Jump to content

Thoughts on increased randomness


Recommended Posts

For me it's made getting close to aliens a bad choice. Getting my squad equipped with armor early on has helped, but I never know when a plasma rifle will kill one of my guys or not.

Spot w/ vehicle. Shoot w/ machine guns and snipers w/ a few riflemen flanking to bypass cover. Before I would play more aggressively w/ lots of close-in kills.

If nothing else, it's made early game far more tense, closed in spaces more dangerous, and made jackal armor a worthwhile investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little nervous about the idea of armoured guys getting one-shot by aliens of equal footing in terms of tech. Guards wield alien plasma rifles, which do 35-105 damage now (right?). Jackal mitigates 35, so you're looking at 0-70 damage for that first hit. And that's fine for my vets who have more than 70 hp, but my rookies probably won't. Given that I'm forking out 20k for each suit of armour, I'm not going to put any armour on guys with less than 70hp in case I get unlucky.

"But Stinky!", you say, "That's not too likely. A completely green soldier will have 52-60hp, so there's only something like a one in four chance that rookie in jackal will die outright." Well, Lady Luck is kinder towards some of us than others. If you want proof of that, take a look at my hideous face. I seem to have bad luck when it comes to damage rolls, too, so newbies will have to roll out in basic armour for the time being and hope for the best.

While I might be alone here, I didn't like OG X-Com's damage model a whole lot either. Your heavy armour guys could go down in one hit from heavy plasma in one battle, to shrugging off heavy plasma in the next, and the inconsistency meant I never really knew where I stood in terms of my soldiers' sturdiness. It wasn't a major problem in that game because, well, with plasma cannon sweatshops the economy was broken anyway. But I wouldn't want to see that here, and I hope the goal isn't one-shot city. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to end up with damage sponges on both sides. But I'd prefer it if armoured soldiers always took at least two shots to kill in order to dampen the possibility of bad luck with the dice a bit.

Edited by Ol' Stinky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well with the increased accuracy, something needed to counter-balance it...and really several somethings.

One being more Aliens, and another being more random damage.

Damage was honestly set too high on plasmas I was 1-shotting Aliens easily, and often would only need to use a single soldier to take out an Alien.

With the added randomness you add to the reality of the game, and you find a way to lessen the overall damage without reducing the weapon damage.

You also serve to make the game less predictable.

My only concerns will come when the highest tactics of the game become a forced dice roll.

If there is no better way than just a slug fest for clearing out a base or UFO, then I think that is a failure, I believe strongly with this game skill should be the ultimate determining factor of life and death.

You should always be able to say you could have survived if you had done this or that. Which I have found thus far to be mostly the case.

But if it ever becomes a situation where the best tactics end up just being a dice roll, then it'll all come collapsing down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little nervous about the idea of armoured guys getting one-shot by aliens of equal footing in terms of tech. Guards wield alien plasma rifles' date=' which do 35-105 damage now (right?). Jackal mitigates 35, so you're looking at 0-70 damage for that first hit. And that's fine for my vets who have more than 70 hp, but my rookies probably won't. Given that I'm forking out 20k for each suit of armour, I'm not going to put any armour on guys with less than 70hp in case I get unlucky.

"But Stinky!", you say, "That's not too likely. A completely green soldier will have 52-60hp, so there's only something like a one in four chance that rookie in jackal will die outright." Well, Lady Luck is kinder towards some of us than others. If you want proof of that, take a look at my hideous face. I seem to have bad luck when it comes to damage rolls, too, so newbies will have to roll out in basic armour for the time being and hope for the best.

While I might be alone here, I didn't like OG X-Com's damage model a whole lot either. Your heavy armour guys could go down in one hit from heavy plasma in one battle, to shrugging off heavy plasma in the next, and the inconsistency meant I never really knew where I stood in terms of my soldiers' sturdiness. It wasn't a major problem in that game because, well, with plasma cannon sweatshops the economy was broken anyway. But I wouldn't want to see that here, and I hope the goal isn't one-shot city. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to end up with damage sponges on both sides. But I'd prefer it if armoured soldiers always took at least two shots to kill in order to dampen the possibility of bad luck with the dice a bit.[/quote']

For balance:

I quite like extra randomness in damage and like the fact that soldiers can get one-shot even in good armour. For me, it adds to the tension of a battle - no one is safe, so I always have that feeling of dread when an alien is blasting away.

Regarding the example, I'd suggest that Jackle vs. Plasma Rifle isn't the best example to use. Jackle has always felt to me like a stop-gap than an effective solution to alien weapons - it might save your life, but not all the time and probably not twice. In any case, Jackle is reliable against Plasma Pistols (and, I guess, fairly good against the alien Plasma Shotgun now), while Wolf armour is fairly reliable against plasma rifles (on average, you should be able to take two shots from a plasma rifle).

All this said, I'll admit that back when I was first playing the OG I was massively confused by armour and damage and the inconsistency was a little frustrating at times. But if I had known the armour and damage mechanics then it would have been fine (because I would have understood the system rather than wondering whether armour was actually useless). Although, back when I was playing the OG I was a child and probably wouldn't have understood anyway!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it ended up being, Naked = 95% chance of death, Best armor in game = 50% chance.

So it was better than nothing and would give you better chances of surviving, but couldnt be in any way relied upon.

Which is the way it should be, really. Armor should make up for a mistake or two, here and there and help protect your high ranks.

But if you are just marching forth Storm Trooper style, you should take heavy casualties even with the best armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're correct about the role of jackal armour, then I'll only ever make a couple of suits to help in lightscout missions. If that's the idea, then fair enough.

I think one-shots take us out of "tense" and into "frustrating" territory. I've had a shieldbearer, behind smoke, and crouching behind cover get hit by enemy fire before (well, in 19.6 because of the smoke). I'm fine with that happening because, like you say, if it was 100% safe to squat behind cover, there'd be no feeling of danger. I'm not so cool with the idea that I can completely lose a soldier because I suck at rolling dice. If that soldier's reduced to 8hp, then instead of rageloading I'll probably go with it.

My most enduring memory of XCom 2012 is doing a council mission - ugh - and one of my soldiers getting critically hit, despite being behind cover and not being flanked. The soldier panics, turns to his buddy, and pops him in the side of his head, killing him. It left such a bad taste in my mouth that it's one of the reasons I'll probably never play that game again. I accept that there needs to be at least some element of randomness to keep things fresh, but when good luck is more important than good play there's a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never understood the "RAGE SHOOT YOUR FRIEND" mechanic. I mean, is that really a thing? I can understand going berzerk and rushing your enemy, but rage shooting your friends...gah.

I don't mind there being critical hits, I don't mind there being the occasional "just winged him" shots, either. But as mentioned, too much skew and it feels cheap. If I did something dumb, got caught out in the open, that sort of thing, I should be punished for sucking.

But too much randomness in the game usually feels "cheap". Like, "I just came around the corner flanked the guy, shot him three times in the face, and he lives because 7, 7, 9 damage from my rifle." I was like, "well, that was stupid. No. Reloading."

It's why I changed the shotgun. If I shoot someone with a shotgun, it should hurt a whole lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I have bad ass armor that it took me a bazillion dollars to make and a bazillion hours of research, it shouldn't be good for "maybe one shot" of mitigation. I'm sorry, but that seems lame to me.

I understand the feeling, but in reality the perfect shot cant be protected against, but happens only VERY rarely. And if it works out that way, fine.

Again tho if it come down to the best tactic is just trading shots and praying to the RNG gods, then you have failed.

Rule #1 of XCOM should always be dont get shot. Armor is just in case you do, you have a better chance of not dieing.

You shouldnt be "Tanking" with any soldier, nor should the game end up being a open the door, run in and hope for the best...again that isnt tactics.

XCOM had more deaths, and it was designed that way...but with the added number of soldiers most people understood they were going to be using rookies as scout fodder...the ones lucky enough to survive were then armored and kept out of harm's way.

However here every soldier is important and none are expendable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I have bad ass armor that it took me a bazillion dollars to make and a bazillion hours of research, it shouldn't be good for "maybe one shot" of mitigation. I'm sorry, but that seems lame to me.

It's "probably one shot" rather than "maybe one shot". Just because your dude has advanced armour doesn't mean you should know he's got an Extra LifeTM in his backpack. Particularly given the alternative against advanced aliens weapons (not having armour) would be certain death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, I should be punished for having bad tactics. If I'm not learning from my mistakes, I shouldn't have the problem. I don't mind that. "Yeah, that was dumb, and I totally left that guy there, frak!" But there are a lot of times when it feels "cheap". I would be upset if I were playing ironman and it does things that I consider cheap. If my tactics are good, but I get punished by the RNG, I feel the game needs to be tweaked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect to lose guys from time to time inspite of my best efforts and the best equipment available. If that weren't possible the game wouldn't be worth playing IMO. So, I have no complaints about my high tech armor failing once in a while. Also, 90% of the time I can point to something stupid I did. The only thing that irritates me is when I lose someone because of a bug. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chris: Granted, having armor is not an excuse to not use cover and good tactics. "That's X-COM, baby!" sounds like what you are aiming for. :)

In X-COM, I didn't give anyone armor until they lived through to be a Sergeant. It wasn't worth the expense because you lost the armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think having a wide damage variance is very fair. If you get shot in the foot, it should hurt just as bad as any other time you get shot in the foot.
Why not? People get lucky everyday with stuff that would "normally" be fatal and also get unlucky with stuff that shouldn't be fatal.That includes being shot. My friend in the ER has stories you just wouldn't believe. If anything the damage variance is still too small.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad luck sometimes just kills someone. It won't be the most important factor in whether you win or a lose a mission, but sometimes someone is just in the wrong place at the wrong time and gets a critical plasma bolt in the face. That's how life works, and it adds to the tension of the game. If you want your soldiers to be 100% safe, leave them at base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's "probably one shot" rather than "maybe one shot". Just because your dude has advanced armour doesn't mean you should know he's got an Extra LifeTM in his backpack. Particularly given the alternative against advanced aliens weapons (not having armour) would be certain death.

That makes it sound as though there's no consequence for taking that first hit in a two-hit-kill system when there is: the first hit means that the soldier is going to spend a lot of time in the hospital. Because of that, no-one's going to do a tactic where they deliberately take a hit, knowing that the soldier will survive.

I'll take certain death for an unarmoured rookie over possible death for an armoured rookie, where the armour is up to date against the aliens' weapons. It's 10k versus 30k+.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, 90% of the time I can point to something stupid I did. The only thing that irritates me is when I lose someone because of a bug. :-)

This has been my experience of the game, too (including with the bugs!). In fact, I'd go as far as to say 99%.

But too much randomness in the game usually feels "cheap". Like, "I just came around the corner flanked the guy, shot him three times in the face, and he lives because 7, 7, 9 damage from my rifle." I was like, "well, that was stupid. No. Reloading."

I'd argue there is something which could be done in that situation (don't rely on a single soldier to take out an alien at close range; take two to be sure).

In any case, one of the things that I really like about Xenonauts is it's high tolerance for failure. Sure, losing a soldier to a one-shot kill might be disappointing and even frustrating. But did it cost you the mission? Probably not. Even if it did, did it cost you the game? Almost certainly not.

Hence, I'm quite happy with the game not allowing the perfect player to play the game without taking a single casuality. I'm confident that a skilled player will win this game every time (bugs aside! No one can beat CTDs. Save maybe the devs), even if they're taking casualities due to some bad rolls.

I don't think having a wide damage variance is very fair. If you get shot in the foot, it should hurt just as bad as any other time you get shot in the foot.

But surely being shot in the head should hurt more than being shot in the foot? (Or, actually, less I guess. Since you're not likely to feel the former for very long).

EDIT: Chris beat me to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention that luck sometimes helps you in a bad situation. You can't tell me that you haven't cheered on really tough mission where the last couple guys have come out on top because they got lucky and one-shotted someone across the map or the Reaper ran out of TU one tile away and you dropped him at your feet. :D Those are the game moments I live for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...