Xcom 2

[robc04]

Maybe you’re playing on “piss easy” but I’ve had at least 5 of those missions.

On Veteran I never was that rushed to evac. Veteran isn’t that difficulty so maybe you are playing on a harder level or maybe aren’t that good.

[Bateau]

I’ve heard this kind of comment before and not trying to troll you but I don’t get it. To me if you take away the RNG it’s a puzzle game - since when do strategy games not have any RNG? I mean there are certainly some, but even the old grognard boardgames have dice rolls.

Maybe I’m not getting what you mean.

Strategy TBS games that are more on the simulation side allow you to stack the deck in your favor through smart play. You can take a cover behind a rock and it will protect you better than a fence. It might even stop a bullet outright, same goes for every other obstacle on the bullet’s path. This works the other way around too, if you get a clear shot at the enemy from a good angle (not necessarily flanking) the cover he’s currently sitting behind won’t matter at all and it won’t magically reduce your chance to hit. The only thing that will matter is the distance, weapon type and stats. You can even spend more APs/TUs for increased accuracy in some of these games. Then there are other things like burst/auto fire determining chance to hit for each individual bullet which greatly increases the chance of hitting the target or at least suppressing it. And that’s just tip of the iceberg, some games allow you to turn things in your favor further by picking the correct time of day to launch a mission, etc.

In new X-com on the other hand you actively work against RNG because the game doesn’t have any real systems other than dice rolls. It doesn’t matter if you’re hiding behind a car or a house. A full shield is -40 and a half shield is -20. You can’t spend more AP to increase accuracy. The best thing you can do is get as close as you can to minimize the distance penalty and hope for the best. If your shot misses it disappears into thin air, it’s not going to hit the enemy that was standing next to your target, something that could’ve happened in JA2 for example. The main goal of the game is to minimize the effects of dice rolls which is really obvious if you watch any video where people play on higher difficulties. Observe how they rely on abilities that have a guaranteed chance to do something and how contingencies are set up to get more rolls versus each target.

[PantsVZ]

What difficulty are you playing on?

I just finished the game on Veteran – which, to be fair, isn’t anywhere near the hardest – and only encountered one mission where I was running at least half the time to make the evac. I think some of it has to do with the random nature of the maps, and some may be that you have fewer turns on higher levels of difficulty.

I was playing Veteran too so I’m sure it’s down to the most extreme of random layouts. I literally had maps where I could only run there in time to evac. And plenty where I didn’t make it.

[Murbella]

The game kind of feels more like hard west than xcom now. I’m not sure i like this.

For those who have not played hard west, the game has no overwatch, so both you and the enemy run right up to enemies and shoot them in the face on your turn. This same thing happens in xcom2 constantly. Due to how random your chance of hitting is even at good angles, i often end up running right up to the enemy to have a good chance to hit. Everything else is 50/50.

Overwatch is extremely hit and miss, mostly miss. I HATE catching enemies out in the open while my people are in a good ambush spot and having them all miss. I wish i could plan shots that all go off at the same time so i can have them act like they aren’t a bunch of drunken rednecks.

P.S. overwatch is (or was before xcom 2’s release) a unique strategy game/rpg/whatever. While i don’t really like the influence in xcom2, i do like hard west and feel it is worth buying for fans of the genre (as long as you are aware of the gameplay difference).

[Murbella]

I’ve heard this kind of comment before and not trying to troll you but I don’t get it. To me if you take away the RNG it’s a puzzle game - since when do strategy games not have any RNG? I mean there are certainly some, but even the old grognard boardgames have dice rolls.

Maybe I’m not getting what you mean.

A little bug I ran into today - My grenade cursor was completely covering some baddies but for some reason they weren’t glowing red, I thought it might just be a graphical bug but after I launched it nothing happend. I heard the explosion but neither their cover nor they took any damage and graphically I saw no explosion. I guess the building was glitchy or something.

It is about the illusion of realism. Do I feel like when I take action X the game reacts how I would view realistically? For example, if you play a fps and every 3rd shot goes straight up in the air, that would bother most players because they would feel the game is not reacting reasonably realistic.

Obviously in a game with any sort of rpg elements, there is going to be some random chance because it is trying to simulate those rpg stats. However in my opinion, unlike the old xcoms, firaxis xcoms step squarely over the line in to board game’y territory. That you’re missing or hitting the enemy not because of your actions but because a roll of the dice that is only marginally affected by your actions is simply thrust in the player’s face too much to ignore.

I do not feel like I am being rewarded for making smart choices in combat. I feel like i’m being rewarded for getting lucky or minimizing luck by running up the enemy’s face and firing (a stupid tactic that should not be encouraged in xcom). I feel like this is one of the reason that I, and others, use swords rangers so much. I feel like the most important thing in any fight BY FAR is luck.

[ShivaX]

You think there wasn’t a RNG in the old XComs? Because I’ve got news for you…

[Strollen]

I am more than a little frustrated with this game. I’m now on my 3rd campaign. The first restart, is normal for me once I pick up tips I want to restart.
But the second one I couldn’t seem to make contact with more my initial 3 countries, I got a +1 com mission so I should have had 4. And even after I built resistance communication, I couldn’t seem to make contact with other regions. I played the tactical game fine losing only 2 guys (with a restart during a wipeout).

On the positive side I like the enhancements to the game,and the AI seems better.

[Murbella]

You think there wasn’t a RNG in the old XComs? Because I’ve got news for you…

It isn’t about whether there were or there wasn’t, it is about how much you FEEL they control combat.

Being a huge fan of rpgs, I play tons of games that have RPG elements in them, but firaxis xcom games are one of the few ones where I feel they got the mix wrong between rewarding strategy and luck. You see a heavy focus on luck in many roguelike games too, but there players expect and even love it.

[TurinTur]

I’ve heard this kind of comment before and not trying to troll you but I don’t get it. To me if you take away the RNG it’s a puzzle game - since when do strategy games not have any RNG? I mean there are certainly some, but even the old grognard boardgames have dice rolls.

The old grognard board game called chess is a puzzle game, not a strategy game, it seems.

[Hotfreak]

Ran through on Veteran and was only challenged once to make the evac zone. Running through on Commander now and haven’t encountered that situation. I have to make some tough decisions sometimes, and ones that put me at risk, but I still have time for efficient tactics. And running up right next to someone to shoot them is rarely the right decision to make.

Sounds like some early game blues, where things are much more difficult because your soldiers are much weaker, with really low aim.

As far as I’m concerned this is an extremely fun, addictive game. The tactical portion is no more abstracted than the first Firaxis offering, but it certainly is abstracted. If that’s not your thing, I respect that. It’s getting kind of tiring, however, reading all about the inadequacies here, and very few of the successes, of what, to me, is a really great game. Performance issues aside, this is the sort of product (challenging, interesting, strategic, tactical, attractive, addictive, well-produced and so mod-friendly as to almost be open source) that I want to see more of.

[KiloOhm]

The old grognard board game called chess is a puzzle game, not a strategy game, it seems.

You’re right in that a pure strategy game has 0 luck but for entertainment value and some amount of realism, RNG is needed.

[AntediluvianArk]

Ran through on Veteran and was only challenged once to make the evac zone. Running through on Commander now and haven’t encountered that situation. I have to make some tough decisions sometimes, and ones that put me at risk, but I still have time for efficient tactics. And running up right next to someone to shoot them is rarely the right decision to make.

Sounds like some early game blues, where things are much more difficult because your soldiers are much weaker, with really low aim.

As far as I’m concerned this is an extremely fun, addictive game. The tactical portion is no more abstracted than the first Firaxis offering, but it certainly is abstracted. If that’s not your thing, I respect that. It’s getting kind of tiring, however, reading all about the inadequacies here, and very few of the successes, of what, to me, is a really great game. Performance issues aside, this is the sort of product (challenging, interesting, strategic, tactical, attractive, addictive, well-produced and so mod-friendly as to almost be open source) that I want to see more of.

+1

Having a great time myself. The RNG aspects that people are complaining about are what heighten the tension in the missions. This isn’t much different than EU except the AI is better and overwatch turtling isn’t as effective.

-Todd

[KiloOhm]

Ran through on Veteran and was only challenged once to make the evac zone. Running through on Commander now and haven’t encountered that situation. I have to make some tough decisions sometimes, and ones that put me at risk, but I still have time for efficient tactics. And running up right next to someone to shoot them is rarely the right decision to make.

I was struggling to make it to the evac zones on commander for the first 3rd of the game. Now that I am ahead of the power curve and have Mimic beacons, I’m fine. Early on you really get punished for making a mistake. Later on you just bring a few mimic beacons so if you need to run forward and accidentally put yourself in a bad situation you just pop a mimic. It’s a strange mechanic, it’s almost like the designers recognized that their timers suck and they wanted to give you an out.

[CF_Kane]

So, about that ending…

Ending Spoilers

Are they just teasing us, or will we see a return to Terror from the Deep?

[Wolff]

+1

Having a great time myself. The RNG aspects that people are complaining about are what heighten the tension in the missions. This isn’t much different than EU except the AI is better and overwatch turtling isn’t as effective.

-Todd

Same for me, I’ve pretty much committed to legendary ironman now that there is a quick start mod (skip getecrasher) and I’ve beaten the other difficulties. It’s a knife edge every mission and I find myself re-evaluating both the tactical and strategic level every restart.

[KiloOhm]

Strategy TBS games that are more on the simulation side allow you to stack the deck in your favor through smart play. You can take a cover behind a rock and it will protect you better than a fence. It might even stop a bullet outright, same goes for every other obstacle on the bullet’s path. This works the other way around too, if you get a clear shot at the enemy from a good angle (not necessarily flanking) the cover he’s currently sitting behind won’t matter at all and it won’t magically reduce your chance to hit. The only thing that will matter is the distance, weapon type and stats. You can even spend more APs/TUs for increased accuracy in some of these games. Then there are other things like burst/auto fire determining chance to hit for each individual bullet which greatly increases the chance of hitting the target or at least suppressing it. And that’s just tip of the iceberg, some games allow you to turn things in your favor further by picking the correct time of day to launch a mission, etc.

In new X-com on the other hand you actively work against RNG because the game doesn’t have any real systems other than dice rolls. It doesn’t matter if you’re hiding behind a car or a house. A full shield is -40 and a half shield is -20. You can’t spend more AP to increase accuracy. The best thing you can do is get as close as you can to minimize the distance penalty and hope for the best. If your shot misses it disappears into thin air, it’s not going to hit the enemy that was standing next to your target, something that could’ve happened in JA2 for example. The main goal of the game is to minimize the effects of dice rolls which is really obvious if you watch any video where people play on higher difficulties. Observe how they rely on abilities that have a guaranteed chance to do something and how contingencies are set up to get more rolls versus each target.

I think what you’re really arguing is then that XCOM2 2 needs more realism / simulation but I don’t equate that with strategy. Sure I love a good simulation in my strategy games but that doesn’t make it any more strategic, maybe more interesting.

Edit and I do stack the deck in my favor, games like XCOM have a lot in common with rogue-likes where what you’re really doing is minimizing the RNG (a.k.a. stacking the deck in your favor). Get a flank to increase your hit chance, blow the aliens cover, etc…

[Inverarity]

My issues with the first game were more about the strategy layer and a lack of any real strategy: it was not uncommon to run out of things to research. Satellites were always the proper strategy early on. The few choices (skip laser, for example) were really just choices, and didn’t cause the game to play out any differently.

Is it better this time around? I’m still very early on in the game and it feels more busy with choices, but that doesn’t always conflate with strategy.

[easytarget]

So, about that ending…

It does appear to hint in that direction doesn’t it. ;)

[KiloOhm]

Man I just had a shitty bug (C/I). Game crashed going back from a mission. I had my best specialist die on that mission and had several badly wounded guys. When I reloaded it my specialist was still dead but none of my guys ended up wounded but they kept their promotions. I also received no credit for the mission (it’s still there).

Now I get to replay it - great…

[TurinTur]

So, about that ending…

Ending Spoilers

Are they just teasing us, or will we see a return to Terror from the Deep?

It could be a future expansion, with the main new feature of

spoiler

underwater missions