EPTXCOM: Enemy Unknown - Page 41
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Rannasha
Netherlands2398 Posts
| ||
Spazer
Canada8033 Posts
On October 18 2012 00:01 EchOne wrote: Well they did include one (bad) rocket accuracy mechanic that I noticed, which is the possibility of a critical fail. Sometimes your rocket just goes in completely the wrong direction and the game tells you the aiming mechanism slipped or some bullshit. Oh yeah lol, I got that once. It was a little amusing just how far off target the rocket was. But still, the fact your heavy either has pinpoint accuracy or no accuracy to speak of at all is rather ludicrous. On October 17 2012 23:20 TigerKarl wrote: Most frustrating game i've ever played. I actually enjoyed the global strategy part a lot, but the missions are stupid. I guess it's a simple fact the fights are based on percentages and i can't argue against that design decision, but the hit numbers often feel completely random (they hardly have anything to do with what is being displayed by the graphics) and it's not unusual that hit percentages seem to have nothing to do with real occuring things (like shoting twice in a row with 92% and double missing?) I know my statistics and probabilities, but the fights are way too frustrating. If you click on the "More" button when aiming, it will break down hit% modifiers for you. As for the hit% not being represented by the graphics, I can attest to the fact that the concept of cover in the game can be pretty deceptive. There are only four directions in which you can take cover, but there are a myriad of directions for you to be shot from. I don't know exactly when the game decides that you are being flanked (thus negating your "cover" and adding a hit% bonus), but a lot of the time, it seems like the flank angle is really wide. I've basically learned to distrust any cover that isn't directly in line with enemy forces. On October 17 2012 21:56 Coriolis wrote: Ugh how do I beat the first terror mission on classic? I can make it there without getting messed up, but once I get there I either get fucked by RNG or wrecked by massive amounts of zombies due to crysalids. I can kill the crysalids pretty fast but then I get flanked by floaters....help? Despite what the game would have you believe, civilians are disposable. Yes, it'll worsen your mission rating, but as long as you clear the mission and have negligible losses, it'll be fine. Your soldiers are faaar more valuable than the lives of a couple civilians. In fact, an acceptable strategy in the original game was to kill civilians if you encountered chrysalids. After all, they can't turn civilians into zombies if they're already dead... On a slightly related note, does anyone know if using explosives on chrysalid victims (specifically, when they have been hit and killed, but have not yet stood up as a zombie) prevents them from turning into zombies? I've done it on a couple occasions, but I'm still not sure if it's actually doing anything. | ||
|
Ideas
United States8168 Posts
On October 18 2012 01:07 Spazer wrote: Oh yeah lol, I got that once. It was a little amusing just how far off target the rocket was. But still, the fact your heavy either has pinpoint accuracy or no accuracy to speak of at all is rather ludicrous. If you click on the "More" button when aiming, it will break down hit% modifiers for you. As for the hit% not being represented by the graphics, I can attest to the fact that the concept of cover in the game can be pretty deceptive. There are only four directions in which you can take cover, but there are a myriad of directions for you to be shot from. I don't know exactly when the game decides that you are being flanked (thus negating your "cover" and adding a hit% bonus), but a lot of the time, it seems like the flank angle is really wide. I've basically learned to distrust any cover that isn't directly in line with enemy forces. Despite what the game would have you believe, civilians are disposable. Yes, it'll worsen your mission rating, but as long as you clear the mission and have negligible losses, it'll be fine. Your soldiers are faaar more valuable than the lives of a couple civilians. In fact, an acceptable strategy in the original game was to kill civilians if you encountered chrysalids. After all, they can't turn civilians into zombies if they're already dead... On a slightly related note, does anyone know if using explosives on chrysalid victims (specifically, when they have been hit and killed, but have not yet stood up as a zombie) prevents them from turning into zombies? I've done in on a couple occasions, but I'm still not sure if it's actually doing anything. I think one time i threw a grenade at a chrysalid that was standing on a dead soldier he just killed and the soldier never re-animated. | ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
On October 17 2012 19:56 DaCruise wrote: I started on classic and while the early game was challenging I am now at the point where I have a full squad of colonels and nothing really hurts me if I dont take any riscs. Because of that I decided to start over on impossible ironman. I just dont wanna finish the game feeling completely OP as it leaves an empty feeling behind. Btw does anyone know how to take a screenshot in this game? Prolly just me thats stupid but I would still like to know how. Maybe because I'm starting after the game has developed a reputation but even though I haven't (yet, only like an hour in) hit any real crises or challenges it feels hard and suspenseful all the way through...like I feel like although I'm not taking casualties if I had acted slightly more carelessly I could have lost a whole squad, and if I do rush out I might hit something that may just wreck me. It's interesting because few games can ever really pull it off- either you have complete control over everything or you feel like you're helpless because you ARE helpless. If I get further in and I'm still not running into hardships I may bump up the difficulty/start again, idk. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On October 18 2012 02:45 DystopiaX wrote: Maybe because I'm starting after the game has developed a reputation but even though I haven't (yet, only like an hour in) hit any real crises or challenges it feels hard and suspenseful all the way through...like I feel like although I'm not taking casualties if I had acted slightly more carelessly I could have lost a whole squad, and if I do rush out I might hit something that may just wreck me. It's interesting because few games can ever really pull it off- either you have complete control over everything or you feel like you're helpless because you ARE helpless. If I get further in and I'm still not running into hardships I may bump up the difficulty/start again, idk. What difficulty are you playing on? I first played on normal and breezed through. Then I tried classic and got my ass stomped. The difficulty changes a LOT between the two. | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
I've even had a few times where a unit would be facing the OPPOSITE direction of the target, and still register a hit. Best programming. | ||
|
ChrisXIV
Austria3553 Posts
On October 18 2012 02:50 Ferrose wrote: One thing I don't understand about the "cover" in the game is often times soldiers are depicted just straight up shooting people through walls, rocks, etc. It's especially hilarious with squad sight snipers. I've even had a few times where a unit would be facing the OPPOSITE direction of the target, and still register a hit. Best programming. I love the shots that exit in a 90 degree angle from the barrel. Looks amazing. :D I have no idea how you're supposed to finish the terrorist missions with an excellent rating. You can't even rush that fast, before like half of the civilians drop, I know I've tried. Completely luck-dependent, which doesn't sit right with me. | ||
|
Spazer
Canada8033 Posts
On October 18 2012 02:50 Ferrose wrote: One thing I don't understand about the "cover" in the game is often times soldiers are depicted just straight up shooting people through walls, rocks, etc. It's especially hilarious with squad sight snipers. I've even had a few times where a unit would be facing the OPPOSITE direction of the target, and still register a hit. Best programming. The game is buggy as hell. For whatever reason, the collision detection of the terrain is just broken at times. Thus, you get shit like guns phasing through walls and various items (battle scanners, enemies, etc.) falling through the floor. This also explains why one of my squad members was able to see and shoot a Muton through a solid rock face in the alien base. I've seen the "aim in one direction, hit a guy in another direction" stuff happen, but I have no idea what would even cause something like this. On October 18 2012 03:08 ChrisXIV wrote: I love the shots that exit in a 90 degree angle from the barrel. Looks amazing. :D I have no idea how you're supposed to finish the terrorist missions with an excellent rating. You can't even rush that fast, before like half of the civilians drop, I know I've tried. Completely luck-dependent, which doesn't sit right with me. Yeah... I don't even try to get excellent ratings on terror missions. I can't be arsed to attempt getting that particular achievement. | ||
|
seRapH
United States9803 Posts
Classic/Impossible it'd be a bitch tho x.x | ||
|
ChrisXIV
Austria3553 Posts
On October 18 2012 03:22 seRapH wrote: Undiscovered aliens don't kill civilians in normal difficulty, right? Should be fairly siimple there. Classic/Impossible it'd be a bitch tho x.x I'm playing on normal and they do. I got excellent once, when for some reason only 3 civilians died. But as said, complete luck. ^^ | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
| ||
|
HoboJoe20
Canada63 Posts
On October 18 2012 03:58 ZeaL. wrote: On normal you can get excellent if the aliens start near you and you draw their aggro. Can't see how its possible on higher difficulty though Pure luck scores me the achievement on Classic when I was able to clear the level of Cryssalids on turn 2, and then the floaters trickled through the rest of my overwatch troops. | ||
|
Ssin
United States88 Posts
On October 18 2012 04:03 HoboJoe20 wrote: Pure luck scores me the achievement on Classic when I was able to clear the level of Cryssalids on turn 2, and then the floaters trickled through the rest of my overwatch troops. That is pretty much the only way I have been able to do it. Blind luck. Also the line of sight bugs are very frustrating. In addition to the *I can shoot through walls!* bugs for both humans and aliens, if you ever spot an alien through the level, which seems to happen more often (but not necessarily all the time) if you have soldiers on multiple levels of a map, the aliens will spawn in the middle of your troops and go on a rampage. Hope they figure that one out and fix it soon. | ||
|
mastergriggy
United States1312 Posts
| ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On the subject of gripes about percentages, I hate how the big aliens are designed in this game. I'm pretty sure that these things were easier to hit in the earlier XCOMs, or at the very least, in Apocalypse. There was a tradeoff between them being easier to hit but taking more hits to go down. Sectopods must have really tiny weak spots in this game because it's weird to have hit percentages to go down against them. Then there are the supposedly frail ethereals who have more hitpoints than mutons, even the advanced ones. On October 18 2012 04:22 mastergriggy wrote: Can someone give me a good overview of the game and if they liked it or not? I had a friend who said it was a 9.75/10, but I haven't really seen a lot of feedback about it from any other of my friends. I want to get it (as it's really my style of game), but I am not sure. I'd give it a 7/10 right now. It's a prime example of a modern retake on a classic. They removed some of the unfairness and bad game design elements of the earlier games (UFO Defense, TFTD, Apocalypse) but also removed some of the depth, subtleties and charm of the original games. It's still fun but bland compared to the originals. Sadly, because it was designed with consoles in mind, the one area of the game where I expect modern PC games to blow 90s games out of the water (the UI), it didn't. The interface is almost as clunky as UFO Defense's interface, the menus are just as bad and the game lacks a well organized UFOPaedia. I like the different bonuses that different countries and continents give this time around. The foundry, where you can upgrade certain equipment, is a good idea but most of the bonuses weren't strong enough for how much elerium/alloys/credits they cost. The game doesn't use TUs anymore, which restricts your strategy, but let the developers code smarter AI for the aliens. | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
On October 18 2012 04:22 mastergriggy wrote: Can someone give me a good overview of the game and if they liked it or not? I had a friend who said it was a 9.75/10, but I haven't really seen a lot of feedback about it from any other of my friends. I want to get it (as it's really my style of game), but I am not sure. it's a really fun tactical tbs game with two tiers of progression (research and soldiers). If you play on classic/ironman you'll get your money's worth out of it, i recommend it. | ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On October 18 2012 04:25 andrewlt wrote:On the subject of gripes about percentages, I hate how the big aliens are designed in this game. I'm pretty sure that these things were easier to hit in the earlier XCOMs, or at the very least, in Apocalypse. There was a tradeoff between them being easier to hit but taking more hits to go down. Sectopods must have really tiny weak spots in this game because it's weird to have hit percentages to go down against them. Then there are the supposedly frail ethereals who have more hitpoints than mutons, even the advanced ones. My assumption was that Sectopods are well-armored and few weak spots, which made it harder to damage them. As for Ethereals, I assume they're high hit points are a byproduct of their psionic abilities providing a shield, which is supported by them actually having an ability that reflects shots taken at them. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On October 18 2012 05:00 XaI)CyRiC wrote: My assumption was that Sectopods are well-armored and few weak spots, which made it harder to damage them. As for Ethereals, I assume they're high hit points are a byproduct of their psionic abilities providing a shield, which is supported by them actually having an ability that reflects shots taken at them. Yeah, that was my assumption, too, even though they didn't make any unique animations to support it. I researched Ethereal autopsy but the psionic shield ability is missing when I browse their abilities. | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
Tactical: 1. There were definitely a lot of frustrating points where you'd get screwed by percentages (i.e. point blank misses by your troops, and critical hits by aliens shooting from odd angles and large distances), but the game consistently rewards caution while punishing recklessness. I don't mind a little randomness as I think it is more realistic and more challenging when things aren't completely predictable, which is suitable to combat. 2. I miss the TU system, but the two action system isn't terrible. However, I don't think it makes any sense that it takes a special ability for troops to choose to shoot first and then move (which only one class gets, and what is supposed to be the slowest one at that), and that aliens are never able to do so. At the same time, I think the decision to make it so that sniper rifles can only be fired without any prior action being taken (short of Double Tap) was a good idea to follow the concept of a sniper being all about positioning. 3. I dislike the "pack" system for the aliens. It makes it so you never want to split up your troops, and really limits how the aliens can attack you. Battles would be so much more dynamic if you had to worry about a single alien hiding around a corner or in a sniper position, and could be shot at by an alien you couldn't see due to lack of vision. The aliens are way too obvious, which takes away from the suspenseful atmosphere and the advantage they should generally have by being the first to arrive at the battleground. I also believe this contributes significantly to why snipers are over-powered in the game, as there is little risk of them being flanked or attacked on their own since you almost always have plenty of notice of any new aliens showing up. 4. I don't like how the aliens don't appear to do much of anything before you see them, except occasionally in terror missions when you hear them killing civilians. I'm not too sure exactly what they do prior to encounters, but it doesn't seem like the aliens wander around and set up ambushes like they did in the original. Like others have said, it would make more sense for the aliens to be moving around and trying to assume tactical positions while you're looking for them, whether it's setting up behind cover or flanking you. 5. I'm a bit torn on the scope of the missions in terms of size of maps and troop count. While I agree that the originals had missions that sometimes lasted way too long due to the size of the maps, the space allowed for some meaningful troop maneuvering. Capping the troop count at 6 per mission also really limits what you can do tactically, splitting up your troops is too risky. Plus, it doesn't make sense that a group of six should be able to take down entire alien bases filled with aliens who are supposed to have vastly superior technology. This also contributes to snipers being overpowered because the maps are usually small enough that you don't really have to worry about aliens sneaking up behind you and taking out your snipers. 6. The special abilities are a nice touch, and really add some specialization to your troops. The fact that there are two options at most ranks also allows for some limited customization even among troops who are the same class. It'd be nice if the troops varied in their statistics more to add even more personality to them, but it makes sense to not have "useless" troops when you're capped at 6 per mission. 7. I don't like the lack of inventory options during the missions apart from switching between two weapons. It makes no sense that troops wouldn't be able to pick up items from fallen comrades, or even fallen aliens if they had researched enough to use them. With the exploding weapon mechanic, I don't think there's any concern that it'd make things too easy for players, as they'd only be able to get intact weapons from aliens who are stunned. Strategic: 1. The strategic part of the game definitely feels a bit too forced and simplified, as I agree with a prior post stating that everything from early-to-mid game is about getting the maximum number of satellites up as soon as possible, while everything after can be done at leisure once you get solid income/satellite coverage going. I don't think anyone is happy with only viable opening build order. 2. 2. I don't like that it seems like a huge majority of missions are abductions, which are guaranteed to raise panic in two countries every time. There need to be a greater variety of missions, particularly early on, that allow you to reduce panic, or at least not result in the guaranteed increase of panic somewhere. If they're going to maintain this system, then they need to allow players to deploy multiple sky rangers to multiple locations to at least provide players with an alternative means of managing panic other than satellites. 3. I'm really interested in trying out some of the mods that allow you to shoot down abductor and terror ships, as it may allow for more variation in strategy if done correctly. Right now, satellites are the only viable way of managing panic since you're constantly stuck with abduction missions where you have to let two of three countries go unprotected. By allowing players the alternative of shooting the UFO's down, it might be possible to focus on interceptors early on as an alternative to satellites. This would work even better if players were able to launch multiple interceptors at a time, which could be balanced by either making it harder to shoot down UFO's (especially bigger ones like terror ships) or making interceptors more costly to produce (build time, cost, research to allow them to handle larger ships, etc.). It also makes sense that the XCOM organization would be able to have more troops, sky rangers and interceptors/firestorms as they become a global organization with full funding. 4. I miss having multiple bases and base defense missions. I know that they took them about because they felt base defense missions made the game imbalanced/too hard, but I don't see why they couldn't have been implemented in a way to make them work. I'm guessing that the troop limit issue may have been a major obstacle, as defending an entire base with a max of 6 troops may have been too difficult. Otherwise, I don't see why players wouldn't be able to handle defending one base (let alone 2 or 3, if that had been allowed) as long as the aliens didn't start attacking bases too early. 5. I think they need to balance out the country bonuses, particularly South America. Right now, it's not viable at all as a starting base and is only useful when you save up a bunch of autopsies/interrogations and plow through them all at once after taking both countries. Conclusion: Fun game, but with the potential for so much more. Hopefully, they will either make significant patches to include a lot of these features (or at least allow players to turn them on/off) or allow and support extensive modding by the public. Apart from the above, I agree with those are disappointed by the game being so clearly catered to consoles and being limited in so many ways UI-wise as a result. Hopefully, that can be patched or modded later as well. I'm eager to start a Classic/Ironman game now to get the "real" experience now that I've gotten my feet wet. | ||
|
shabby
Norway6402 Posts
| ||
| ||
