100% To collect all collectibles within a game, either indicated within games as a percentage counter or determined by player community consensus. 1-up An object that gives the player an extra life (or try) in games where the player has a limited number of chances to complete a game or level. To complete an arcade (or arcade-style) game without using any additional credits besides the one used to start the playthrough. It's a shame to have it tarnished by cheap shots due to programming.0–9 1CC Abbreviation of one-credit completion or one-coin clear. This is a terrific and difficult game improving with every update. Why are any of facilities turned off at any time for any reason?
#Phoenix point tech tree update#
When choosing soldiers for a mission we carefully check their inventory update their stats etc, perhaps decide we don't want a particular soldier for a mission so uncheck his box only to find it has been re-checked by the programming after reloading the next soldier's ammo and stats or level-ups. And would it really be so bad if I got to choose the next soldier to move? Heaven forbid that I actually get to evacuate that wounded soldier before he bleeds out on the go he reaches the evacuation point before automatically switching to another. I may simply want to re-arrange my equipment for the next go.
I may need to change weapons and get another shot off. Each soldiers' go should be finished when I have decided if it is finished, not programmed to change when all the action points are gone. Let me, myself and I decide when my go is finished. If I miss, that's my error, instead of an enforced programming error. My men shoot at the target I've aimed at instead of switching to a lower hit point target, ( referring mostly to rapid burst). I'd like to see less dishonesty in the programming. The rewards could also scale since a haven with minimal damages would be able to provide more. Like if I go in immediately I should face a stronger force but get help from the still alive defenders, if I get there at the last minute the force is weaker but there are no defenders to help. I'm not sure if it has been changed but apparently the "forces" counter on haven defences doesn't actually reflect the strength of enemy you face? I hate it, it's counter intuitive to the player and wastes what could be a deep interesting mechanic. Like we are literally essential to each faction's endgame plan and you are saying we can't say "Sure but you can't kill those guys, unless they attack you". I should be able to make the faction's get along (at least two of them) or tolerate each other/refrain from war in exchange for PP's continued support. In terms of numbers this may mean instead of +5/-2/-2 it's a +2/0/0.īy the same token when I do save havens let me use some of that goodwill. Making the player take penalties just feels meh, rather global events/situations that only allow you to increase your relationship with one faction (say you can send a scientist to help a faction, or supplies). Same with supposedly private dialogue making other factions dislike you. Like why does saving a random Synedrion haven halfway around the world make NJ like me less? It's stupid.
Remove diplomatic penalties for rescuing havens when the faction's aren't actively at war. Sure you get their location and tech but it's so unsatisfactory. Like you setup these three faction's and then it just because do X to bump Y number. Honestly I'd want to see some actual diplomacy instead of the paper thin version right now.
0 kommentar(er)
