Bulwark is trash and flanking is busted (rant)

[pukeko]

Just lost my champion SPARK to this on ironman, i'm pretty flustered about this to say the least.

At the end of a mission I only had two conscious team members since the archon ruler decided to show up and the only enemy left was an advent officer. My turn started and both my SPARK and the officer was low health.

I decided to move my spark RIGHT beside the officer to get a 100 percent flank shot and the game EVEN SAID that it was going to be a flank when I checked. I move my spark up and because of some ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ game mechanic, my spark now only had 56 percent chance to hit. I fire, i miss, and my other unit who was in a worse position also missed. Luckily the officer had no ammunition and just moved to high ground and reloaded. Once again, I checked if it would be a flank position, and it said it was.

I moved again and once AGAIN it wasn't a flank. At this point I realised what was going on. Bulwark was providing the officer with cover and for some unknown reason, it also made flanking impossible. At this point I knew that the spark was ♥♥♥♥♥♥, and gave him aid protocol, since my specialist couldn't see the officer anyways. Of course the officer hit and killed my spark and now i'm triggered.

And one other thing that boggles my mind: why the HELL did they remove the bonus hit to chance vs. flanked targets? I would've hoped that they had toned down RNG from Enemy Unknown, not increased it.

I mean, why does the ((("""good angle"""))) bonus even exist if it isn't taken into account when FLANKING? Y'KNOW, LIKE WHEN YOU HAVE A GOOD ANGLE? Its almost like firaxis thought that rookies were too good and had to take them down a peg since they miss all their flank shots now lol.

[AoD_lexandro]

You lost a unit. Boohoo. That's X-com.

[pukeko]

Yeah, I lost a high ranking unit, due to a hidden game mechanic that was never explained. I think i deserve to be a little mad.

[Tomas Mac Mordain]

I recommend not playing these games on iron man. The RNG can lead to squad wipes. Simple example, you set up an ambush, place some units on the rooftops overseeing a patrol. Say somehow a sectoid shows up and performs a failed mind control attack. Say the affected unit panics, jumps off the roof, turns right around and chucks a granade up to their comrades. Say theat destroys the roof and drops them 2 floors.

Had it happen yesterday. So it happens. And if you want to play iron man you better not complain about anything in this game. You play long enough the RNG will ruin your playthrough one way or the other.

This game is great for a laugh at the hilarious consequences, but from what I've seen even solid tactical and strategic play can be thwarted by RNG, leading to frustration. FInd a game that is more about the tactics and less about the RNG if you want iron man :)

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Clickepic:

And one other thing that boggles my mind: why the HELL did they remove the bonus hit to chance vs. flanked targets? I would've hoped that they had toned down RNG from Enemy Unknown, not increased it.

EU didn't have a flanking hit bonus. They don't get their cover bonus and have a higher chance of getting critted, just like in XCOM 2. The problem you have is that Bulwark is bugged and the enemy is treated as being in cover if adjacent to the Spark, which means you don't flank them.

I mean, why does the ((("""good angle"""))) bonus even exist if it isn't taken into account when FLANKING? Y'KNOW, LIKE WHEN YOU HAVE A GOOD ANGLE?

The good angle bonus partially nullifies the effect of cover, to a maximum of half of their cover bonus nullified. There's no good angle bonus against flanked enemies because they don't have their cover anyway.

[Perplex]

THe reason to not play Iron Man is that the game sometimes crash and bugs out. If you gona play Iron man do a Honest run instead where you dont savescum your way to victory.

Me i always savescum because i am that type of player but if you gona do a honest run it is safer if the game decide to screw you over with crashes or bugs that freeze the game in kill/overshot cam etc.

[pukeko]

Originally posted by kermit:

I recommend not playing these games on iron man. The RNG can lead to squad wipes. Simple example, you set up an ambush, place some units on the rooftops overseeing a patrol. Say somehow a sectoid shows up and performs a failed mind control attack. Say the affected unit panics, jumps off the roof, turns right around and chucks a granade up to their comrades. Say theat destroys the roof and drops them 2 floors.

Had it happen yesterday. So it happens. And if you want to play iron man you better not complain about anything in this game. You play long enough the RNG will ruin your playthrough one way or the other.

This game is great for a laugh at the hilarious consequences, but from what I've seen even solid tactical and strategic play can be thwarted by RNG, leading to frustration. FInd a game that is more about the tactics and less about the RNG if you want iron man :)

Yeah, im probably not gonna play my next campaign on ironman lol. I just felt that after cheating effectively my way through EW that I wasn't getting the "true" XCOM experience. As i've said, it seemed that they've increased RNG in XCOM 2. As far as I know, it wasn't possible for panicking soldiers to throw grenades at friendlies in EW, but I may be wrong about that.

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Originally posted by Clickepic:

And one other thing that boggles my mind: why the HELL did they remove the bonus hit to chance vs. flanked targets? I would've hoped that they had toned down RNG from Enemy Unknown, not increased it.

EU didn't have a flanking hit bonus. They don't get their cover bonus and have a higher chance of getting critted, just like in XCOM 2. The problem you have is that Bulwark is bugged and the enemy is treated as being in cover if adjacent to the Spark, which means you don't flank them.

I mean, why does the ((("""good angle"""))) bonus even exist if it isn't taken into account when FLANKING? Y'KNOW, LIKE WHEN YOU HAVE A GOOD ANGLE?

The good angle bonus partially nullifies the effect of cover, to a maximum of half of their cover bonus nullified. There's no good angle bonus against flanked enemies because they don't have their cover anyway.

Interesting, I could of sworn that there was a flanking hit bonus in EU. Perhaps the odds to hit were just better in that game? I'm gonna see if there are some mods that could improve my experience on my next playthrough.

[pukeko]

Originally posted by Perplex:

THe reason to not play Iron Man is that the game sometimes crash and bugs out. If you gona play Iron man do a Honest run instead where you dont savescum your way to victory.

Me i always savescum because i am that type of player but if you gona do a honest run it is safer if the game decide to screw you over with crashes or bugs that freeze the game in kill/overshot cam etc.

I had kind of assumed that most of the bugs and kinks would have been ironed out since the game is a few years old now, but I guess not. Definitely not playing unmodded ironman again.

[Eggy]

Originally posted by kermit:

I recommend not playing these games on iron man. The RNG can lead to squad wipes. Simple example, you set up an ambush, place some units on the rooftops overseeing a patrol. Say somehow a sectoid shows up and performs a failed mind control attack. Say the affected unit panics, jumps off the roof, turns right around and chucks a granade up to their comrades. Say theat destroys the roof and drops them 2 floors.

Had it happen yesterday. So it happens. And if you want to play iron man you better not complain about anything in this game. You play long enough the RNG will ruin your playthrough one way or the other.

This game is great for a laugh at the hilarious consequences, but from what I've seen even solid tactical and strategic play can be thwarted by RNG, leading to frustration. FInd a game that is more about the tactics and less about the RNG if you want iron man :)

Lack of solid tactical and strategic gameplay led to the squad wipe. Not RNG.
You had not scouted enough so did not know about the close enemies.
You took a risk in using overwatch to ambush.
You then compounded that risk by having your guys close together on rooftops.
You got frustrated because your plan didn' work. You didn't come out of that engagement with a billzion dead aliens and no damage taken. The game did not go in your favour, but thats not bad randomness.
The failed MC and the grenade throw, and how much floor got destroyed. That was all random.

[AoD_lexandro]

Overwatch with low rank units is bad. All you are doing is compounding the lack of aim stat with a penalty to hit from overwatch. This is a common mistake people make all the time, believing overwatch to be effective from the start.

Clustering together is bad, as any AoE attack will decimate your units. You should always maintain spacing between units, and have a cross fire setup to maintain angles of attack. If you don't then units simply get stuck in a static shooting match that the AI is more likely to win, due to better stats and skills.

[Tomas Mac Mordain]

Originally posted by Eggy:

Originally posted by kermit:

I recommend not playing these games on iron man. The RNG can lead to squad wipes. Simple example, you set up an ambush, place some units on the rooftops overseeing a patrol. Say somehow a sectoid shows up and performs a failed mind control attack. Say the affected unit panics, jumps off the roof, turns right around and chucks a granade up to their comrades. Say theat destroys the roof and drops them 2 floors.

Had it happen yesterday. So it happens. And if you want to play iron man you better not complain about anything in this game. You play long enough the RNG will ruin your playthrough one way or the other.

This game is great for a laugh at the hilarious consequences, but from what I've seen even solid tactical and strategic play can be thwarted by RNG, leading to frustration. FInd a game that is more about the tactics and less about the RNG if you want iron man :)

Lack of solid tactical and strategic gameplay led to the squad wipe. Not RNG.
You had not scouted enough so did not know about the close enemies.
You took a risk in using overwatch to ambush.
You then compounded that risk by having your guys close together on rooftops.
You got frustrated because your plan didn' work. You didn't come out of that engagement with a billzion dead aliens and no damage taken. The game did not go in your favour, but thats not bad randomness.
The failed MC and the grenade throw, and how much floor got destroyed. That was all random.

There was nothing wrong with how I played, given the givens. Not a single enemy had any kind of floor-destroying power. I did not do anything particularly stupid that would warrant a squad wipe in one move.

And contrary to what you elitists say, there is no way to play safe early game. The inverted difficulty curve is ♥♥♥♥ in the modern XCOMs. Always was. In the beginning you have nothing and are constantly interrupted by ♥♥♥♥. And towards the end you wipe the floor with stuff. Things like 'panic' should not be a squad-wiping thing, if it should have effects at all. Unless you insist I should have mind-shields for everyone, and the next thing you'll require that obviously everyone should have granades on them too. It does not work like that early game.

You make a choice, and sometimes it works out, and sometimes it does not. I believe it's what makes XCOM more interesting than a static chess game. But when you do get hit for no fault of your own, it is frustrating. And it's the game designer's job do balance that experience. For the most part XCOM games do that well mid-game, and a less good job early and late.

[Messsucher]

It was you, not the game.

[AoD_lexandro]

Originally posted by kermit:

Originally posted by Eggy:

Lack of solid tactical and strategic gameplay led to the squad wipe. Not RNG.
You had not scouted enough so did not know about the close enemies.
You took a risk in using overwatch to ambush.
You then compounded that risk by having your guys close together on rooftops.
You got frustrated because your plan didn' work. You didn't come out of that engagement with a billzion dead aliens and no damage taken. The game did not go in your favour, but thats not bad randomness.
The failed MC and the grenade throw, and how much floor got destroyed. That was all random.

There was nothing wrong with how I played, given the givens. Not a single enemy had any kind of floor-destroying power. I did not do anything particularly stupid that would warrant a squad wipe in one move.

And contrary to what you elitists say, there is no way to play safe early game. The inverted difficulty curve is ♥♥♥♥ in the modern XCOMs. Always was. In the beginning you have nothing and are constantly interrupted by ♥♥♥♥. And towards the end you wipe the floor with stuff. Things like 'panic' should not be a squad-wiping thing, if it should have effects at all. Unless you insist I should have mind-shields for everyone, and the next thing you'll require that obviously everyone should have granades on them too. It does not work like that early game.

Yes it really does work. You maximise your chances of hitting with rookies by blowing up cover with a grenade. This leaves the enemy exposed and improves your chances for every other shot. The fact you argue against it shows you really have not grasped the mechanics of early game combat.

Calling players "elitists" because they pointed out flaws in your gameplay shows that you still have not learned that your own tactics are sub-par. Instead you have taken to attacking other players for being better than you. And on top of that you state the "problem" is not you but the "the game" because you cannot admit you are not as good as you think you are.

I am terrible half the time, because I over-extend way too often. But when I do play well, I can 1 turn a Sectopod with ballistics tier only and a 4 member team of mid-ranks. How? Simply by using the skills and gear correctly at the right time, in the right order that best maximises my chances and damage potential. And that I learned from practice, and a lot of failures.

So no it was not "the games bad RNG" or another excuse you wish to use.

It was you making a bad tactical decision which the game then punished you for: That is X-com.

[talemore]

Soldiers can't shoot straight in the game.

[Tomas Mac Mordain]

Originally posted by AoD_lexandro:

Originally posted by kermit:

There was nothing wrong with how I played, given the givens. Not a single enemy had any kind of floor-destroying power. I did not do anything particularly stupid that would warrant a squad wipe in one move.

And contrary to what you elitists say, there is no way to play safe early game. The inverted difficulty curve is ♥♥♥♥ in the modern XCOMs. Always was. In the beginning you have nothing and are constantly interrupted by ♥♥♥♥. And towards the end you wipe the floor with stuff. Things like 'panic' should not be a squad-wiping thing, if it should have effects at all. Unless you insist I should have mind-shields for everyone, and the next thing you'll require that obviously everyone should have granades on them too. It does not work like that early game.

Yes it really does work. You maximise your chances of hitting with rookies by blowing up cover with a grenade. This leaves the enemy exposed and improves your chances for every other shot. The fact you argue against it shows you really have not grasped the mechanics of early game combat.

Calling players "elitists" because they pointed out flaws in your gameplay shows that you still have not learned that your own tactics are sub-par. Instead you have taken to attacking other players for being better than you. And on top of that you state the "problem" is not you but the "the game" because you cannot admit you are not as good as you think you are.

I am terrible half the time, because I over-extend way too often. But when I do play well, I can 1 turn a Sectopod with ballistics tier only and a 4 member team of mid-ranks. How? Simply by using the skills and gear correctly at the right time, in the right order that best maximises my chances and damage potential. And that I learned from practice, and a lot of failures.

So no it was not "the games bad RNG" or another excuse you wish to use.

It was you making a bad tactical decision which the game then punished you for: That is X-com.

I am not attacking anyone. You are an elitist defending the fact that RNG can wipe your squad. All it takes are some misses and some crits. Occasionally it happens.. The game has RNG. Sometimes it kills you. It sucks when it does. End of story. You can maximize all you want. You play a game of chance at some point. I am not saying you can't maximize your chances. You can. You'll still lose some of the time. And you can usually make up for in the course of the playthrough. so it's not game ending. It still is frustrating, though. All I am saying is: it happens. If it did not, they'd make the game iron man only, and it would be just as popular. We both know it would not be marketable iron-man only.

All that tedious micro-management of every single soldier, and bam. Here's your developer-intended setback to make it 'exciting'. XCOM has a super poor risk/reward balance, and a lot of tedium built in. Losing a soldier is not a matter of wasted resources, it's a matter of wasted long term investment, that you now have to tediously repeat. Urgh. The merciless RNG is OK as a design choice, overall. You seem to act like it does not exist...

[AoD_lexandro]

Says not attacking anyone, then goes on to attack someone and call them "elitist".

If you did not have the potential to lose, it would not be a game. It would be an interactive video. If you want it easy, turn the difficutly down. Otherwise its a simple case of git gud.