Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
My point was: players who defend complains about difficulty are usually very experienced. Their knowledge of the game is much higher and they can easily use powerful skills/combinations or avoid potential problems.
If I have hurt you in the previous discussion I do apologise.
Tasi, in all honesty I often enjoy reading your posts, so don't take it the wrong way, but here it seems to me you speak of things that you don't know about:
1) Community Council members don't work for Snapshot. It's a focus group.
2) There are less than 10 players in the CC who play on Legend, myself included (if I'm not mistaken, 6, perhaps 7), and it's very unfair to say that we are pushing for a higher difficulty. First, because there is no "we": each of us has different opinions, we agree on very few things. Second, because if there is one thing we all agree on is that the game has to be really easy on easier difficulty levels and more friendly to new players.
3) There are CC members who are not fans of the game, much less "huge fans". Some of them literally play the game every once in a while to say it's still complete s**t. That's the point of a focus group, to have different views.
Btw, It's nice of you to point out to my first post on the Snapshot forum, but as I said there it was made in a particular context where the game was being harshly criticized for not being a remake of X-Com (among other perfectly valid criticisms). Since then I have made around 1.3 k posts on the official forum, and you are welcome to read them and see if I don't criticize the game often and harshly enough when I believe it deserves it.
For the record, yes, I'm a big fan of the game because I believe it does something new that sets it apart, not because it's perfect in every way and just needs to be a little bit harder.
Absolutely agree.
I can assure you that all reports about difficulty reach the devs and are taken very seriously. Also, you can see by yourself that the most common response to complaints about difficulty here and on the official forum are suggestions, explanations and recommendations.
I was referring to RNG in tactical battles. However, when it comes to Geoscape, imo the problem is not RNG, but certain obscure-meta mechanics, particularly everything relating to diplomacy. For example, for me the problem is not that a diplo mission to achieve supportive status is generated on a different continent, but the benefits that achieving supportive status carries and which are foregone if you don't. Similarly, that the best away to accelerate diplo relations with the 3 factions is to successively attack each faction on behalf of another... Or that you can be allied with all of them even as they are at war with each other.
On one level it makes the game easier for the experienced player who knows the meta-rules governing diplomacy and can abuse them, but for the new player this is very counter-intuitive (I don't know about you, but as a first time player I tried to keep some distance with all factions because it seemed like they would be upset if I got to close with one of them, only to find out that I have 100% with all of them while they are all at war with each other).
So, yes, btw, this is the kind of "higher difficulty" I "push for" in the CC and elsewhere: I want a more intuitive ruleset. Similarly, I don't like OP skill combinations not so much because they make the game too easy for me, but because they make the game more difficult to the player who doesn't know them.
Yeah, but you don't lose the mission if the civvies or the structures get destroyed in haven defenses, you just don't get the XP allocated to that objective. I'm not saying that is good as it is (and btw, it also gets mentioned all the time in CC and relayed to the devs). What I'm saying is that even missions that look very hard because of the number and quality of enemies you are facing can be beaten with an adequate squad.
Most of the difficulty modifiers is at which speed the opposition increase. The problem is that the max is the same all accross the board so you may have an easier start with Rookie but in the end, you'll have the endgame setup of Legendary except perhaps 2-3 things. I played once a Rookie game vs a youtuber's (ChristopherOdd) Legendary and checked both end mission: He had 1 scylla, I had 2. He had 2 worm chirons, I had 4 bomb ones. I think he had max 2 sirens while I had 6. So in short, think of Rookie as slowed down Legendary instead of easy.
Personally, I feel some combinations are too powerful in players' hands, like L7 sniper / infiltrator with silent echo head. Enemies simply don't have a counter to that. Does balancing for this needs to happen across all 4 difficulties? Probably not. Incidentally, in one of the streams Julian said his current playthrough was focusing on infiltrators so maybe there are some changes that'll come out of that.
Errr, triple perception tritons with sniper rifles? Chiron also bombard stealthed units too.
Is MC by a Siren really such a problem still, though? First the Siren needs to reach the operative and, if I'm not mistaken, she needs to have LoS. She can't initiate mind control of more than 1 operative on the same turn. Then she doesn't gain actual control of the operative until next turn, which give you a whole turn to deal with the MC. And you don't have to kill her. Any of the following will break the MC:
- Daze
- Panic
- Disable head
- Paralyze
One of my preferred strategies for dealing with MC Sirens is to let them MC an operative (so they do the leg work to approach the squad), and either kill her or do any of the above. There is an interesting synergy with infiltrator's surprise attack (level 2 skill) and Siren's AI: after MCing, she tends to move in the opposite direction to hide away, which puts her back towards the squad and thus vulnerable to Surprise Attack.
Personally, I find the Psychic Scream Sirens more dangerous. Also Scylla's Sonic Blast, because it's 30 sonic damage, which checks against WP, and if WP is lower, the target is dazed. (In other words, there is simply no protection against Scylla's Sonic Blast because no human has 30 WP)
BTW, the clarity head module that is supposed to protect against psychic damage currently doesn't work at all. Also Mind Ward doesn't protect against psychic damage (despite claiming that it grants immunity), though at least IME it does prevent panic (other users have reported that it doesn't).
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198067885567/recommended/839770?snr=1_5_9__402
As stated prior I don't really mind the game having an up hill battle but there should be a turning point where you start to get on top of things and then finally get the advantage or at least match the toughest enemies. XCOM 2 does this well just as an example.
I have never said you work "for Snapshot". So-called "community council" is group of hand-picked unpaid players who are under Non-Disclosure Agreement and test pre-release version of the game.
It was you, not me, who written the information:
I specifically got this information from a member of those testers and it was confirmed by another one.
Again: It was you, not me, who written information about "it even might be a majority" and "generally complain about lack of difficulty"
I don't argue about it.
I would be very happy to discuss with you mechanics and how you look at them. It is your opinion and I respect it but so far I have connected you with very uncritical perspective to the game.
I can repeat what I have already re-written about difficulty: "I agree the difficulty isn't the source of issues"
On the other hand, claiming that devs take such complaints very seriously is an exaggeration. Since the release, there were major complaints about e.g. artillery (or hidden laser snipers). Devs have done absolute minimum: Make them weaker. Still crying? Make them weaker? Still crying? Make them later evolution. While the reported problem itself was: frustrating and unfair, the "solution" devs made is: less frustrating and unfair instead of redesign the enemy to e.g. some kind of support unit which would spread something that makes pandorans quicker move.
There is definitely a problem with RNG even at Geoscape (and there is definitely RNG problem in mission also). Are you familiar with the issue that the continent can be completely without a faction or even two factions?
I don't understand you. Anyway, is it something which is frequently reported?
Honestly, I haven't seen any complaints about it. I haven't noticed much confusion about what makes faction happy either.
I don't understand what do you mean by "ruleset". I have already mentioned that I didn't complain about difficulty but randomness. Anyway if you want to discuss it I can at least address the most obvious issue:
If I am not mistaken you were among the testers who pushed for that new arthron evolution with 440HP and 95 damage. If you make all (or almost all) enemies very lethal, e.g. killing a veteran well-equipped soldier within a single turn, and give them high mobility, you are prone to unfair deaths. You even diminish the importance of boss-type enemies. The approach of beefing even basic enemies and making them bullet-sponges significantly hurts any sense of progression and makes the game frustrating.
Tactical options are further undermined by complete lack of any passive defence. The necessity to kill them before they can act is very limiting and adds to the repetitiveness of missions.
My understanding is that some testers and developers don't like the reversed difficulty curve from original X-Com and they would rather have a consistent difficulty to keep the challenge. It is a personal preference but that severely cripples X-Com feeling for me.
Could you please quote any response from devs or how do they see the issue? Honestly, the most bizarre thing (and the only one why I would support any further project from Snapshot) is the absolute lack of any response. They only consume what others write but they are not capable to uncover plans or any deep meaning. An example of that behaviour was this:
https://feedback.phoenixpoint.info/feedback/p/replace-odi-with-survival-of-humanity
A significant re-design of the game with a simple: "Protecting Havens will be more important."
What I am saying is that I had missions where Scylla started alone in front of my soldiers (so she was a very easy prey since all her buddies were far away). Or that you fail something without an option to affect it at all. You were predetermined to fail because of random generation.
The mission generation is abysmal at best. For some strange reason, devs don't understand that if in original X-Com all UFOs would have random crew without any logic it would not be more "diverse" it would be all the same. Just imagine that you would have a mission against pandoran "scout" party (specific enemies) or pandoran "harvesting" party (specific enemies and specific evolutions)...
The same applies to the placing of enemies. Imagine you would sometimes surprise pandorans (free pre-battle placement of some of your units). Or pandorans would be spread around the mp with some logic, or pandorans would call reinforcements with some logic (again: random = less tactic).
If developers want to delegate anyone to be arbiters of the difficulty they have a free hand. It is their call what difficulty they want to have in their game and if they wish to delegate it, so be it. I am not so sure it happened but it may really be this way - developers don't communicate with anyone except the testers.
The main thrust of my argument was: testers are generally experienced players. Their perception of difficulty doesn't necessarily reflect the experience of new players unfamiliar with the mechanics. If you read from an experienced player: "It is easy." it doesn't have to mean it is really easy. That tester is just not capable to understand the depth of metagaming knowledge he has.
After the release, you cleared almost all missions the very first turn with only one single soldier. One-shot-killing enemies with Assault/Berserker. Infinite Willpower was granted by constant killing enemies. Dash did not cost any Action Point. Dash and kill or Dash+Armor Break and kill. Everything. If you didn't use it it was a pain. If you used it, it was easy and boring.
After they have nerfed it, the main drive got invisible Infiltrators. You could even melee enemy while staying invisible. The whole mission. Only perception tritons could see you.
The game still has very powerful combinations. Do you want to set difficulty based on specific builds?
The worst that could happen to this game is that it was transmutated to a perfectly balanced strategy game.