Calisthenics -- I /HATE/ them

[RavenX]

Part of the problem (perhaps only a small part) is there's no reason not to grind for stats on every mission. There's no sense of urgency to get on with the mission. If a civvie dies? Fuck 'em. If a friendly NPC dies? Fuck 'em. You get a small point loss, and killing all the aliens goes a long way to boosting relations with a funding bloc. I'm not one for proposing that a game should be all stick and no carrot, but the player needs to have a greater sense of urgency to get on with the mission, and not to fuck around grinding for stats.

See, up until I read a thread on skill gains a few days ago I didn't even know grinding for skills was something we could do. I always give my troops a full carry load so they gain strength just by running the mission as normal. I tend to use all their TU's every turn so I get TU skill gains. Aside from those all my other skill gains go pretty slow just by playing as normal.

The rule for accuracy gains is that you shoot at a legal alien target within 1.5x range... and nothing else. So you can shoot at an alien protected by indestructible terrain (such as UFO walls) and train accuracy, even though it's absolutely tactically useless. Firing dozens of rounds at an alien in cover will give a lot of accuracy points to your entire squad, but running a single assault troop around to flank and putting a slug into its skull gives almost no accuracy points. I think this is probably the source of people's complaints about troops who have unsatisfactory accuracy at later levels. If you kill "too efficiently," the game punishes you.

And that explains why accuracy is always the hardest for me to work up and it's the thing I'm lacking the most by month 3 or 4. I always go straight for the kill.

[jazzglands]

If you hate stat grinding, you could just do what I do and not stat-grind. Same with any optional optimization mechanic: as long as there's a difficulty level where it's not necessary to win, then a player has the option of not doing that thing.

It's not like there's a leaderboard or multiplayer or anything so why does it matter that those who wish to stare at their screens grinding all day can stare at their screens grinding all day?

[Ol' Stinky]

If you hate stat grinding, you could just do what I do and not stat-grind. Same with any optional optimization mechanic: as long as there's a difficulty level where it's not necessary to win, then a player has the option of not doing that thing.

It's not like there's a leaderboard or multiplayer or anything so why does it matter that those who wish to stare at their screens grinding all day can stare at their screens grinding all day?

For the same reason I could just not use sniper rifles on most of my squad, but I do anyway: because although it makes the game less fun when I use the best weapon, when I don't use a bunch of snipers I know I'm playing the game badly. That creates a feeling of dissatisfaction. I really wish I could find the talk the Civ 4 team did on this, I think they called it the "leaky bucket" effect.

There's also the problem that if it's left in, balancing is harder. Take the LMG tier of guns, for example. They're meant to be inaccurate and immobile. But if I level up properly, I can end up with soldiers so fast and accurate that they can use LMGs the same way normal soldiers are meant to use assault rifles.

How to level is hidden from the average player, to boot. So they don't even know if they're playing the game correctly.

We've also got people saying that this is a problem that cannot be fixed, or that it would be too time intensive. I say that this is a Gordian Knot. The devs can change strength, accuracy, reflexes and bravery to level up the same way as resilience in the code. After that, it's a relatively simple matter of tweaking GameConfig.xml. Give those stats pointsToProgress="1". Then change APProgress to pointsToProgress="1" maxPointsInSingleBattle="2". There we go, you now level up your men by having them take part in a mission. As long as they move, they improve.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Ol' Stinky

[RawCode]

Dranak

read carefully, potentional damage and damage used to distribute xp over xenonauts, but does not increase amount of XP gained, it predefined as X and nothing can change it, player can only distribute this XP over xenonauts (like killing everything by only one xenonaut)

This allow powerleveling, but, player must risk a lot, especially inside UFO, since any interaction or ever presence of other xenonauts will sink XP.

[Person012345]

For the same reason I could just not use sniper rifles on most of my squad' date=' but I do anyway: because although it makes the game less fun when I use the best weapon, when I don't use a bunch of snipers I know I'm playing the game badly. That creates a feeling of dissatisfaction. I really wish I could find the talk the Civ 4 team did on this, I think they called it the "leaky bucket" effect.[/quote']

Finding an exploit in the game and, well, exploiting it =/= playing the game well.

[Ol' Stinky]

Well, in that case, change that bit of the post to something like "deliberately ignoring the best tactic makes it feel like I'm handicapping myself."

[RawCode]

game reward player for grinding and punish for doing anything else, accuracy best sample of this.

[Newfr]

In my opinion there is nothing bad in powerlevelling. After all it's a single player game and you can play it as you wish. But when you absolutely have to grind just to stay on par with aliens that's balance issue in my opinion (especially on easy and normal difficulty levels). Also i agree that the way you gain accuracy now actually punish effective and rational gameplay. So it should be fixed. Something based on damage done looks good to me. That can be exploited with lizardfolks as already been described but wtf if you want to do that probably just editing a saved game (to add stats) will be easier. That's your game after all - play it whatever you like.

Also i can suggest using training facilities idea from X-Com: Apocalypse. Idea is simple: your soldiers gain some stats just for hanging around your base if they are assigned to that training room. Probably you can solve rookies stats problem with it too - new soldiers can gain that stats more rapidly till some point (depending on your progress for example).

[StellarRat]

Your troops will move up without "help" anyway. By the time you get to the final battle you should have some really good soldiers. IMO that style of playing is nearly an exploit. Personally, I've never understood people that intentionally to make "perfect" troops by maximizing the stats system. The closest I've come was running to every location in Oblivion because it improved your athletic stats, but that actually made some sense. But to each his own. I just don't any reason for Goldhawk to make changes to accomodate this need.

[ThunderGr]

The closest I've come was running to every location in Oblivion because it improved your athletic stats, but that actually made some sense.

Running to every location is what you are supposed to do in the Elder Scrolls series. The fast travel is only provided for convenience to people that find this boring. So, you have not done anything to exploit the stats-improvement system in Oblivion, either .

[jazzglands]

For the same reason I could just not use sniper rifles on most of my squad' date=' but I do anyway: because although it makes the game less fun when I use the best weapon, when I don't use a bunch of snipers I know I'm playing the game badly. That creates a feeling of dissatisfaction. I really wish I could find the talk the Civ 4 team did on this, I think they called it the "leaky bucket" effect.

There's also the problem that if it's left in, balancing is harder. Take the LMG tier of guns, for example. They're meant to be inaccurate and immobile. But if I level up properly, I can end up with soldiers so fast and accurate that they can use LMGs the same way normal soldiers are meant to use assault rifles.

How to level is hidden from the average player, to boot. So they don't even know if they're playing the game correctly.

We've also got people saying that this is a problem that cannot be fixed, or that it would be too time intensive. I say that this is a Gordian Knot. The devs can change strength, accuracy, reflexes and bravery to level up the same way as resilience in the code. After that, it's a relatively simple matter of tweaking GameConfig.xml. Give those stats pointsToProgress="1". Then change APProgress to pointsToProgress="1" maxPointsInSingleBattle="2". There we go, you now level up your men by having them take part in a mission. As long as they move, they improve.[/quote']

I dunno. I guess I consider optimization a means; not an end. If you are winning missions in an entertaining way, you're playing the game "right" enough for me. The tactics are what really engross me, not the RPG mechanics. I like seeing my soldiers take different paths of growth based on what I used them for in the game, and I like seeing soldier diversity begin to come in over time. I guess we all derive satisfaction from different things, but it doesn't seem like the core of XCOM is stat-mongering.

I get why you'd want it changed though.

[StellarRat]

Running to every location is what you are supposed to do in the Elder Scrolls series. The fast travel is only provided for convenience to people that find this boring. So, you have not done anything to exploit the stats-improvement system in Oblivion, either .

Well, it took forever (in real human time) to walk anywhere in Oblivion or Skyrim for that matter.

[Newfr]

Personally, I've never understood people that intentionally to make "perfect" troops by maximizing the stats system.

If they want to play like that you shouldn't stop em. For example a friend of mine spent 150+ hours in Final Fantasy 10 just to make every party member hit for 99 999 damage. So final boss could take 3 hits max. While for most people that's a weird thing to do, he had fun...

[thothkins]

Personally, I've never understood people that intentionally to make "perfect" troops by maximizing the stats system.

Nor do I, but remember that bug a number of builds ago that gave you maxed out soldiers? I only had two, but it did make the missions much easier

[Gazz]

When they are your Tamagochis or Sims, they must be perfected.

There is no alternative.

[Chris]

The only realistic way I see of fixing this is to cap skill gains per mission at a level where the average player would get them through normal actions, and doesn't have to do anything extra to level his guys up beyond that.

That was sorta the intention to start with. It's still something that could be done - setting the point gain per mission to 1, but reducing what is required to gain that one point. It might well be a worthwhile change.

[RawCode]

1 per mission == ~60 missions to max xenonaut, i cant tell is this long or not, but you definely can

i know that game "monitor" user's actions, there is special checkbox about it, (or atleast it expected to track something)

can you tell how many ground combats entire game lasts?

if entire game lasts for 100 gs, 80 gs to max xenonaut are OK (20% discount for random wounds and KIA), in this case missions shoud provide less then 1 point.

if entire game lasts 200 ground missions, levelups shoud be relatively rare, othervice player will stuck with supersoldiers at midgame and progression just stop.

if entire game last for 300 ground missions, something shoud be changed in system, like adding some zeroes to stats to smooth leveling (60 TU turn into 600 with all TU costs also increased by 10, with 1-2 progression per mission)

[Person012345]

The only realistic way I see of fixing this is to cap skill gains per mission at a level where the average player would get them through normal actions, and doesn't have to do anything extra to level his guys up beyond that.

That was sorta the intention to start with. It's still something that could be done - setting the point gain per mission to 1, but reducing what is required to gain that one point. It might well be a worthwhile change.

Yay, lets make all soldiers the same and remove any sign of individuality from people's games.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but it seems to me you're intent on turning this game into an utterly linear experience. Every game you play will be the same: Fighters are no longer destroyed meaning there will be no variation in what you have game to game unless you make a deliberate decision to gimp yourself, if your soldiers all gain abilities at the same rate because they're not physically capable of gaining them any faster then they'll all end up being the same but with different names. I read in the difficulty thread that you're considering making the only difference between difficulty levels that of having more aliens per crash. Is the final game going to have any individuality and replayability at all?

Yeah I'm aware you didn't state anything definite, I just don't like the decision to make fighters indestructable and I also don't like this proposed change or the proposed way of changing "difficulty" either.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Person012345

[smoitessier]

I got to admit gaining 1 point per mission is quite boring, the only replayability variation you will have is the number of maxed soldiers

[Ol' Stinky]

There's not really that much individuality in it now, even if you don't power level. TUs are the only stat that have a really stand-out effect from soldier to soldier; it's hard to not notice a veteran covering twice as much ground as a rookie. TUs also happen to be the stat you don't have to worry about levelling, really, as spending 600 TUs per mission isn't hard. Accuracy comes a distant second by making a little number go up, with the others being entirely passive.

Even if stats did make soliders more like individuals, a better way to deal with the issue is by making rookies start with more varied stats. For example, a chance to get a rookie with exceptional accuracy, but at the cost of much lower health. Or one with very high TUs but low strength. At the moment, it's all: 50-60 TUs, 50-60 strength, etc. I suppose this might be deliberate while balancing's going on, though.

[Revoke]

I kind of agree with Person012345 in that the beauty of the original xcom was the freedom and replayability.

Sandbox FTW!

Although, this hard cap idea could be slightly reworked so that each stat has a random max figure within say a variation of x amount which is pre generated/determind when you buy the soldier and hidden from view until you hit the said cap. It will add some variation to end game soldiers even when maxed.

Also you could add a training facility to base building which your soldiers can spend time in while not on missions or while you rank up rookies.The facility could be 2 squares and within lies a shooting range, which can improve acc or reflex with moving targets, a gym for str and cardio equipment to buildup TU's, as for hp it could rise slower than the rest but get gains from each training choice.

This way you could use the cap to control the stat grinding in missions yet retain individuality.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Revoke

[Person012345]

I kind of agree with Person012345 in that the beauty of the original xcom was the freedom and replayability.

Sandbox FTW!

Although, this hard cap idea could be slightly reworked so that each stat has a random max figure within say a variation of x amount which is pre generated/determind when you buy the soldier and hidden from view until you hit the said cap. It will add some variation to end game soldiers even when maxed.

Also you could add a training facility to base building which your soldiers can spend time in while not on missions or while you rank up rookies.The facility could be 2 squares and within lies a shooting range, which can improve acc or reflex, with moving targets. a gym for str and cardio equipment to buildup (TU's), as for hp it could rise slower than the rest but get gains from each training choice.

This way you could use the cap to control the stat grinding yet retain individuality.

Whlst I'm not exactly a fan of the idea, this would be much preferable to a flat cap for mission XP gains for everyone.

[Ol' Stinky]

There already is a flat cap. It's just annoying to reach it.

[Person012345]

There already is a flat cap. It's just annoying to reach it.

A cap on per-mission gains?

[Ol' Stinky]

Yes.

Edit: To elaborate, here's a bit of GameConfig.xml that deals with stat gains in a mission.

<soldierDevelopment> <!-- Soldiers develop their attributes by using them. Each time the soldier performs a certain action, he will gain a "progress point" in that attribute. Once he reaches the "pointsToProgress" value, the attribute will increase by one point. These progress points are cumulative and are stored from mission to mission. --><APProgress       pointsToProgress="300" maxPointsInSingleBattle="600" globalMaxProgress="120" comment="A progress point is earned every time a soldier spends a TU on a mission" /><strengthProgress pointsToProgress="20"  maxPointsInSingleBattle="40"  globalMaxProgress="100" strengthCoeff="80" comment="Points are given when soldier moves one tile while carrying more than strengthCoeff percent of its maximum carry weight" /><accuracyProgress pointsToProgress="4"   maxPointsInSingleBattle="8"   globalMaxProgress="100" comment="Points are given when a soldier attempts to fire at a valid hostile enemy within weapon range * 1.5" /><reflexesProgress pointsToProgress="3"   maxPointsInSingleBattle="6"    globalMaxProgress="100" comment="A progress point is gained when a soldier performs a Reaction Fire test (it doesn't matter whether he passes or fails it)" /><braveryProgress  pointsToProgress="1"   maxPointsInSingleBattle="2"    globalMaxProgress="100" comment="A progress point is earned whenever a soldier panics in battle" /><resilienceProgress pointsToProgress="4" globalMaxProgress="100" comment="A progress points is earned every time the soldier gets a skillup in any other attribute" /> </soldierDevelopment>

As you can see, you can level-up each of the stats a maximimum of twice per mission. (Good luck with bravery, though.)

Edited July 12, 2013 by Ol' Stinky