Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
Denunciar esta mensagem
I genuinely don't recognise your experience. It just reads like an opinion presented as an objective fact about game design.
I don't mind that our opinions differ, I guess we just disagree - this game is more "for me" than it is "for you", if you still choose to play and load and save, that's fine, I see no problem here that would merit discussion.
I think you might enjoy the conversation, and indeed your gameplay more if you kinda toned things down a few notches though. There's no need to start calling people "hypocrites" and "fanboys" it adds nothing, at best you're going to provoke a few people.
It does, you can find (and alter) the values in the .ini files. On Legend there are no modifications, but on the lower difficulties there are a variety of bonuses to XCOM shots and penalties to alien shots under certain conditions like hit or miss streaks.
These alterations only apply to shots of between 50% and 95% hit chance and only ever work in XCOM's favour.
While you raise a good point and I should tone down my rethoric, you should also acknowledge that there are some fundamental issues with this game design. I'm frustrated to see people at the start of this thread just brushing off issues as they would be player's fault. Furthermore, in what world people are living that 100 hours of gameplay is not enough to have in depth understanding of the game? I complete it on ironman on hardest difficulty and yet, I supposedly do not understand how to play this game.
Edit: it seems that my game is running on Commander. I usually do not run my first campaign on hardest difficulty as I want to get a feel for the game first. To let myself to use inefficient builds and to experiment with units, research and abilities as I do not know what they do. Though, I could play on Legend just fine as I was wiping the floor with enemy units before game got harder. I also do not tend to receive any casualties overall when I'm running with my most experienced squad. Though, seeing Legend difficulty, I can see that game forces you to play in a certain way. This rampant armour mechanic for example causes you to take armour shredding or a lot of explosives like I did once with 3 grenadiers. It seemingly invalidates a lot of different possible playstyles. I felt having a lot more freedom to play as I wish in Xcom 1 than it Xcom 2 and somehow it was a lot more enjoyable experience even if felt a lot more bare bones.
Well, no, I don't experience the game in the way you do. There are faults with the game, sure, it's more buggy than any other mainstream game I've played (aside from the Fallout series) for example and that *is* a technical failing.
There were issues (now long fixed) with inscrutable and, frankly bizarre, hit and crit mechanics for shots with more than 100% hit. I had complaints about those, I took them to the 2k forums and to Reddit, and ultimately the game got fixed.
RNG Fraud is not one of those issues in my opinion, we simply disagree. You're entitled to your disagreement and opinion, sure. But not to mine - to put it plainly I am happy to acknowledge your opinion, but I won't acknowledge it as fact because I don't think it is fact.
There are ways of playing that carry (often unseen) risks and there are ways of playing that mitigate, minimise or avoid those risks. If one consistently chooses the latter in the myriad hundreds and thousands of small ways (from soldier speccing to always bring scouts, always bringing back up options like 100% hit abilities, items or mimic beacons to fall back on, to moving soldiers in the right order when advancing, not revealing more tiles in combat, not approaching blind corners to many others) then bad things will happen rarely, and tend not to be *that bad* - almost never (barring maybe Gatecrasher) game-ending.
I *actively like* that bad things can still happen. It makes the game interesting, the fact challenge remains is what draws me back to play again. If there was no challenge once I'd mastered the basics, I probably never would have played more than one campaign.
As I say, the title of the thread is "RNG Fraud", which is pretty emotive, and we've seen the spattering of accusations of things like hypocrisy, denying simple facts, being fanboys and so on.
If someone is frustrated, all of that is understandable. But on the other hand it's also pretty understandable that such comments don't elicit much sympathy.
Certainly if we defuse some of the emotive language we could get to the fact of whether it is safe to move to rooftops without scouting them. Plainly from your example it was not safe, and it was the gap between assumption that it was and the reality that it was not that led to frustration.
So the question is what to do with that? Adapt to the reality that *sometimes* this is not a safe move and scout rooftops before risking moving to them at what would be a bad time to encounter a pod, or change game mode and allow the luxury of load-saving, or attempt to place blame for the frustration?
Two of the three seem reasonable to me.
I certainly haven't said you "do not understand how to play this game". I think it's clear that there are still things you can learn. I'm still learning after 600 hours of XCOM 2 and probably 400 of XCOM:EU, so it would be amazing if there was nothing left for you with 100 hours across multiple titles as you suggested earlier. Nonetheless, still learning, doesn't mean "does not understand how to play". Indeed even a master player can still learn a new trick or two occasionally.
One of those things, I would suggest, is about assuming line of sight blocking rooftops and sharp corners do not hide aliens. Not infrequently, they do.
If you have a backup plan like a mimic beacon, then you can take the risk. If you don't, it's imperative to seriously consider what you can or will do if the situation is the unfavourable one.
Or Just don't play ironman and load whenever you feel justified. This is a different behaviour than the "save scumming" that the charge of RNG fraud related to, mind you, which is reloading with the intent of changing an unfavourable PRNG call to a favourable one. The equivalent of a mulligan on each individual shot roll or result.
You cannot account for those things. You can encounter pods in most bizarre of places and aliens won't even move or make any indications that they are there. Yet, the biggest issues is of line of sight. A soldier can see the tiniest fraction of an enemy in an environment where you otherwise thought to be safe and here you go, you most likely just lost a team member. How I was able to fight inside the building, thinking that I'm safe in it, with the whole squad spending multiple turns there only to discover at random that aliens were on top of it this entire time? Even more, how I can assault building, taking one pod and having an entire squad in one part of the building while my random dude manages to trigger pack of mobs by not going outside the boundaries which his other squadmates had set for him? You can use mimic beacon to lure them out, but that is rarely useful when you are on a short timer. I have to keep moving every turn forwards or risk taking dashes later on. Game actively sabotages itself with its own mechanics. When I got a chance to play it my way in a mission where I had to capture alien gateway and discover that ethereals are dying, I took about 32'ish turns to complete that mission. I had completed it with minor hits on my squadmates. Why those hits had happened? Because game has a completely separate set of rules when you are spotting with a ranger. My hacking does not work as usual. My ranger could not take reactionary shot when it was spotted. Crystalids kept scoring and missing hits on me when they were far away from my squad. My Bladestorm did not activated on it and I was hit while other time it activated with a sound file playing that I was hit, not Scrystalid. Or when my ranger were spotting for rest of my squad, I could keep firing at them with my sniper and they would ignore me all together, but the gatekeeper for some reason behaved completely differently when I tried the same trick on him. These minor inconsistencies in game behavor completely throws you off from your game.
You see, I'm more than willing to accept loses on my part when I feel that game is being fair. I stomached loss of almost my entire squad in previous mission, wiping out my entire gear reserves. It was fine, because I evacuated VIP and my most experienced ranger out of that group of losers. I was fine in losing my most experienced sniper when enemy squad just wandered to my rear area casually and caught my sniper off guard. It got hit by fire once. I quickly dashed him to heavy cover to next side of the building, but a simple soldier surprised me as he charged in, threw a grenade and killed him. Yet, I do not feel it is fine when game keeps feeling completely unfair to me. When you encounter enemy squad out of nowhere. When game bugs out. When your whole squad misses a single charging enemy who then crits your soldier. Those constant nonsensical timers sap all the fun out of the game. I can't play it my way when I actually enjoy this game nor I can mod it out as most popular mod just crashes my game. I also want to see what developers thought was a good game in its original form. These constant timers in a game where you have to make every movement count, every decision carefully just kills everything at fundamental level. I cannot understand what game designer thought or why people tolerate such things so willingly.
Could it be that you're pushing way too fast and hard due to frustration? I know when people get tired, very often they simply go "F-IT" and ram the situation head on.
As for the Sectopods and MECs, did you know that the first release of X-Com:EU did not have MECs? We had to take them out like what we are doing now, Shredders and heavy fire. At least in X-Com 2 you got hacking. EU, you simply had to kill it outright.
In addition, I view game flawed as how there isn't any opportunities to level up your rookies on easier missions or come back mechanics if you mess up. It is quite unrealistic when each mission is as hard as they get and story missions are actually the easiest ones! Furthermore, game is pretty bear bones in its actual choice. Most upgrades are straightforward mandatory damage and health increases. Squad upgrade system will soon make them ridiculously overpowered which forces enemies to become ridiculous as well. It creates a dynamic where you either wipe them in same turn if you play correctly or they start wiping you. Game has very little choice in terms of soldier customization like what kind of weapon will it use or it has non existent stat line to give each soldier a technical personality which older games had. Though, all of these things are more of the issue of mainstreaming games and that newer generations rarely are capable of handling old school complexity.
You guys will never be able to experience the awesomes that is filling your soldiers bags full of mines and just mining the ♥♥♥♥ out your pathway in tunnels and later hearing your mines going boom as organic and open maps would allow enemies actually be missed and for them to appear where there shouldn't be any.
And btw, there is a comeback mechanic. If you abandoned a squadie in the field, it will reappear as a rescue mission a bit later.
Play a bit longer, 100 hrs as we already said is too few hours to get familiar with the game. Have you gotten "VIP extraction" missions after that? Check the name of the person you are supposed to rescue.
It's a perceptual issue, not one with the game. The PRNG has been tested and it works fine.
As for unrealistic, I think it's a non-complaint as far as I'm concerned. I find alien invasion unrealistic, sure. I find a squad of 4-6 men conducting a handful of missions and overthrowing a superior power that has control of the entire world unrealistic, sure. I find plasma weapons unrealistic, sure. Faceless are frankly ludicrous and look like they come straight from sci-fi B-movie (which they probably do).
But a number of slightly unlikely things happening in quick succession? Not at all.
Real wars have been won and lost on minor details. The rain before Agincourt. A stray arrow at Hastings. People survive gunshots to the head and lead full lives against seemingly impossible odds. Other people die when shot in the leg after a bullet ricochets at an improbable angle into some vital organ or artery.
That's just your emotional response, it's not a feature of the game.
It's actually very hard to get a point blank shotgun shot to be almost guaranteed instead of actually guaranteed (the lowest possible base aim for a squaddie ranger at point blank is 108, so you need debuffs or defence even against a squaddie). Personally I think it would be extremely silly if there was no difference between "almost" guaranteed and "actually" guaranteed. I've no doubt that would annoy me and feel "unrealistic".
It's exactly the other way around. If you go back to the old Gollop style games like laser squad, rebel star or the original XCOM you regularly took large volleys of shots which individually had vastly less chance of an outright kill and thus had a distribution with less variance overall (although depending on iteration this was counterbalanced by a lot of 0 damage hits based on armor).
XCOM:EU and XCOM 2 have gone for a different approach where it feels like every shot counts. Almost all enemies are killed within a single hit or two, almost none are health sponges.
There is nothing flawed about this approach, inherently or otherwise.
I'm happy to acknowledge that some people don't like it - that's fine, they don't have to. But again that's an opinion not an objective fact.
They matter hugely. A really good player can complete a sizeable proportion of legend ironman runs with literally zero casualties in WOTC. A player who makes tactical errors can't do that.
And losing soldiers to gatekeepers is honestly not a major risk. By the time they show up there are dozens of options for dealing with them from stasis, to frost grenades, to emp grenades, to bluescreen rounds.
If you don't like the abstraction of fast moving flying, armored units being hard to hit, that's again fine. You don't have to like it.
Shaken hardly happens at all. Maybe once or twice a campaign typically?
If you take tired soldiers on missions then it happens a lot, but that's just a direct result of player choice.
See, this is the rub. Fundamentally I think you've listed a few situations (uncovering new tiles while already in combat, gatekeepers, shaken) that have direct responses the player can learn.
Sure, we all slip up from time to time and make mistakes - I'm no perfect player, but the attitude of response is still a choice. I can either point the finger and blame someone or something else (like RNG or game design) or I can accept that it was me and try and work out what I did wrong.
I opt for the latter.
That's not how mimic beacons should be used, doing this would be to absolutely squander the most powerful defensive resource in the game.
Mimic beacons force almost all aliens to fire on them with standard shots until the mimic beacon is dead. What this means is that if the last unit to act has a mimic beacon and there are still aliens alive who could fire on, and maybe even kill, an XCOM unit you can throw that mimic beacon to give 100% safety (in almost all situations) to your squad.
Knowing you have this in reserve and that between 1-4 aliens' shots will not go at your squad (depending on campaign progression and hence damage per shot) means you can take risks you otherwise could not - you can move forward and uncover those tiles that on the rare offchance will trigger a second pod you can't necessarily handle - because NOW you know that even if they are exactly where you don't want and you can't kill them you still won't take casualties and will get a second turn by using the beacon.
Not taking advantage of this insurance policy is again a simple, tactical choice, and if not made with the intention of making the game harder, is again a simple error.
Yes, the timers are one of the challenges the game presents. Some people don't like them, others do.
Neither of those is correct in an unmodded game with no file corruption. Once spotted an in overwatch ranger can fire overwatch under exactly the same circumstances as any other overwatch shot - when an enemy unit moves from one visible location to another at least 1 tile away.
If bladestorm actually didn't occur (and the ranger had it) that would be a bug. It could also be a display bug. It's not an intended part of the game, yes bugs suck and the game is sometimes quite buggy, that's a legitimate criticism.
The only thing you can do is verify your game files, and if you find this sort of thing unacceptable don't play ironman.
As for activation if you miss a squadsight overwatch shot that no longer activates aliens. There's no inconsistency there, the rules just got changed when WOTC was introduced.
Well, sure, that's how you feel and I won't tell you how to feel.
But sometimes where you've given concrete examples these situations which you say you could do nothing about do have solutions. You made choices that you simply haven't identified, and that's the opportunity to learn.
If you'd rather not play the game, or rather play on a lower difficulty, or non-ironman, those are valid choices instead. Nobody should criticise you for that.
But at the same time that doesn't mean I (or anyone) will accept that there's no alternative to walking into chryssalid ambushes (battle scanners, scanning protocol, simple patience, aid protocol) or dealing with gatekeepers (EMP grenades, shadow chamber warning you they are there, bluescreen rounds, frost grenade, mimic beacon) or activating pods by revealing tiles when you can't afford to (reaper scout, ranger scout, battle scanner, backup defences like mimic beacon).
Sometimes, usually, even we have choices about these things. We can minimise the risks we expose ourselves to, and that's fundamental to the game. It's exactly why I like it.
Bugs are a legitimate complaint, sure.
If you don't like the timers, just edit your .ini files or activate the advanced option to double their lengths. It's dead easy and takes 5 minutes. Again, nobody will complain if you prefer to play the game this way, if you like, I can even tell you how, I expect.
I won't criticise timers though, because I actively think they are fantastic. They force me to make tough choices, that I can actually get wrong, rather than being able to *always* play it safe and overwatch creep 1 tile per turn. Having a strategy that always works, but is boring to implement is not a tactical decision at all, it's just a contest of stamina and how much of my real life time I'm willing to waste.
In addition, game just keeps throwing me those random battles which makes game feel so grindy at times.
just ignore the rest and finish the story missions then. There are only 8 storyline missions and if you researched everything, you would be up to the Shadow Chamber, there would only be 2 more missions to go, the TV tower and the alien fortress.