Gear weights and Strength need a rebalance

[Cheostian]

Basically what the title says.  after about 4 missions I feel like my soldiers can carry whatever the hell they damn well want to carry without concern.  Pretty standard for one of my soldiers to have a rifle, two backup mag's, a medkit, a targeting assist, a smoke mask, a grenade, a smoke grenade, and possibly even a stun baton/stun gun and or an extra flash grenade, all while wearing heavy armor.  The only exception to the rule is shields, they weigh lot it seems.

My suggestion...  increase time units and decrease strength for the soldiers.  That way the soldiers either need to operate light to utilize their full time units or they operate with more gear but take the time unit hit to offset it.  (with the average being a soldier expected to take a bit of a time unit hit as a standard)  To represent this is normal for the player without making them feel like they are doing something wrong, I'd have a third colour degree.  Instead of just green and then negative being red.  I'd have maybe a green/yellow/red or blue/green/red colour scale.  Where "underweight" with no tu penalty is the first colour, "average" weight with a small tu penalty is the middle colour, and "overweight" with a heavy tu penalty is the final colour (likely red) to discourage but not prevent, players from going that far.

It's possible later gear and armor is actually heavier and I haven't gotten that far, but if the player doesn't feel good about the game balance 2 months into it, are they going to persist further in to see if it improves?  Perhaps if that is the case that gear later gets heavier, add a powered exoskeleton equipment or something that can be applied (like the gas mask) to increase soldier strength or have a "stim" research or whatever to scale up strength when it makes sense to do so.  Or make some story reason why the better gear isn't really much heavier perhaps.

My 2 cents..

[Skitso]

4 hours ago, Cheostian said:

Basically what the title says.  after about 4 missions I feel like my soldiers can carry whatever the hell they damn well want to carry without concern.  Pretty standard for one of my soldiers to have a rifle, two backup mag's, a medkit, a targeting assist, a smoke mask, a grenade, a smoke grenade, and possibly even a stun baton/stun gun and or an extra flash grenade, all while wearing heavy armor.  The only exception to the rule is shields, they weigh lot it seems.

My suggestion...  increase time units and decrease strength for the soldiers.  That way the soldiers either need to operate light to utilize their full time units or they operate with more gear but take the time unit hit to offset it.  (with the average being a soldier expected to take a bit of a time unit hit as a standard)  To represent this is normal for the player without making them feel like they are doing something wrong, I'd have a third colour degree.  Instead of just green and then negative being red.  I'd have maybe a green/yellow/red or blue/green/red colour scale.  Where "underweight" with no tu penalty is the first colour, "average" weight with a small tu penalty is the middle colour, and "overweight" with a heavy tu penalty is the final colour (likely red) to discourage but not prevent, players from going that far.

It's possible later gear and armor is actually heavier and I haven't gotten that far, but if the player doesn't feel good about the game balance 2 months into it, are they going to persist further in to see if it improves?  Perhaps if that is the case that gear later gets heavier, add a powered exoskeleton equipment or something that can be applied (like the gas mask) to increase soldier strength or have a "stim" research or whatever to scale up strength when it makes sense to do so.  Or make some story reason why the better gear isn't really much heavier perhaps.

My 2 cents..

Couldn't have said it better myself. This is a pretty important balance issue @Chris needs to tackle at some point. Currently inventory gameplay is way too straight forward and doesn't push players to make any significant choices.

[Grobobobo]

In general stat growth is too high, every time you train a stat, the points needed for new level should grow exponentially.

[Skitso]

3 hours ago, Grobobobo said:

In general stat growth is too high, every time you train a stat, the points needed for new level should grow exponentially.

That is something I've criticized for ages. Soldiers just get too good, too fast. I even play without the training center to tone the effect down.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Skitso

[ovoron]

Hard disagree with this. I'm playing on Commander and doing captures is not trivial, each capture is 2-3 consumables each.

Also, if you self-detonate a Flashbang as you deploy chances are you will have to spend A LOT of consumables just to stabilize because you have 3-6 soldiers immediately rendered useless and cripple on turn 2, meaning by the time you get to the UFO you barely have anything.

[Conductiv]

stat progression is indeed very fast, but I don't know if that is a bad thing per-se. 

 

it has a number of advantages, it devaleus veterans as its easier to get to their stat levels. as such losing high level troops is less of a deathspiral. it also hits the weapon breakpoints much faster, making weapons that at the start of the game have to be shoved into an alien face to have a 50-50 shot actually useful. and it makes compensating for suboptimal stats easier as the growth of most stats is almost equal across the board.

equipment weights could be adapted based on the cap (aka 100 str) with regards to really heavy armor. to limit the amount of extra carry-able gear. or use the slots system to make limitations. (rather then the current 1-size fits all backpack, you could give lighter armor more slots as an example). but I'm not sure if any of these solutions wouldn't simply create more problems then its worth.

 

[Grobobobo]

1 minute ago, Conductiv said:

it has a number of advantages, it devaleus veterans as its easier to get to their stat levels. as such losing high level troops is less of a deathspiral

Not exactly. Currently training center boosts everyone's stats very very fast. With exponential scaling it would train rookies very fast but mid and high level troops far slower.

[Grobobobo]

31 minutes ago, ovoron said:

Hard disagree with this. I'm playing on Commander and doing captures is not trivial, each capture is 2-3 consumables each.

I'm playing on commander too, and captures are very very trivial. Usually it's enough to just suppress an alien with an LMG, shoot it once or twice to soften them up, and then charge it with a ballistic shield + stun baton. Or shotgun + stun baton.
Aliens can't burst so charging even unsuppressed aliens with shields is relatively safe.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Grobobobo

[Conductiv]

1 minute ago, Grobobobo said:

Not exactly. Currently training center boosts everyone's stats very very fast. With exponential scaling it would train rookies very fast but mid and high level troops far slower.

the current system does so doing.. devaluate veterans... as its not exponential. you just have to let it sit in training long enough

your exponential growth suggestion would mitigate that as getting the high stats, but my comment wasn't based around your suggestion..but on the general sentiment that rapid stat growth is bad.

your suggestion definitely has merit, as becoming adequate at a skill is much easier then becoming a master, but this does require drawing lines at up to what limit stats grow quickly (60, 80...)..or we could look at this merely from the base hiring stats (stat 70 hire goes up to 80 fast, stat 50 hire goes to 60 fast) both have their pro's and cons. but as the OP specifically mentions being able to load up his troops to the gills the rest of the post was mainly focused on carry capacity.

[Grobobobo]

1 minute ago, Conductiv said:

mainly focused on carry capacity

Carry capacity is very related to stat growth, rookies can't carry all that much with heavy armor, but Every soldier gains a lot of strength so carry capacity is trivialized.

[Conductiv]

Just now, Grobobobo said:

Carry capacity is very related to stat growth, rookies can't carry all that much with heavy armor, but Every soldier gains a lot of strength so carry capacity is trivialized.

you are correct, and that part of the strength growth is actually something that might affect the choices players make...why ever use light as even a 4 battle rookie can carry pretty much anything, hence the suggestions to look at outside of nerfing strength stat progression, like managing the slots system or making the heavy variant armor eat into carry capacity a lot more..as you can only move str up to a cap.

[Grobobobo]

16 minutes ago, Conductiv said:

why ever use light as even a 4 battle rookie can carry pretty much anything, hence the suggestions to look at outside of nerfing strength stat progression

I don't see how this causes making suggestions looking outside of nerfing strength stat progression, Currently even that 4 battle rookie is gonna have like +10/20 bonus strength depending on the captures. I maybe see some weight increases there and there, perhaps a flat decrease of inventory slots, but for the most part carry capacity being trivialized is a symptom of a different issue.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Grobobobo

[Conductiv]

52 minutes ago, Grobobobo said:

I don't see how this causes making suggestions looking outside of nerfing strength stat progression, Currently even that 4 battle rookie is gonna have like +10/20 bonus strength depending on the captures. I maybe see some weight increases there and there, perhaps a flat decrease of inventory slots, but for the most part carry capacity being trivialized is a symptom of a different issue.

I'll try to explain it better, as you seem to think I'm trying to attack your suggestion...I'm not. but I'm very hesitant to grab the nerf bat and cripple stat progression when people are highlighting a problem that I think they are trying to solve in a way that doesn't actually solve the problem...just moves it to a later stage in the campaign.

because heavy armor is the best, and carry capacity allows you to use the best and everything else. there is no reason to use the light armor if you can carry the heavy and still use everything else, there is no meaningful choice here because light armor is categorically worse then heavy.

if you take the long road to get the stats or the short one like the current progression, the endpoint is exactly the same..there is no meaningful choice. slowing the progression, just makes the vet more valuable as it takes longer to reach his statline

note that I don't look at just the fact that more strength = carry more, carry more by itself doesn't do anything..its what you can do with that extra capacity, and how it works together..and why having more and the best armor is always the best choice..if the best armor limits your choices the lighter variant becomes a viable choice. slowing the progression would indeed require more time for a full loadout...but that is effectively milestone 1 guardian for a midlevel trooper. 

with the problem of troopers being able to overload and throw things on the ground once in the mission, weight can be focused on armor...as its the one thing you can't swap out. other choices like armaments and grenades can...but are limited primarily by slots. this is the primary reason I focus on these 2. 

this does not mean that stat gains are currently extremely quick and allow troops to be loaded up after even a few missions, the main problem here is that it apparently isn't even much of a choice about what to pick...you just pick everything eventually.

this is why I focus on a suggestion outside of the stat progression, now there are other things to highlight with regards as to why fast stat progression on new troops isn't a bad idea per-se.. but it also depends a lot on where this game wants to go, and it may even be way better off with your exponential scaling suggestion. but strength in particular has a few problems in the choice department.

[Belmakor]

I have a solution to this; instead of just having the tactical vest I would re-introduce the Belt similar to X1 but smaller 

 

- Belt has 4 slots.  You can only put grenades or ammo in them.  So you have to choose if your going 1 ammo and 3 grenades or 2 and 2.  Belt can't hold heavy ammo.  

- Reloads from the belt, grenade throws from the belt use less TU's than the tac vest. 

- The tactical vest is reduced to 3x4.  All modules become 3x2 meaning that you can at most fill your tac vest with two modules but no additional ammo/grenades.

- I'd also replace "Primary" "Secondary" with "Main" "Sidearm".  Sidearm would only be able to hold pistols/stun weapons or a single-use first aid kit (spoiler: later replaced with single-use auto med).

- I'd create a Medical Module which has unlimited uses like the current one but it has to go on the tactical vest and therefore replace whatever else is there; it can't be held in the hand. 

 

Suddenly you have; 

- Decision if you want your guys to have sidearms or a single-use first aid kit (they can't have both).

- Your dedicated medic won't be able to also carry a demo charge and tac unit so it's suddenly more of a dedicated class

- Your heavy weapons guys won't be able to have a tac unit, gas mask and ammo.  They'll have 1 unit and 3 ammo more likely. 

 

Anyway, you get the point.

 

 

 

 

 

[Komandos]

On 01.12.2023 at 07:44, Cheostian said:

after about 4 missions I feel like my soldiers can carry whatever the hell they damn well want to carry without concern.  Pretty standard for one of my soldiers to have a rifle, two backup mag's, a medkit, a targeting assist, a smoke mask, a grenade, a smoke grenade, and possibly even a stun baton/stun gun and or an extra flash grenade, all while wearing heavy armor.  The only exception to the rule is shields, they weigh lot it seems.

In most games, soldiers and game characters are able to carry a huge number of things, but this has never been a problem. On the contrary, it was a reward for the player to develop the characteristics of his soldiers and his characters. You cannot take away the player's reward (bonus) for the fact that the player trains and develops his soldiers and characters. The reward that the player receives for the development of his soldiers and characters: motivates the player.

The problem with the game is not that the player's soldiers are able to carry more things than necessary to destroy all the aliens. The problem with the game is that destroying aliens in battle is not a difficult tactical task. The player's soldiers are too strong and effective against the aliens.

It is necessary to increase the strength and combat capabilities of the aliens, and not reduce the strength and combat capabilities of the player's soldiers.

[Cheostian]

As the OP I am going to throw more idea's into this thread.  I had a few things I was thinking of responding to, but I think I'll just do some general responses to points I read.

  While my initial concern is still valid I feel, my initial suggestion in the post may not be the best option.  I realized after that my initial post kind of didn't do anything as I suggested adjusting strength but also effectively normalizing the potential of -tu carrying at the start of battles.  Anyways, it ended up likely equaling out.  I don't think nerfing strength is necessarily the best approach as strength also determines throw distance which I don't think is out of balance at the moment.

  I am personally not a fan of anything that reduces or limits bag space.  I think that arbitrarily adds an unfun feeling of restriction to the player.  I think players should feel they have the option to make their own decisions on what combo of gear they outfit their soldiers with.  The issue as was pointed out, is currently, what to pick doesn't feel like a meaningful choice for the player.  When after a few missions the answer seems to be... well everything!

Currently the ONLY reason to not load out heavy armor, is the negative to accuracy it incurs.  As such the only unit I don't equip heavy armor on now is my snipers.  As it's reasonable to assume they should be at least a bit less likely to be targeted and the accuracy is so important for their success.  However, outside of that, the only other meaningful decision it feels like is what primary weapon choices do I want.  As I mentioned, after about 4 missions with a soldier, they can afford a number of grenades, medkit, and stun with all the perks.

I almost wonder if the game needs more "levers" to change for weapon and gear load out balance then it currently has.  And some of the ones it does have, don't seem to be obvious to me as a new player with this game.

For example, if I have a medkit on my soldier in the backpack and not in my secondary slot.  I can swap it to my secondary slot and the soldier will be able to use it on themselves the same turn.  But NOT use it on another soldier beside them.  The number of TU's left for the soldier seem to not matter at all.  This may be for a reason, but it's really confusing as a system.  Yet, reloading a weapon "feels" like it's the same speed regardless of if it's a pistol or a heavy gun.

Which brings me back to the start of the post.  Gear weight doesn't feel like it demands meaningful decisions at the moment.  Now is weight really the issue?  I don't know, maybe it's something else with the arrangement that could be addressed.  But at the moment, what you decide to take feels tied to weight.

[Pathfinder]

Current (non-mechanized) infantry equipment:

- roughly 10 kg backpack (called patrol/combat type),
- firearm with spare ammunition - between 8 to 16 kg (some of that weight can be in backpack, but mostly carried in soldier arms and on front side of vest), depends on type of weapon,
- grenades, claymores, HE packs - few kilograms,
- first aid kits - another kilogram,
- combat knife,
- communication equipment,
- armoured inserts (front, back, and occasionally sides),
- helmet with communication and electrooptical accessories,
- sidearm,
- multiple additional tools based on the mission.
(all of that weights together not less than 25-30kg)

Soldier during non-combat movement may carry much more, for which are larger backpacks, allowing much heavier loads.

Here, in game, we are talking about group of elite soldiers, after countless skirmishes, fighting aliens, it is therefore very reasonable, to have heavy equipment for well trained soldier without affecting his abilities too much.

[Vitruviansquid]

On 12/4/2023 at 5:55 PM, Cheostian said:

I almost wonder if the game needs more "levers" to change for weapon and gear load out balance then it currently has.  And some of the ones it does have, don't seem to be obvious to me as a new player with this game.

I'm definitely for the idea of more "levers."

- There was an idea floating around earlier where doing alien autopsies should let you create more little gadgets that have perhaps a bit more niche uses that your soldiers can then carry around. Something like autopsying a Psyon lets you craft a module that boosts your bravery a bit, or autopsying a Wraith lets you craft a module that makes your soldier slightly harder to hit. I think more little gadgets in the game like that, or even stuff that's sourced and crafted by the players based on earth technology, means there more stuff players have to choose to have their soldiers carry.

- I think all non-laser guns carry too much ammo in this game, but rifles are particularly egregious. A soldier with great marksmanship can wipe out an entire Scout's worth of aliens with one magazine of 20 shots. A soldier with poor marksmanship can kill everyone with 2. Both can certainly go without reloading through an entire mission against Scouts, but also, Observers, Destroyers, bases, and I dunno how big those unreleased Cruisers are going to be, but probably also Cruisers. 20 shots is a lot of shots. 8 shots is still a lot for a shotgun. 15 is a lot for a pistol, but we should let that one slide because pistols are bad in other ways. The other weapons are a bit more okay.

[Pathfinder]

46 minutes ago, Vitruviansquid said:

all non-laser guns carry too much ammo

I think, that problem is not with amount of ammunition, but with definition of what is fun for whom. Improvements to AI which I believe is going to come, I hope will change how dangerous current aliens can be.

48 minutes ago, Vitruviansquid said:

There was an idea floating around earlier where doing alien autopsies should let you create more little gadgets

Maybe create a specific thread where people would vote for specific gadgets, and devs would take into account of implementing them based on votes? @Chris

[Conductiv]

4 hours ago, Vitruviansquid said:

I'm definitely for the idea of more "levers."

- There was an idea floating around earlier where doing alien autopsies should let you create more little gadgets that have perhaps a bit more niche uses that your soldiers can then carry around. Something like autopsying a Psyon lets you craft a module that boosts your bravery a bit, or autopsying a Wraith lets you craft a module that makes your soldier slightly harder to hit. I think more little gadgets in the game like that, or even stuff that's sourced and crafted by the players based on earth technology, means there more stuff players have to choose to have their soldiers carry.

- I think all non-laser guns carry too much ammo in this game, but rifles are particularly egregious. A soldier with great marksmanship can wipe out an entire Scout's worth of aliens with one magazine of 20 shots. A soldier with poor marksmanship can kill everyone with 2. Both can certainly go without reloading through an entire mission against Scouts, but also, Observers, Destroyers, bases, and I dunno how big those unreleased Cruisers are going to be, but probably also Cruisers. 20 shots is a lot of shots. 8 shots is still a lot for a shotgun. 15 is a lot for a pistol, but we should let that one slide because pistols are bad in other ways. The other weapons are a bit more okay.

agreed on the levers, provided they don't thread on the function of current weapons. all such tools need to have an identity of their own.

about the "too much ammo" bit, I sort of disagree with rifles and to a lesser extend on pistols, I'm not saying you are wrong..far from it. a trooper with good aim can single shot its way through the mission easily on a single rifle magazine

more because I feel those weapons should be effective in their burst fire mode, and ammo goes down a lot faster when spamming shots like that. now they can be...once the soldier hits like 80 or so accuracy and with decent strength the burst fire mode has a fair chance to hit twice on close range. and pistols can be spammed fairly well (while they have lower damage, with 60% accuracy on a 20% TU shot, they have a fairly reliable snapshot)...but again it requires extremely high stats to make the "spam with a chance to miss" work better then the single shot practically guaranteed rifle hit that occurs at mid range when the soldier is in the 70's with its accuracy. (raw math wise, this breakpoint occurs reasonably quick, especially up close..however missing an average 40% burst over guaranteed hitting an aimed shot often favors the aimed shot in practical situations, even if the average damage output of the burst would be higher)
on top of that 20 and 15 are more realistic numbers then 5 for an assault rifle and pistol, there just needs to be a better incentive to use the more ammo intensive approaches. now, if you miss on close range..you generally get reaction shot in the face unless you flashbanged it beforehand and rifles are not great supression weapons in their burst mode...not even on the "skittish" mantid. 

4 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

Maybe create a specific thread where people would vote for specific gadgets, and devs would take into account of implementing them based on votes? @Chris

while I'm not opposed to the suggestion, I do feel the need to piont out that while we can make suggestions..I really doubt that the devs would paint themselves in a corner by having a vote for implementation. I think its most likely the'll make those decisions on their side.

[Vitruviansquid]

5 is a nutty number of shots for a non-laser rifle to have in this game. If non-laser rifles had 5 shots, Your laser rifles would have to be downright impossible to use. I was thinking you could easily knock the base amount of ammunition in a non-laser rifle from 20 to 12, see how that feels, and then maybe go down to something like 8-10 if players still aren't needing to reload in a mission.

It would be great if the game had mechanics to encourage you to shoot more bullets, sure. I just don't think the dev team is looking for a rework of the game's battle mechanics that are radical enough to make it happen.