for example by having the bonus being "+X% to the Shield Section" for the section-specific bonus and "+X% to shield-related stats" for the Exo-wide bonus.

Beat me to it.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 11, 2013, 07:17:51 PM
Mines also go in the computer.

Otherwise I think you are correct in terms of base functions, yes.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: keith.lamothe on September 11, 2013, 07:51:06 PM
System protection doesn't get boosted by any of them, it's system specific :)
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Aeson on September 12, 2013, 06:44:03 PM
Is it supposed to be possible for 0 bosses to spawn for an Assassination mission? Just wondering, because I can see that being a 'failure of intelligence' sort of thing, but I wasn't sure because none of the other missions that I'm familiar with have instances of non-spawning objectives, and with the way missions used to work an Assassination mission with 0 bosses to kill would have been an instant-win.

Related question: in Assassination missions, if I use a virus to defeat a boss, is that boss supposed to remain enlisted in the robot army after the mission completes? Because I just used the virus option to 'defeat' two ScorpionBots, but as far as I can tell they were not removed from the end-game army (unless BossBot production isn't reported in the bot construction summary).
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 13, 2013, 04:25:31 PM
Is it supposed to be possible for 0 bosses to spawn for an Assassination mission? Just wondering, because I can see that being a 'failure of intelligence' sort of thing, but I wasn't sure because none of the other missions that I'm familiar with have instances of non-spawning objectives, and with the way missions used to work an Assassination mission with 0 bosses to kill would have been an instant-win.

It is possible, if no bosses are currently in the final army battle roster.

Related question: in Assassination missions, if I use a virus to defeat a boss, is that boss supposed to remain enlisted in the robot army after the mission completes? Because I just used the virus option to 'defeat' two ScorpionBots, but as far as I can tell they were not removed from the end-game army (unless BossBot production isn't reported in the bot construction summary).

Virusing bots does indeed not last forever (beyond the mission anyway), so it does not remove them from the endgame battle, as you noted.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Aeson on September 13, 2013, 09:20:35 PM
"It is possible, if no bosses are currently in the final army battle roster."
So I take it that with 4 bosses in the final army order of battle, it's a bug that 0 bosses showed up for the mission. If I can get it to reproduce in the current version, I'll put up a Mantis post about it.

"Virusing bots does indeed not last forever (beyond the mission anyway), so it does not remove them from the endgame battle, as you noted."
Alright, thanks.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: x4000 on September 14, 2013, 06:36:02 AM
"It is possible, if no bosses are currently in the final army battle roster."
So I take it that with 4 bosses in the final army order of battle, it's a bug that 0 bosses showed up for the mission. If I can get it to reproduce in the current version, I'll put up a Mantis post about it.

Yes, that very much sounds like a bug -- super odd!
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Aeson on September 14, 2013, 12:21:46 PM
Mantis is up here:  http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=12427
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: chemical_art on September 14, 2013, 01:37:03 PM
Not sure if possible or already discussed, but having the camera pan in response to click and dragging using the mouse would help me a lot. I naturally "want" it to happen I find.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: chemical_art on September 14, 2013, 01:39:22 PM
In addition, I feel the ninja should have another specific stealth advantage to help distinguish itself from the assault bot.

I was thinking 33% damage for the first turn out of cloak if the cloak is temporarily exhausted, to help it hit and run. Giving the unit a bonus to damage while in stealth would be OK as well.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Tridus on September 14, 2013, 03:16:16 PM
Maybe the ninja should be the only one that can fire from stealth, given how powerful that is.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: chemical_art on September 14, 2013, 03:43:37 PM
Maybe the ninja should be the only one that can fire from stealth, given how powerful that is.

This also seems good. It is very powerful. I had already assumed this was the case already due to the power of such an effect.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: orzelek on September 14, 2013, 03:56:28 PM
Maybe the ninja should be the only one that can fire from stealth, given how powerful that is.

This also seems good. It is very powerful. I had already assumed this was the case already due to the power of such an effect.
It would nerf sniper bot badly. A little less the assault and science one.
But stealth fire is quite necessary for sniper to pick out targets (they are snipers - it's a part of job description ).
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: chemical_art on September 14, 2013, 04:14:22 PM

It would nerf sniper bot badly. A little less the assault and science one.
But stealth fire is quite necessary for sniper to pick out targets (they are snipers - it's a part of job description ).

[caution: I've yet to use snipers]

Snipers, from my understanding, don't inherently use stealth while firing, they just fire from such a range that they cannot be both quickly and accurately be detected. The enemy will react, and eventually will find a sniper, but not quickly because there is little idea where to start.

To more accurately define it then, enemies would never not react to a sniper, they would move in random directions. A truely stealth sniper, for me, makes the thought of a stealth melee fighter (ninja) almost meaningless aside from the trick of virus.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: chemical_art on September 14, 2013, 06:08:39 PM
To further elaborate on my sniper idea:

Snipers work in pairs. One spots, the other attacks.

As such in BD, I would imagine the sniper is a support unit who benefits from a unit with strong sensors.

After being spotted, the sniper would pick off units at extreme distance. With no spotter, the sniper would not be able to take full advantage of its range.

enemy units would be alerted to sniper shots regardless of cloak, but would not know "exactly" where the shot came from, allowing the sniper to relocate between shots.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Tridus on September 14, 2013, 06:18:16 PM
Considering how effective range is in this game, the sniper having good damage long range weapons will be just fine even if it can't pick stuff off from across the map in stealth. Hell, my assault bot with a sufficiently range boosted laser can do it.

Stealth does need to be toned down, the enemies don't do *anything* during it right now. It's basically invincibility.

(I also find it weird how the enemies that are alerted on a rescue mission stop attacking the pods when you go into stealth.)
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Winge on September 14, 2013, 07:35:00 PM
(I also find it weird how the enemies that are alerted on a rescue mission stop attacking the pods when you go into stealth.)

I would argue that that is one of the most important benefits of stealth.  It is already brutally hard to save those kind of targets, as the enemy gets a massive head start on attacking them, and those things have wet toilet paper grade armor.
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: nas1m on September 15, 2013, 01:36:30 PM
Maybe the ninja should be the only one that can fire from stealth, given how powerful that is.
Good idea! I supported the idea of keeping all actions from breaking stealth for all Exos, but let some actions cost extra stealth points in another thread. This seems like another valid alternative to me, though.
I don't think that this would nerf the Sniper too badly, removing its to fire from stealth might even be an incentive for the player to specialize in range and sight upgrades - what would not be too bad imho...
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: Winge on September 15, 2013, 03:50:16 PM
Except, unless I am mistaken, there are no SIGHT upgrades.  And you cannot fire into sensor range (exception:  Shadow Torpedo, which is on the Epic Siege Bot).
Title: Re: Responses to alpha player questions.
Post by: nas1m on September 15, 2013, 04:22:57 PM
Except, unless I am mistaken, there are no SIGHT upgrades.  And you cannot fire into sensor range (exception:  Shadow Torpedo, which is on the Epic Siege Bot).
I meant Sensor Range. Sorry about that ;). Where i was going is that you will (in theory) need both types of upgrades to further increase sniper range at some point - range and Sensor range. Not that Sensor range should be much trouble here considering the snipers significant default one...