|
On February 09 2016 01:47 Spazer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2016 01:27 Taf the Ghost wrote:
But that's also before we deal with an issue that probably can't be checked outside of the actual code: what definition of "random" is being used in the RNG? Getting a non-streaky RNG is a classic problem with a lot of games. Real randomness exhibits streaks. This is expected, and is part of why gambler's fallacy and gambler's ruin exists. So I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. A non-streaky RNG implies pseudo-randomness, which we have already concluded that XCOM doesn't use. It's a plain old seeded RNG.
The RNG is the one thing I heavily dislike about XCOM. I thought about a pretty simple fix for this, but modding the original XCOM (EU/EW, that is) was a bit too much of a hassle with the HEX editing and all (I did look into it but seemed to take a ton of time).
However, once I'll get XCOM 2 I'd imagine it should be quite easy since you should be able to just write / edit stuff in a high level language.
Anyways, the change I want to make is as follows:
"Hit"-percentage is used as a damage multiplier, not as an actual "chance to hit".
Examples:
- 100% to hit, 4-6 damage
- old: 4-6 damage
- new: 4-6 damage
- 80% to hit, 4-6 damage
- old: 80% to do 4-6 damage, 20% to do 0.
- new: 3.2-4.8 damage
- 20% to hit, 4-6 damage
- old: 20% to do 4-6 damage, 80% to do 0.
- new: 0.8-1.2 damage (yeah, taking a 20% shot sucks)
- 0% to hit, 4-6 damage
So basically, take out the frustrations of missing a high % shot and take out the praying at taking a low % shot. Instead, there is a guaranteed minimum amount of damage you will do, which is lower if you are in a worse position (= lower %). Critical damage is still added as per usual on top of the damage rolled.
So all this basically does is to set the expected value of a shot (% times damage) as the actual damage (still with min - max values though).
I know this goes against XCOM standards of mass RNG (yes, the effects of which can be minimized but not mitigated), but other than that, what do you guys think? I don't think it actually buffs or nerfs stuff, since I only set the expected value as the damage value, rather than an RNG based value which should converge to the same value on average (when the shot was taken with different seeds enough times).
At least with this system, if I have 2 guys with say 6-8 damage each take a 50% shot against a 6 HP alien I know he dies. I can actually make meaningful decisions. If I want to gamble I can still take a shot at an 8 HP alien, but it's totally on me if it fails since I only do a guaranteed 6 dmg as each soldier does 0.5 * 6 = 3 damage at MINIMUM. Sure there's the possibility of dealing 4 damage and/or crit, but that's pure gamble.
It is in entirely possibly that this will break something I have totally overlooked, however I think it's fairly solid. Thoughts?
|
On February 09 2016 03:39 dani` wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2016 01:47 Spazer wrote:On February 09 2016 01:27 Taf the Ghost wrote:
But that's also before we deal with an issue that probably can't be checked outside of the actual code: what definition of "random" is being used in the RNG? Getting a non-streaky RNG is a classic problem with a lot of games. Real randomness exhibits streaks. This is expected, and is part of why gambler's fallacy and gambler's ruin exists. So I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. A non-streaky RNG implies pseudo-randomness, which we have already concluded that XCOM doesn't use. It's a plain old seeded RNG. The RNG is the one thing I heavily dislike about XCOM. I thought about a pretty simple fix for this, but modding the original XCOM (EU/EW, that is) was a bit too much of a hassle with the HEX editing and all (I did look into it but seemed to take a ton of time). However, once I'll get XCOM 2 I'd imagine it should be quite easy since you should be able to just write / edit stuff in a high level language. Anyways, the change I want to make is as follows: "Hit"-percentage is used as a damage multiplier, not as an actual "chance to hit". Examples: - 100% to hit, 4-6 damage
- old: 4-6 damage
- new: 4-6 damage
- 80% to hit, 4-6 damage
- old: 80% to do 4-6 damage, 20% to do 0.
- new: 3.2-4.8 damage
- 20% to hit, 4-6 damage
- old: 20% to do 4-6 damage, 80% to do 0.
- new: 0.8-1.2 damage (yeah, taking a 20% shot sucks)
- 0% to hit, 4-6 damage
So basically, take out the frustrations of missing a high % shot and take out the praying at taking a low % shot. Instead, there is a guaranteed minimum amount of damage you will do, which is lower if you are in a worse position (= lower %). Critical damage is still added as per usual on top of the damage rolled. So all this basically does is to set the expected value of a shot (% times damage) as the actual damage (still with min - max values though). I know this goes against XCOM standards of mass RNG (yes, the effects of which can be minimized but not mitigated), but other than that, what do you guys think? I don't think it actually buffs or nerfs stuff, since I only set the expected value as the damage value, rather than an RNG based value which should converge to the same value on average (when the shot was taken with different seeds enough times). At least with this system, if I have 2 guys with say 6-8 damage each take a 50% shot against a 6 HP alien I know he dies. I can actually make meaningful decisions. If I want to gamble I can still take a shot at an 8 HP alien, but it's totally on me if it fails since I only do a guaranteed 6 dmg as each soldier does 0.5 * 6 = 3 damage at MINIMUM. Sure there's the possibility of dealing 4 damage and/or crit, but that's pure gamble. It is in entirely possibly that this will break something I have totally overlooked, however I think it's fairly solid. Thoughts?
Nah, that would make the game too predictable.
They should just use the directional system from the original X-Com, where the percentage indicated how close to the actual firing angle your actual shot would end up. That meant that distance mattered: You could hit a 60% shot at point blank, because even a 20% or so deviation still ended up in the right tile. The closer you were to the target, the easier it was to hit. On the other hand a 99% chance at long distance was still a possible miss, since even a 1% deviation could end up in a different tile. Also, friendly fire.
I don't understand why they switched to the raw cover system they are using now. Probably because it's easier to understand, but on the other hand it feels much more random since there are less factors affecting the actual hit chance.
|
Hi guys, I have some questions about how this game is supposed to be played. BUT: I want you to tell me any specifics, since for the first timie in years I bought a game because I want to learn it (almost) purely on my own:
So here are some of my situation, it would be great if you basically only tell me if they occur because this is how it is supposed to be, or because I suck at this game (but plz dont tell me the solution directly, unless it is something absolutely nonbvious). For reference, I'm playing on the 2nd lowest difficutlty.
1. How would you subjectively rate the difficulty compared to, say, the sc2 singeplayer campaign? (sc2 on second lowest difficutly was not much different than watching a movie to me)
2 I'm at a point now where I encounter on each mission groups of 2 of those jelly-shooting/grenade-throwing/melee-instakilling/8hp mobs, + one more that is even worse. They even have armor, my regular weapons deal like 4 hp damage them at best, so basically even if I hit all my shots, one of them is bound to get into melee range where he (it?) usually instagibs one of my soldiers. Design, or my fault?
3. Are these "rescue 6 civilians" type of missions really so much tougher to beat than the other kinds of mission?
4. I'm stuck now with my high ranks soldiers that I have from the first missions. Leveling new ones is almost impossible now, as they deal even less damage (see above)?
5. I got tons of what I thought would be more rare minerals etc. but I'm lacking basic supplies for most stuff. Wrong priorities, I guess?
6. In the same manner, the game tells me I'm short on scientist, when I basically had 2 right from the start thanks to some mission where I received one. On the other hand, engineers look so much more useful to me, and it took me ages to buy a second one, because, guess what, the cost a lot of supplies (see 5)? A case of game is hard, or of bad dice rolls?
Apologies if some terms arent the correct ones; I'm playing the german version.
|
Do the enemies also get that? You're gonna end up with your whole team wounded after every mission if they all take chip damage like that.
|
The wounding system is one of the first things to be overhauled, someone on reddit peeked into the code and the variance between what is lightly/wounded/gravely is insanely massive. The random factor in if a wound is concidered gravely or not is so high that the damage your soldiers actually take in a mission is more or less meaningless when it comes to judging if the guy is gonna be out of action for a week or a month.
Mafe, I'll give your questions a go
1) I played SC2 on hardest possible and it was much easier than commander level XCOM2. I have no experience of lower level difficulties in either game so I can't give more insight on that.
2) You should focus on upgrading your weapons and armor faster. Also find out how to counter different types of aliens.
3) They can be really tough, best advice I have is to ignore the civilians, the mission ends when you kill all aliens. Think of it like a different type of turn timer. You're on a clock, find and kill those aliens. Battle scanners have immense value on those missions.
4) Take 1 lower level soldier with your regular crew to get them up a bit. You can also acquire non-rookie level soldiers from the map.
5) Supplies run the show with intel, you can't buy and get all at once, you have to prioritize.
6) Both are useful. I'd favor engineers a bit more as they have more functions.
|
On February 09 2016 03:39 dani` wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2016 01:47 Spazer wrote:On February 09 2016 01:27 Taf the Ghost wrote:
But that's also before we deal with an issue that probably can't be checked outside of the actual code: what definition of "random" is being used in the RNG? Getting a non-streaky RNG is a classic problem with a lot of games. Real randomness exhibits streaks. This is expected, and is part of why gambler's fallacy and gambler's ruin exists. So I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. A non-streaky RNG implies pseudo-randomness, which we have already concluded that XCOM doesn't use. It's a plain old seeded RNG. The RNG is the one thing I heavily dislike about XCOM. I thought about a pretty simple fix for this, but modding the original XCOM (EU/EW, that is) was a bit too much of a hassle with the HEX editing and all (I did look into it but seemed to take a ton of time). However, once I'll get XCOM 2 I'd imagine it should be quite easy since you should be able to just write / edit stuff in a high level language. Anyways, the change I want to make is as follows: "Hit"-percentage is used as a damage multiplier, not as an actual "chance to hit". Examples: - 100% to hit, 4-6 damage
- old: 4-6 damage
- new: 4-6 damage
- 80% to hit, 4-6 damage
- old: 80% to do 4-6 damage, 20% to do 0.
- new: 3.2-4.8 damage
- 20% to hit, 4-6 damage
- old: 20% to do 4-6 damage, 80% to do 0.
- new: 0.8-1.2 damage (yeah, taking a 20% shot sucks)
- 0% to hit, 4-6 damage
So basically, take out the frustrations of missing a high % shot and take out the praying at taking a low % shot. Instead, there is a guaranteed minimum amount of damage you will do, which is lower if you are in a worse position (= lower %). Critical damage is still added as per usual on top of the damage rolled. So all this basically does is to set the expected value of a shot (% times damage) as the actual damage (still with min - max values though). I know this goes against XCOM standards of mass RNG (yes, the effects of which can be minimized but not mitigated), but other than that, what do you guys think? I don't think it actually buffs or nerfs stuff, since I only set the expected value as the damage value, rather than an RNG based value which should converge to the same value on average (when the shot was taken with different seeds enough times). At least with this system, if I have 2 guys with say 6-8 damage each take a 50% shot against a 6 HP alien I know he dies. I can actually make meaningful decisions. If I want to gamble I can still take a shot at an 8 HP alien, but it's totally on me if it fails since I only do a guaranteed 6 dmg as each soldier does 0.5 * 6 = 3 damage at MINIMUM. Sure there's the possibility of dealing 4 damage and/or crit, but that's pure gamble. It is in entirely possibly that this will break something I have totally overlooked, however I think it's fairly solid. Thoughts?
I feel like that would be annoying for the aliens' shots, especially with the way wounds now work. Since, unless they have a 0% chance to hit, there's guaranteed to be some damage, you're going to lose at least 1HP per attack, and they'll usually have more than 20%, 4-6 damage as well. This will translate into even more wounded soldiers, especially in the early game when you have guys with single digit HP.
|
On February 09 2016 03:39 dani` wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2016 01:47 Spazer wrote:On February 09 2016 01:27 Taf the Ghost wrote:
But that's also before we deal with an issue that probably can't be checked outside of the actual code: what definition of "random" is being used in the RNG? Getting a non-streaky RNG is a classic problem with a lot of games. Real randomness exhibits streaks. This is expected, and is part of why gambler's fallacy and gambler's ruin exists. So I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. A non-streaky RNG implies pseudo-randomness, which we have already concluded that XCOM doesn't use. It's a plain old seeded RNG. The RNG is the one thing I heavily dislike about XCOM. I thought about a pretty simple fix for this, but modding the original XCOM (EU/EW, that is) was a bit too much of a hassle with the HEX editing and all (I did look into it but seemed to take a ton of time). However, once I'll get XCOM 2 I'd imagine it should be quite easy since you should be able to just write / edit stuff in a high level language. Anyways, the change I want to make is as follows: "Hit"-percentage is used as a damage multiplier, not as an actual "chance to hit". Examples: - 100% to hit, 4-6 damage
- old: 4-6 damage
- new: 4-6 damage
- 80% to hit, 4-6 damage
- old: 80% to do 4-6 damage, 20% to do 0.
- new: 3.2-4.8 damage
- 20% to hit, 4-6 damage
- old: 20% to do 4-6 damage, 80% to do 0.
- new: 0.8-1.2 damage (yeah, taking a 20% shot sucks)
- 0% to hit, 4-6 damage
So basically, take out the frustrations of missing a high % shot and take out the praying at taking a low % shot. Instead, there is a guaranteed minimum amount of damage you will do, which is lower if you are in a worse position (= lower %). Critical damage is still added as per usual on top of the damage rolled. So all this basically does is to set the expected value of a shot (% times damage) as the actual damage (still with min - max values though). I know this goes against XCOM standards of mass RNG (yes, the effects of which can be minimized but not mitigated), but other than that, what do you guys think? I don't think it actually buffs or nerfs stuff, since I only set the expected value as the damage value, rather than an RNG based value which should converge to the same value on average (when the shot was taken with different seeds enough times). At least with this system, if I have 2 guys with say 6-8 damage each take a 50% shot against a 6 HP alien I know he dies. I can actually make meaningful decisions. If I want to gamble I can still take a shot at an 8 HP alien, but it's totally on me if it fails since I only do a guaranteed 6 dmg as each soldier does 0.5 * 6 = 3 damage at MINIMUM. Sure there's the possibility of dealing 4 damage and/or crit, but that's pure gamble. It is in entirely possibly that this will break something I have totally overlooked, however I think it's fairly solid. Thoughts?
i would take out the random damage values as well.
the game wouldnt be xcom anymore and needed a ton of redesigning on all parts of the game but it could be fun. invisible inc is similar as in it has almost no chances built in and the game is fun.
but if you just put the system in the current xcom you would come along of a ton of balancing problems. an overcrowded sickbay and useless 1hp soldiers are the first things that come to my mind but i am sure there are hundreds of issues.
|
On February 09 2016 04:06 Mafe wrote:
Hi guys, I have some questions about how this game is supposed to be played. BUT: I want you to tell me any specifics, since for the first timie in years I bought a game because I want to learn it (almost) purely on my own:
So here are some of my situation, it would be great if you basically only tell me if they occur because this is how it is supposed to be, or because I suck at this game (but plz dont tell me the solution directly, unless it is something absolutely nonbvious). For reference, I'm playing on the 2nd lowest difficutlty.
1. How would you subjectively rate the difficulty compared to, say, the sc2 singeplayer campaign? (sc2 on second lowest difficutly was not much different than watching a movie to me)
2 I'm at a point now where I encounter on each mission groups of 2 of those jelly-shooting/grenade-throwing/melee-instakilling/8hp mobs, + one more that is even worse. They even have armor, my regular weapons deal like 4 hp damage them at best, so basically even if I hit all my shots, one of them is bound to get into melee range where he (it?) usually instagibs one of my soldiers. Design, or my fault?
3. Are these "rescue 6 civilians" type of missions really so much tougher to beat than the other kinds of mission?
4. I'm stuck now with my high ranks soldiers that I have from the first missions. Leveling new ones is almost impossible now, as they deal even less damage (see above)?
5. I got tons of what I thought would be more rare minerals etc. but I'm lacking basic supplies for most stuff. Wrong priorities, I guess?
6. In the same manner, the game tells me I'm short on scientist, when I basically had 2 right from the start thanks to some mission where I received one. On the other hand, engineers look so much more useful to me, and it took me ages to buy a second one, because, guess what, the cost a lot of supplies (see 5)? A case of game is hard, or of bad dice rolls?
Apologies if some terms arent the correct ones; I'm playing the german version.
1) I'm not even sure that it's worthwhile to compare the two. XCOM2 is in completely different league than SC2 (or any other game) in terms of difficulty. This is an "old school" game in terms of its difficulty.This is a throwback to the 90s.
2) Sounds like your fault for not teching your weapons properly.
3) Not really. They're a little cheesy due to faceless being around, but I don't think that they're qualitatively more difficult than anything else.
4) If you don't establish a rotation, you're gonna have a bad time. Cycle in a couple squadies on each mission so that you have a couple well-trained soldiers in each class. The only person that you really need to bring on every mission is your highest ranked sniper to help carry you. Good grenadiers and specialists are helpful, too.
5) I find intel to be the biggest limiting factor in my ability to move forward.
6) Engineers >>>> scientists. I don't feel like you need many scientists. I easilu got to tier 3 stuff with just two scientists, if I recall, correctly.
|
On February 09 2016 02:36 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2016 01:15 Faruko wrote:
how is the performance ? i wont be buying the game anytime soon (at least for another 3 weeks) but ive heard that its not really that well optimized.
anyone with a 280x ? The game defaulted to maximum graphics settings which was unbearable so I turned it down to lowest settings immediately. If you want a specific configuration tested I can do that.
I mean if i could achieve 60fps at 1080p independent of the settings that would be awesome
otherwise, getting a maxed out 1080p stable 30fps would do it pretty good
what are your settings and results ?
|
On February 09 2016 04:06 Mafe wrote:
Hi guys, I have some questions
1. How would you subjectively rate the difficulty compared to, say, the sc2 singeplayer campaign? (sc2 on second lowest difficutly was not much different than watching a movie to me)
uhm, different skillset needed. Played Sc2 on brutal, but my problem weren the strategic decisions but the APM to coordinate my stuff well. Still finished it and made the extra-points/achievements.
In XCOM2 I'd guess that the 2nd lowest difficulty is alot harder than sc2 brutal. (and your apm is meaningless, ofc *jokes*)
Havent played the easiest difficulty.
2 I'm at a point now where I encounter on each mission groups of 2 of those jelly-shooting/grenade-throwing/melee-instakilling/8hp mobs, + one more that is even worse. They even have armor, my regular weapons deal like 4 hp damage them at best, so basically even if I hit all my shots, one of them is bound to get into melee range where he (it?) usually instagibs one of my soldiers. Design, or my fault?
Design, counter are grenadier with the Armor shredding perk, Grenades (removes 1 point of armor and cover for better hit chane) and depending how late it is in you campaign, researching weapon upgrades. The first upgrade grants +2 dmg , so your actual dmg raises alot when you cant remove the armor.
3. Are these "rescue 6 civilians" type of missions really so much tougher to beat than the other kinds of mission?
Not for me, a basic mindset would be to see it as just another "you got 7 turns"-mission. Normally there are 13 civilians on the map, they shoot 1 /turn most of the time. So you got 7 turns, no need to risk your soldiers.
Also, losing a map from time to time is not the end of the game - it's a setback, but you actually dont have to win 100% of strategic maps....
4. I'm stuck now with my high ranks soldiers that I have from the first missions. Leveling new ones is almost impossible now, as they deal even less damage (see above)?
If they don't get wounded often it's no problem. Or if they do get wounded but you can spare the engineer in the infirmay to double up the healing rate.
If they are in the infirmary alot and you have to bring 4 vets and 2 rookis (and still win), its fine as well. The rookies will level up too.
If you have to bring 4 vets and 2 rookis and lose, then you should either change your playstyle to fit the Vets more. (e.g grenadier rookies blowing up cover for the vets with high hit chance, not vice versa) or in your next game, try to even it out more a.ka. mix up your squad more in hte early game to get a more even leveled squad.
5. I got tons of what I thought would be more rare minerals etc. but I'm lacking basic supplies for most stuff. Wrong priorities, I guess?
hard to tell w/o details, in the beginnning and midgame you are always lacking supplies. Thats what forces you to make decisions / set priorities.
The rare minerals are needed for advanced stuff, I have to admit when I dont do any experiemtal armor/weapons etc. I have plenty of this stuff to get all the "normal stuff" as well.
6. In the same manner, the game tells me I'm short on scientist, when I basically had 2 right from the start thanks to some mission where I received one. On the other hand, engineers look so much more useful to me, and it took me ages to buy a second one, because, guess what, the cost a lot of supplies (see 5)? A case of game is hard, or of bad dice rolls?
Imho it's just bad programming.
As you said, engineers are more useful and even later on, you can just staff 2 scientiests in a research lab, so what to do with the others other than the passive boost ? Nothing... and most of the time researching just unlocks new stuff that you still have to build and if you got too many scientists you unlock faster than you got $$$ to build the stuff...
The game is also hardcoded btw to "warn about low scientists/engineers" until you have 5 , if I remember correctly.
So no worries...
|
ok since i am a bit disappointed with the strategic part of the game i have thought about how it could be more active and intriguing.
i think it would be more fun if we instead of getting random missions every now and then could actively scout for missions we wanted. that would go more in line with the setting of a small terrorist group fighting against an overwhelming enemy.
intel should be the main resource you generate from resistance contacts and you can use that for whatever you need. if you need supplies you have to raid a supply train, if you need an engineer you should find one and get him out of advents hands, to bomb a facility you have to locate it first and so on.
depending on the balancing it could be an actual challenge to fight your way to the avatar project.
|
My biggest problem with this game is I'm still really, really bad in figuring out if I'm going to trigger a pod or not. There are plenty of times when I know an enemy pod is there because I've scanned it. I advance slowly to get in position and keep triggering the damn pods. Most of my reloads are because of this.
|
On February 09 2016 05:04 andrewlt wrote:
My biggest problem with this game is I'm still really, really bad in figuring out if I'm going to trigger a pod or not. There are plenty of times when I know an enemy pod is there because I've scanned it. I advance slowly to get in position and keep triggering the damn pods. Most of my reloads are because of this.
That is because the game doesn't want you to play like that. Your not supposed to carefully set up just outside of vision in amazing ambushes for every single pod.
|
Canada8031 Posts
On February 09 2016 03:55 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2016 03:39 dani` wrote:On February 09 2016 01:47 Spazer wrote:On February 09 2016 01:27 Taf the Ghost wrote:
But that's also before we deal with an issue that probably can't be checked outside of the actual code: what definition of "random" is being used in the RNG? Getting a non-streaky RNG is a classic problem with a lot of games. Real randomness exhibits streaks. This is expected, and is part of why gambler's fallacy and gambler's ruin exists. So I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. A non-streaky RNG implies pseudo-randomness, which we have already concluded that XCOM doesn't use. It's a plain old seeded RNG. The RNG is the one thing I heavily dislike about XCOM. I thought about a pretty simple fix for this, but modding the original XCOM (EU/EW, that is) was a bit too much of a hassle with the HEX editing and all (I did look into it but seemed to take a ton of time). However, once I'll get XCOM 2 I'd imagine it should be quite easy since you should be able to just write / edit stuff in a high level language. Anyways, the change I want to make is as follows: "Hit"-percentage is used as a damage multiplier, not as an actual "chance to hit". Examples: - 100% to hit, 4-6 damage
- old: 4-6 damage
- new: 4-6 damage
- 80% to hit, 4-6 damage
- old: 80% to do 4-6 damage, 20% to do 0.
- new: 3.2-4.8 damage
- 20% to hit, 4-6 damage
- old: 20% to do 4-6 damage, 80% to do 0.
- new: 0.8-1.2 damage (yeah, taking a 20% shot sucks)
- 0% to hit, 4-6 damage
So basically, take out the frustrations of missing a high % shot and take out the praying at taking a low % shot. Instead, there is a guaranteed minimum amount of damage you will do, which is lower if you are in a worse position (= lower %). Critical damage is still added as per usual on top of the damage rolled. So all this basically does is to set the expected value of a shot (% times damage) as the actual damage (still with min - max values though). I know this goes against XCOM standards of mass RNG (yes, the effects of which can be minimized but not mitigated), but other than that, what do you guys think? I don't think it actually buffs or nerfs stuff, since I only set the expected value as the damage value, rather than an RNG based value which should converge to the same value on average (when the shot was taken with different seeds enough times). At least with this system, if I have 2 guys with say 6-8 damage each take a 50% shot against a 6 HP alien I know he dies. I can actually make meaningful decisions. If I want to gamble I can still take a shot at an 8 HP alien, but it's totally on me if it fails since I only do a guaranteed 6 dmg as each soldier does 0.5 * 6 = 3 damage at MINIMUM. Sure there's the possibility of dealing 4 damage and/or crit, but that's pure gamble. It is in entirely possibly that this will break something I have totally overlooked, however I think it's fairly solid. Thoughts? Nah, that would make the game too predictable. They should just use the directional system from the original X-Com, where the percentage indicated how close to the actual firing angle your actual shot would end up. That meant that distance mattered: You could hit a 60% shot at point blank, because even a 20% or so deviation still ended up in the right tile. The closer you were to the target, the easier it was to hit. On the other hand a 99% chance at long distance was still a possible miss, since even a 1% deviation could end up in a different tile. Also, friendly fire. I don't understand why they switched to the raw cover system they are using now. Probably because it's easier to understand, but on the other hand it feels much more random since there are less factors affecting the actual hit chance.
I love OG X-COM to death, but the game's mechanics are very simulator-like. It doesn't mesh well with modern XCOM's more streamlined gameplay. You need the granularity of TUs to take full advantage of shot deviation (unless we're assuming that everyone just uses Auto Shot), or you have to think of some other way to balance it.
We also had 16+ disposable soldiers to help mitigate the awful aim stats, now that I think about it.
Incidentally, cover wasn't really worth a damn in OG X-COM unless it broke los. 
@andrewlt: If you want to get super optimal, start counting tiles. Sight range is 17 tiles if it's the same as XCOM 1. Or if you're abusing scanners and whatnot, just look at the los indicators.
|
The one thing I really wish new xcom would have is larger, more disposable squads.
Nothing quite like having a rocket soldier panic or get mind controller and blow up most of your team. Also bringing multiple fodder rookies each mission to eat all the reaction shots when you tried to storm the ship doors.
|
On February 09 2016 04:21 Coppermantis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2016 03:39 dani` wrote:On February 09 2016 01:47 Spazer wrote:On February 09 2016 01:27 Taf the Ghost wrote:
But that's also before we deal with an issue that probably can't be checked outside of the actual code: what definition of "random" is being used in the RNG? Getting a non-streaky RNG is a classic problem with a lot of games. Real randomness exhibits streaks. This is expected, and is part of why gambler's fallacy and gambler's ruin exists. So I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. A non-streaky RNG implies pseudo-randomness, which we have already concluded that XCOM doesn't use. It's a plain old seeded RNG. The RNG is the one thing I heavily dislike about XCOM. I thought about a pretty simple fix for this, but modding the original XCOM (EU/EW, that is) was a bit too much of a hassle with the HEX editing and all (I did look into it but seemed to take a ton of time). However, once I'll get XCOM 2 I'd imagine it should be quite easy since you should be able to just write / edit stuff in a high level language. Anyways, the change I want to make is as follows: "Hit"-percentage is used as a damage multiplier, not as an actual "chance to hit". Examples: - 100% to hit, 4-6 damage
- old: 4-6 damage
- new: 4-6 damage
- 80% to hit, 4-6 damage
- old: 80% to do 4-6 damage, 20% to do 0.
- new: 3.2-4.8 damage
- 20% to hit, 4-6 damage
- old: 20% to do 4-6 damage, 80% to do 0.
- new: 0.8-1.2 damage (yeah, taking a 20% shot sucks)
- 0% to hit, 4-6 damage
So basically, take out the frustrations of missing a high % shot and take out the praying at taking a low % shot. Instead, there is a guaranteed minimum amount of damage you will do, which is lower if you are in a worse position (= lower %). Critical damage is still added as per usual on top of the damage rolled. So all this basically does is to set the expected value of a shot (% times damage) as the actual damage (still with min - max values though). I know this goes against XCOM standards of mass RNG (yes, the effects of which can be minimized but not mitigated), but other than that, what do you guys think? I don't think it actually buffs or nerfs stuff, since I only set the expected value as the damage value, rather than an RNG based value which should converge to the same value on average (when the shot was taken with different seeds enough times). At least with this system, if I have 2 guys with say 6-8 damage each take a 50% shot against a 6 HP alien I know he dies. I can actually make meaningful decisions. If I want to gamble I can still take a shot at an 8 HP alien, but it's totally on me if it fails since I only do a guaranteed 6 dmg as each soldier does 0.5 * 6 = 3 damage at MINIMUM. Sure there's the possibility of dealing 4 damage and/or crit, but that's pure gamble. It is in entirely possibly that this will break something I have totally overlooked, however I think it's fairly solid. Thoughts? I feel like that would be annoying for the aliens' shots, especially with the way wounds now work. Since, unless they have a 0% chance to hit, there's guaranteed to be some damage, you're going to lose at least 1HP per attack, and they'll usually have more than 20%, 4-6 damage as well. This will translate into even more wounded soldiers, especially in the early game when you have guys with single digit HP.
Could be indeed. However keep in mind it is not at least 1 HP. I would not be rounding damage values. I would either use fractions (e.g. 0.6 damage would be exactly that, not rounded to 1), or just multiply HP / damage / armor whatnot by 10 or 100 and then we could just use whole numbers to get the same effect. Like, your rookie would have 40 HP (if we x10), and an Alien taking some 20% shot for 30 (again, x10) dmg would then just deal 6 damage, leaving you with 34 HP. Hardly a scratch, like it should be.
But you are right, if they take a normal shot (60%+) then your rookie would indeed take substantial guaranteed damage. I am not familiar with the new wound system and perhaps the guaranteed damage would not work very well with it. I'll look into it once I get the game.
|
On February 09 2016 04:34 Faruko wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2016 02:36 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On February 09 2016 01:15 Faruko wrote:
how is the performance ? i wont be buying the game anytime soon (at least for another 3 weeks) but ive heard that its not really that well optimized.
anyone with a 280x ? The game defaulted to maximum graphics settings which was unbearable so I turned it down to lowest settings immediately. If you want a specific configuration tested I can do that. I mean if i could achieve 60fps at 1080p independent of the settings that would be awesome otherwise, getting a maxed out 1080p stable 30fps would do it pretty good what are your settings and results ?
I can't test 1080p for you as my TV max resolution is only 1776x1000. If you're willing to play on min settings you're only going to lose 60 fps on things like explosive targeting that destroys the game regardless of hardware.
|
On February 09 2016 05:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2016 05:04 andrewlt wrote:
My biggest problem with this game is I'm still really, really bad in figuring out if I'm going to trigger a pod or not. There are plenty of times when I know an enemy pod is there because I've scanned it. I advance slowly to get in position and keep triggering the damn pods. Most of my reloads are because of this. That is because the game doesn't want you to play like that. Your not supposed to carefully set up just outside of vision in amazing ambushes for every single pod.
One thing that's worth noting is that you can't always see the vision range that will trigger a pod. In one case, I started on top of a building and there was an alien pod that could see the edge of the rooftop but I couldn't see them, and so the reveal markers weren't displayed. So, when I moved to the edge of the rooftop, it triggered the pod.
I've since learned to be really damn careful about that sort of thing and consider whether any positions out of view could possibly contain aliens that can see me.
On February 09 2016 06:24 dani` wrote:
But you are right, if they take a normal shot (60%+) then your rookie would indeed take substantial guaranteed damage. I am not familiar with the new wound system and perhaps the guaranteed damage would not work very well with it. I'll look into it once I get the game.
As far as I know:
In the old system, you could take a certain number of hits based on your armor before your soldier would be considered "wounded," i.e., some of your HP was armor and some was actually health. From what I can tell in the new system, armor is instead a damage reduction, and any HP damage at all will result in a wounded result.
|
all this talk makes me excited for the mods that will come out. I'll pick up the game then 
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
patiently waiting for anime/mahou shoujo/idol mods
you know someone will make 1
in the meanwhile, WWE chars are fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
