XCOM 2 - War of the Chosen Announced

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Steam page (http://store.steampowered.com/app/593380/XCOM_2_War_of_the_Chosen/).

[SlyGuyMcFly]

Promising! It looks like it will overhaul the base game significantly and add a ton of stuff to the strategy layer in particular. This though:


Soldiers can develop bonds with compatible teammates for new abilities and perks.

If this is implemented well it could be the best thing ever.

[BRC]

Hopefully the Chosen will be better than the Alien Rulers from the DLC. The Alien Rulers were cool at first, but got annoying pretty quickly.

[Rodin]

I actually refused to get Alien Rulers based on the reviews. It really sounded like they imbalanced the game.

I wonder if the various factions will show up as enemies, depending on who you side with?

Additional strategic layer stuff was definitely badly needed. The base game's set up was alright but lacked depth.

Biggest thing they need is more variety in the missions. They all basically boiled down to "reach objective within time limit" with not much variation between them. We need to get missions like "rescue allied group of soldiers who are exchanging fire with the aliens" that change the flow of how the missions go.

[boomwolf]

Alien rules were interesting, but the implementation was problametic.

That "get an action for every Xcom action" gets really silly in large numbers (and in long war for example), and makes the mere act of brining rookies to missions a possible punishment for the good soldiers.

[Vitruviansquid]

Since we are taking this thread to trash on Alien Rulers, I will throw in my 2 cents:

The Alien Rulers was pretty bad. You got special, difficult challenges in the form of the Alien Rulers, which is supposed to be countered by giving you access to free special weapons. Only, with the special weapons, you were overpowered against missions without Alien Rulers, but you couldn't just choose to not bring the weapons in case an alien ruler showed up. Then, once you beat the rulers, you got special tricked out armor from them... which only further imbalances the game in your favor, especially if you killed all the alien rulers and were simply left to play the rest of the game with bonus weapons and bonus armors.

So I was kind of crestfallen when I saw in the trailer that the Chosen expansion was supposed to revolve around mechanics much like the Alien Rulers. But then, it seems like so many of the game's systems were going to be added, changed, and generally messed with, that I could actually see it working out.

On the other hand, I'm not totally excited for zombies, both thematically and as a gameplay mechanic. I really don't see how zombies would be made compelling in Xcom's battle system.

[Hunter Noventa]

Hopefully the Chosen will be better than the Alien Rulers from the DLC. The Alien Rulers were cool at first, but got annoying pretty quickly.

Apparently Jake Soloman said they're reworking how Alien Rulers work, specifically in regards to them getting a turn for every one of yours.

I for one look forward to shotgunning cheesy comic-book villain aliens in the face.

[factotum]

Is it still going to have those irritating turn limits on most of the maps? Because if so, not interested. Never finished XCOM 2 because of those, no interest in getting even more of them.

[heronbpv]

Regarding the timers, you can always mod these. But I would also like an in-game, native option to disable mission timers (in a way akin to the second wave options of Enemy Unkown/Within).
As for the rulers, I have yet to form a proper opinion. Have dropped my vanilla ironman campaigns twice, because of the DLCs, then dropping my ironman DLC campaign when Long War 2 came, then never finished it because balance updates + awesome mods that I needed to play with from the start...

Yeah. I have to finish at least one Ironman before the expansion comes. It'll be different this time, I swear! :p

[trashzyoutube]

Combine one or more Favorite videos of yours and create your own custom Video with DJ effects and many more with Trashz DJ (https://trashz.com) ..

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The Alien Rulers was pretty bad. You got special, difficult challenges in the form of the Alien Rulers, which is supposed to be countered by giving you access to free special weapons. Only, with the special weapons, you were overpowered against missions without Alien Rulers, but you couldn't just choose to not bring the weapons in case an alien ruler showed up. Then, once you beat the rulers, you got special tricked out armor from them... which only further imbalances the game in your favor, especially if you killed all the alien rulers and were simply left to play the rest of the game with bonus weapons and bonus armors.

This. This, all the way home. Excellently put. I'd like to believe the rumour that they'll fix them, but I'm not sure how they possibly could.


Long War 2

Long War 2: promising the game will take longer... then putting stupid, nonsense* time limits in what felt like every mission so you are forced to run everywhere, so you are left with the constant feeling you are in a rush to finish. Also, buggy like all hell.

If the reviews suggest this War of the Chosen takes the best bits (i.e. added depth to the strategic game), I may consider buying it. I did like the XCOM 1 expansion quite a bit (I really liked the infiltration missions, even if the human enemies were never that interesting).

Grey Wolf

*What do you mean, the guy I want to capture is running for his car right now? The time limit still had a whole day left!

[Hunter Noventa]

Is it still going to have those irritating turn limits on most of the maps? Because if so, not interested. Never finished XCOM 2 because of those, no interest in getting even more of them.

Yeah you can mod those out, and it's not every single mission that has them. I personally modded them to give extra turns, enough that it was still a challenge, but not infinite either.

I do however mod out the 'Lose the Game' timer. That's just not fun.

[BRC]

Personally, while I like the idea of turn limits to encourage more aggressive play, I don't like the hard turn limits that they had. I would have preferred softer limits, increasingly dangerous waves of enemy reinforcements, to drive home the whole Guerrilla Warfare feel.

[Hunter Noventa]

Personally, while I like the idea of turn limits to encourage more aggressive play, I don't like the hard turn limits that they had. I would have preferred softer limits, increasingly dangerous waves of enemy reinforcements, to drive home the whole Guerrilla Warfare feel.

There might very well be a mod that does that, which would make sense. I think the idea behind a lot of the turn limits was that 'this is when their air support arrives and you can't evac' since most of the time limit missions make you evac, and the ones that don't have an actual timer on something on the battlefield. Though those are usually easier because you just need to get to that point and hack/blow it and then you don't have to worry about the timer anymore.

[warty goblin]

I rather liked the turn limits, at least on normal difficulty they were hardly ever a substantial issue for me, but did require tactics other than the scoot'n'overwatch. Softer limits might have been nice, but the hard limits weren't bothersome, and made a map vastly less tedious than optimum play in OG XCOM.

I can't say I'm particularly excited for this though. I liked XCOM pretty well, and probably would have liked XCOM 2 much better, except I'd already played a lot of XCOM 1, and there just wasn't enough difference between the two, and most of the stuff that had annoyed me in the first one (pods, annoying LoS, low unit diversity, a gameplay loop built around treadmill numerical upgrades) were alive and well in the second. XCOM 2: More Stuff does not sound like it'll address any of those.

[BRC]

There might very well be a mod that does that, which would make sense. I think the idea behind a lot of the turn limits was that 'this is when their air support arrives and you can't evac' since most of the time limit missions make you evac, and the ones that don't have an actual timer on something on the battlefield. Though those are usually easier because you just need to get to that point and hack/blow it and then you don't have to worry about the timer anymore.

I mean, personally, I felt that they had some great mechanics for a better Guerilla Warfare feel that they didn't use.

Calling in an Evac was only used to abort missions, or on the facility destruction missions. But, I actually really liked it, especially for missions that didn't take place in a city center.

Really, I feel like there should have been three mission types, with three different "Evac" conditions, which is kind of what we ended up having.


1) High security (City Centers), complete the objective, reach the extraction point by the time limit. There's only one extraction point arranged, and Reinforcements are going to be heavy.

2) Mid Security, Suburbs, Slums, Certain wilderness locations. Security is light enough that you can call in an evac anywhere there's room, but it takes a few rounds to get there, during which time you need to hold out against increasing reinforcements.

3) Low Security. Basically just Supply Raid and Retaliation missions. It's actually possible to seize control of the area from ADVENT, at least for the time being. THESE are the only missions with "Kill all enemies" as a victory condition.

As is, most missions had "Kill all enemies" as the victory condition. You only had a certain amount of time to complete the primary objective, afterwards you needed to clean up. Which makes sense in XCOM1, but here we're supposed to be the resistance. We've completed our mission, why are we trying to take control of the area?


As for Turn Limits. There are a bunch of mods that make the timer not start until you break stealth, which makes sense in my book, and makes Stealth much more useful. In the Vanilla game, "Stealth" is basically "Get a free Ambush".

And even Ambushes are not that great, since you often give up your ability to position troops in response to enemy positions.

[factotum]

Personally, while I like the idea of turn limits to encourage more aggressive play, I don't like the hard turn limits that they had.

I don't like them for two main reasons: firstly, if I'm playing a turn-based game in the first place it's because it's a nice relaxing change of pace, so I don't want turn timers or those quicktime events they added in to the South Park combat system. If I wanted to rush through a wargame I'd play an RTS, and if I wanted to have to time my combat blows precisely I'd play a beat-em-up or an Arkham game. Secondly, one of the best additions to XCOM2 was the bit where enemies didn't wake up until you got close to them--that mechanic seemed to me to be designed to allow you to scout out the situation before sending your troops in, something that a turn limit explicitly encourages you not to do because you won't have time to finish the map if you take too long locating the enemy.

Yes, it can be modded out, but I like to know that a game is completable in vanilla before I start modding it--feels too much like cheating otherwise.

[Rodin]

I wish we had actual Infiltration missions. That is to say, missions where you're trying not to fight the aliens AT ALL.

An easy example would be rescuing a VIP. You want to get to the prison without being seen. You want to have a Specialist along to hack the doors without raising an alarm. You could have a Psionic along to Jedi Mind Trick the cell guard. With a proper team and careful movement, you would get in and out without ever being seen. Alternately, you could get up to the prison without being seen - and then blow a hole in the wall of the cell to rescue the VIP, and then fight your way through heavy reinforcements to the Evac.

A similar mission type could be breaking into an ADVENT weapons storage facility. If you just blow the front doors off, you're gonna be swarming with aliens. You have to get as close to the vault as you can before setting off an alarm.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I wish we had actual Infiltration missions. That is to say, missions where you're trying not to fight the aliens AT ALL.

An easy example would be rescuing a VIP. You want to get to the prison without being seen. You want to have a Specialist along to hack the doors without raising an alarm. You could have a Psionic along to Jedi Mind Trick the cell guard. With a proper team and careful movement, you would get in and out without ever being seen. Alternately, you could get up to the prison without being seen - and then blow a hole in the wall of the cell to rescue the VIP, and then fight your way through heavy reinforcements to the Evac.

A similar mission type could be breaking into an ADVENT weapons storage facility. If you just blow the front doors off, you're gonna be swarming with aliens. You have to get as close to the vault as you can before setting off an alarm.

Have you played Shadow Tactics (http://store.steampowered.com/app/418240/Shadow_Tactics_Blades_of_the_Shogun/)? I think you'll enjoy it. It even has a demo, so you can try before you buy. But its core gameplay is pretty much a constant choice of "being stealthy" vs "going in swords blazing". And yes, I'd love XCOM to be able to offer the same choice of tactics in at least some of the missions... but not sure that is even possible in procedurally generated maps. And even if it was, they'd need to rethink the XP system, since inevitably, stealthy teams don't get to kill anyone.

GW

[Rodin]

Have you played Shadow Tactics (http://store.steampowered.com/app/418240/Shadow_Tactics_Blades_of_the_Shogun/)? I think you'll enjoy it. It even has a demo, so you can try before you buy. But its core gameplay is pretty much a constant choice of "being stealthy" vs "going in swords blazing". And yes, I'd love XCOM to be able to offer the same choice of tactics in at least some of the missions... but not sure that is even possible in procedurally generated maps. And even if it was, they'd need to rethink the XP system, since inevitably, stealthy teams don't get to kill anyone.

GW

Indeed I have, and I greatly enjoyed it. I generally found going in swords blazing to be a route to a quick death, but that's fine since the game's all about stealth anyhow.

I think having it as procedural-based is fine, based on what we already see from XCOM 2 - the objective building is always structurally similar and being careful around patrols isn't too difficult as-is. The XP system is an easy fix - just give a flat rate to all soldiers that survive that mission.

What's more difficult and likely makes the idea into a pipe dream is how alien pathing in Infiltration mode is handled. They're currently set up to always know where your soldiers are and follow you about, with increasingly aggressive following the longer you're stealthed to guarantee eventual combat and actively discourage staying stealthed for too long. For this type of mission to work they'd have to totally toss out that AI package and put in something new.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Indeed I have, and I greatly enjoyed it. I generally found going in swords blazing to be a route to a quick death, but that's fine since the game's all about stealth anyhow.
We must be talking different "swords blazing" because to me that was the "easy mode". The challenge runs that asked me to not kill anyone were by far the trickiest to accomplish (noting I have not even tried the time-based runs because that's not the game I want to play). I did not mean to imply I was rushing in to the mission, but that I left no-one alive in my path to raise any alarms.


The XP system is an easy fix - just give a flat rate to all soldiers that survive that mission.

I mean, sure, that works, but it lacks something if you ask me. Of course, down my path lies an idea wonderful in paper but terrible in every execution I have seen of it: awarding different XPs for different actions: you shoot? You get better with the gun. You sneak unseen? You get better at that.

I wonder (and I'm spit-balling as I type now) if there wouldn't be some merit to combining both approaches: each mission has a pool of xp, that will be awarded for completing it. Each soldier is awarded equal parts, and then for that soldier, it is divided into categories: shooting while under fire, assisting others, reaction shooting, sniping, turns unseen, etc.

That would prevent any attempts at farming the level (as I may have been known to do when in a good defensive position that allowed me to take on entire reinforcements as they dropped) while still rewarding specialization. Generalist might get a bit shafted, but if you make each successive level exponentially more XP-expensive, that would allow the generalist to gain multitude of base level abilities while the specialist must struggle to gain their most advanced (and broken) abilities.

Grey Wolf

[Hunter Noventa]

I mean, sure, that works, but it lacks something if you ask me. Of course, down my path lies an idea wonderful in paper but terrible in every execution I have seen of it: awarding different XPs for different actions: you shoot? You get better with the gun. You sneak unseen? You get better at that.


That was actually partially how the old X-COM from the 90s worked. Every action improved your experience level in some stat, and when that got high enough, your stat went up.

Would be a pretty extensive mod for XCOM though.

[Vitruviansquid]

I always thought it was a pretty big flaw in the Firaxis Xcoms' formula that most of your deaths will involve triggering a pod of aliens in an unfortunate circumstance, and then not being able to reposition your soldiers while the enemies get free flanking shots.

Long War 2 made this even worse with the yellow alerts where aliens get to shoot you on the turn they arrive.

I die more to unfortunate reveals of alien pods than to actual bad luck or poor tactics, which makes the game feel as if you are constantly being punished for things outside of your control.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I always thought it was a pretty big flaw in the Firaxis Xcoms' formula that most of your deaths will involve triggering a pod of aliens in an unfortunate circumstance, and then not being able to reposition your soldiers while the enemies get free flanking shots.

Long War 2 made this even worse with the yellow alerts where aliens get to shoot you on the turn they arrive.

I die more to unfortunate reveals of alien pods than to actual bad luck or poor tactics, which makes the game feel as if you are constantly being punished for things outside of your control.

This is also responsible for the "move and overwatch" "ideal" tactic mentioned above which slows down everything and that which the deplorable time limits were introduced to fight.

Since I seem to be in a "throw spaghetti at the wall" design mood, I do wonder: would it work better if, when a pod is revealed, all your 'already moved' characters got a small free move, just like the aliens do? Maybe just a three/four square move (with certain builds getting to instead/in addition cower/overwatch/shoot/move further/etc.)? That way, you can be a little more careless moving forward, but not so much you can just disregard all cover.

GW

[Silfir]

I don't like them for two main reasons: firstly, if I'm playing a turn-based game in the first place it's because it's a nice relaxing change of pace, so I don't want turn timers or those quicktime events they added in to the South Park combat system. If I wanted to rush through a wargame I'd play an RTS, and if I wanted to have to time my combat blows precisely I'd play a beat-em-up or an Arkham game. Secondly, one of the best additions to XCOM2 was the bit where enemies didn't wake up until you got close to them--that mechanic seemed to me to be designed to allow you to scout out the situation before sending your troops in, something that a turn limit explicitly encourages you not to do because you won't have time to finish the map if you take too long locating the enemy.

Yes, it can be modded out, but I like to know that a game is completable in vanilla before I start modding it--feels too much like cheating otherwise.

Now, that's not a valid complaint - there is no real-time element to the turn limits. They require you to think more, because you have to optimize around the fact you have a limited amount of turns. Turn-based games that require efficiency with your actions aren't in any way unusual - I'd say they're more common, not less.

The system is thematically appropriate as well - resistance groups on hit-and-run missions don't get to dawdle. Makes perfect sense.

The true culprit is the game's "pod activation" system. When there is no time limit, the optimal strategy is to spend dozens of turns scouting the map bit by bit by bit, which is tedious to the max - because aliens aren't allowed to scout the map and hunt you down on their own time, there is nothing stopping you from doing whatever.

The optimal XCOM game would use the old system, in which games would hunt you down on their own terms and you had to get your troops organized quickly, but that results in a deadlier game that requires more soldiers.

Another issue that exacerbates the downsides of the turn limit system is the return of procedurally generated maps. You'll end up with very unfair turn limits from time to time simply because the game can't anticipate and calculate all combinations of maps and alien pods.

I still think the game is overall more interesting with the turn limits than without. To each his own.

[Vitruviansquid]

This is also responsible for the "move and overwatch" "ideal" tactic mentioned above which slows down everything and that which the deplorable time limits were introduced to fight.

GW

Meh.

"Move and Overwatch" was killed off, rightfully in my mind, by turn limits. In another respect, the far higher mobility of soldiers in Xcom2 compared to Xcom 1 made it unnecessary as well.

[Rodin]

We must be talking different "swords blazing" because to me that was the "easy mode". The challenge runs that asked me to not kill anyone were by far the trickiest to accomplish (noting I have not even tried the time-based runs because that's not the game I want to play). I did not mean to imply I was rushing in to the mission, but that I left no-one alive in my path to raise any alarms.


Yeah, definitely difference in terms there. :smalltongue: For me, "swords blazing" means dynamiting the gate, charging in and murdering the remaining guards, then standing in the middle of the square screaming "WHO ELSE WANTS SOME!?!?!?"

I played the game very much like you did - knocking out the guards felt virtually impossible on the couple times I tried it, so I stuck with the "slit everyone's throat silently" strategy.



The true culprit is the game's "pod activation" system. When there is no time limit, the optimal strategy is to spend dozens of turns scouting the map bit by bit by bit, which is tedious to the max - because aliens aren't allowed to scout the map and hunt you down on their own time, there is nothing stopping you from doing whatever.

The optimal XCOM game would use the old system, in which games would hunt you down on their own terms and you had to get your troops organized quickly, but that results in a deadlier game that requires more soldiers.



I really miss the old system. The pod system has always felt extremely artificial. Another problem of pods is that it encourages "Alpha strike" tactics - since the aliens can never attack the turn they spot you, the best strategy becomes "nuke them from orbit" and destroying them before they can react. I would greatly prefer the old system where the aliens get to move and attack on their turn, just like you can. You could even add modern AI sensibilities to them, where the aliens have their own tasks that they default to and then get weighted decision making based on circumstances (like hearing weapon fire, for example).

Unlikely we'll see that in the actual XCOM franchise itself since they're pretty wedded to pods now. Maybe Phoenix Point will have something like it.

[Dienekes]

I don't like them for two main reasons: firstly, if I'm playing a turn-based game in the first place it's because it's a nice relaxing change of pace, so I don't want turn timers or those quicktime events they added in to the South Park combat system. If I wanted to rush through a wargame I'd play an RTS, and if I wanted to have to time my combat blows precisely I'd play a beat-em-up or an Arkham game. Secondly, one of the best additions to XCOM2 was the bit where enemies didn't wake up until you got close to them--that mechanic seemed to me to be designed to allow you to scout out the situation before sending your troops in, something that a turn limit explicitly encourages you not to do because you won't have time to finish the map if you take too long locating the enemy.

Yes, it can be modded out, but I like to know that a game is completable in vanilla before I start modding it--feels too much like cheating otherwise.

Interestingly, I thought the only thing that made the South Park combat system playable was the quicktime events.

Holy balls, list combat is not fun.

In any case, I played through XCOM2 on the hardest difficulty. Only once did the time limit really screw me (had to leave 2 guys behind). Other than that, I actually liked it, once you got used to it.

Without the time limit, XCOM is just setting up perfect ambushes and following through. Being forced to keep moving for the objective makes you take greater risks for success, and since I played a lot of XCOM I felt that was pretty much needed to keep my interest in the game.

Though, I think part of why I was ok with it, was that I built my team to keep moving. Having 1 or 2 sword Rangers with Rapid-Fire. Hot damn things just melt as you roll through.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Though, I think part of why I was ok with it, was that I built my team to keep moving. Having 1 or 2 sword Rangers with Rapid-Fire. Hot damn things just melt as you roll through.

Exactly. In the same way that XCOM 1 practically forced you to use snipers, XCOM 2 forces you to use rangers. I dislike games that pretend to give you choices of how to play, and then it turns out most of those choices are traps. Bully for you if it turns out that the style you want to play is the one the designers want you to play, but I don't see that as great game design, personally.

Like factotum put it: if I wanted to play a tense run-and-gun game, I would purchase an FPS.

GW

[factotum]

Now, that's not a valid complaint - there is no real-time element to the turn limits.
.
.
.
The system is thematically appropriate as well - resistance groups on hit-and-run missions don't get to dawdle. Makes perfect sense.


I don't think I ever said there is a real-time element to the turn limits? I just meant that they feel like the game is rushing me through rather than letting me take my time, and that's why I said I might as well play an RTS if the game is going to do that.

Also, it may be thematically appropriate, but the turn limits are absurdly low. Think what an X-Com soldier can do in a single turn--sprint maybe 20-30m, or run half that and take a single aimed shot (barring double shot perks and the like). So, that makes a turn 10, 15 seconds long at most. Yet I'm supposed to believe that an alien interception team is going to arrive 8 turns after I arrive on the map? If the aliens are really so clued up about my movements that they can be there in a couple of minutes, how the hell are they never locating the GIANT FLYING BASE my team is flying from?

[Dienekes]

Exactly. In the same way that XCOM 1 practically forced you to use snipers, XCOM 2 forces you to use rangers. I dislike games that pretend to give you choices of how to play, and then it turns out most of those choices are traps. Bully for you if it turns out that the style you want to play is the one the designers want you to play, but I don't see that as great game design, personally.

Like factotum put it: if I wanted to play a tense run-and-gun game, I would purchase an FPS.

GW

It's a tactics game. In every tactics game I've ever played, there are options that are better than others based on the needs of the situation. If your goal is to get to a point quickly, then pick units designed to get to a point quickly.

In the same way anyone who chooses to play mass Firebats in SC1 was an idiotic play, but the option was there.

But, there are situations where Firebats are useful. Just as there are situations where I used snipers in XCOM2. I actually always had at least 1 on my squad. I just had to be actually good at positioning them to be useful and moving, instead of being able to sit in a sniper spot and wait all game. They were most useful for the game modes where you had to just kill everyone in an area, or the save the civilians games. Get two on a perch, a Ranger to spot/save and some heavies and supports in between and you can blow through those mission.

And I hardly think the game constitutes running and gunning, when you can literally pause the game to think after every actions.

[Vitruviansquid]

I... didn't get the feeling that there were false choices in Xcom 2 at all.

In fact, as I remember, Rangers were the most maligned class because he targeted one enemy at a time, had a penchant for triggering additional pods while trying to do his thing, and the small chance of missing with a sword caused them to be right in front of the enemy. Still, they're great for picking out that one enemy that you can't get with any other class while being great at scouting and doing a bunch of support stuff that specialists don't do.

I personally never left home without a Grenadier because they could strip cover, rendering enemies as good as dead, had a hard hitting ambush round, and the special grenades are pretty neat.

Sharpshooters with pistol perks were incredibly good for brute force damage dealing, especially when given the right ammo.

Specialists are always useful because they do things nobody else can do. Not much explaining to do there.

I think most people, if given a team of 4, would choose one of each base class because they all have their own niche. Given a team of 5 and no psi operative or SPARK, I personally would've doubled on Grenadiers or Sharpshooters (if I have a few that are well developed), not Rangers. But there are people who'd double on Rangers, and that makes it interesting.

[BRC]

IIRC, Rangers were my bread-and-butter class. The "Obligatory" class I had was Grenediers, because of their ability to strip armor. Anytime I had an armored enemy (Which was just about every mission later on), I felt I needed a grenadier to handle it.

[warty goblin]

I don't think I ever said there is a real-time element to the turn limits? I just meant that they feel like the game is rushing me through rather than letting me take my time, and that's why I said I might as well play an RTS if the game is going to do that.

Also, it may be thematically appropriate, but the turn limits are absurdly low. Think what an X-Com soldier can do in a single turn--sprint maybe 20-30m, or run half that and take a single aimed shot (barring double shot perks and the like). So, that makes a turn 10, 15 seconds long at most. Yet I'm supposed to believe that an alien interception team is going to arrive 8 turns after I arrive on the map? If the aliens are really so clued up about my movements that they can be there in a couple of minutes, how the hell are they never locating the GIANT FLYING BASE my team is flying from?

The thing about XCOM 2 is that it makes no sense, because it's built around a basically techno-fetishist core of special forces military porn, but its setting runs totally counter to that since you're supposed to be the scrappy and terrorized resistance. So you're far more concerned about what Alice Soldier has strapped to her gun than you are about whether any of the locals are gonna tell the aliens that they've sure noticed some odd folks in the neighborhood lately, mostly around Alice's cousin's, and oh there were some people digging in the road about midnight last night...

How much this bothers you probably comes down to how cool you find a flying aircraft carrier vs. how dumb you find a flying aircraft carrier as a base of operations for an insurgency fighting an irregular war balanced by how totally ignorable you find the whole flying aircraft carrier in the first place.

As to the turn limit size, that mostly seems like it's driven by a desire to not have vast empty spaces devoid of things to do and aliens to shoot. I mean sure they could give you like 50 turns or something that corresponds to a couple minutes' response time, but the maps would have to be massive, or else there's basically no point in even bothering with the limit.

[BRC]

The thing about XCOM 2 is that it makes no sense, because it's built around a basically techno-fetishist core of special forces military porn, but its setting runs totally counter to that since you're supposed to be the scrappy and terrorized resistance. So you're far more concerned about what Alice Soldier has strapped to her gun than you are about whether any of the locals are gonna tell the aliens that they've sure noticed some odd folks in the neighborhood lately, mostly around Alice's cousin's, and oh there were some people digging in the road about midnight last night...

How much this bothers you probably comes down to how cool you find a flying aircraft carrier vs. how dumb you find a flying aircraft carrier as a base of operations for an insurgency fighting an irregular war balanced by how totally ignorable you find the whole flying aircraft carrier in the first place.

As to the turn limit size, that mostly seems like it's driven by a desire to not have vast empty spaces devoid of things to do and aliens to shoot. I mean sure they could give you like 50 turns or something that corresponds to a couple minutes' response time, but the maps would have to be massive, or else there's basically no point in even bothering with the limit.

Eh, with the Turn Limits, you can wrap things in other factors.

It's not "2 minutes until the Aliens arrive", it's "If we don't leave in two minutes, we won't have enough of a head-start to lose the enemy interceptors, which are 5 minutes out, but will catch up with us and shoot us down in ten minutes"

As far as the mixed aesthetic. For me, it was the Tier 3 armors that did it. Tier 1 was fine, especially with the Anarchy's Children/Resistance Warrior Pack stuff. Tier 2 looked like Shen built it out of scrap metal, which was also fine.

Tier 3 was too sleek, too manufactured. My ragtag resistance army suddenly looked like they belonged in an apple commercial.

[Dienekes]

I... didn't get the feeling that there were false choices in Xcom 2 at all.

In fact, as I remember, Rangers were the most maligned class because he targeted one enemy at a time, had a penchant for triggering additional pods while trying to do his thing, and the small chance of missing with a sword caused them to be right in front of the enemy. Still, they're great for picking out that one enemy that you can't get with any other class while being great at scouting and doing a bunch of support stuff that specialists don't do.

I personally never left home without a Grenadier because they could strip cover, rendering enemies as good as dead, had a hard hitting ambush round, and the special grenades are pretty neat.

Sharpshooters with pistol perks were incredibly good for brute force damage dealing, especially when given the right ammo.

Specialists are always useful because they do things nobody else can do. Not much explaining to do there.

I think most people, if given a team of 4, would choose one of each base class because they all have their own niche. Given a team of 5 and no psi operative or SPARK, I personally would've doubled on Grenadiers or Sharpshooters (if I have a few that are well developed), not Rangers. But there are people who'd double on Rangers, and that makes it interesting.


IIRC, Rangers were my bread-and-butter class. The "Obligatory" class I had was Grenediers, because of their ability to strip armor. Anytime I had an armored enemy (Which was just about every mission later on), I felt I needed a grenadier to handle it.

While I had the most fun with my two Ranger team, honestly, my main team was Swordsman (with Rapid Shot), Sniper, Medic, Engineer, and Grenadier.

[Silfir]

I don't think I ever said there is a real-time element to the turn limits? I just meant that they feel like the game is rushing me through rather than letting me take my time, and that's why I said I might as well play an RTS if the game is going to do that.

Also, it may be thematically appropriate, but the turn limits are absurdly low. Think what an X-Com soldier can do in a single turn--sprint maybe 20-30m, or run half that and take a single aimed shot (barring double shot perks and the like). So, that makes a turn 10, 15 seconds long at most. Yet I'm supposed to believe that an alien interception team is going to arrive 8 turns after I arrive on the map? If the aliens are really so clued up about my movements that they can be there in a couple of minutes, how the hell are they never locating the GIANT FLYING BASE my team is flying from?

"Thematically appropriate" is not the same as "realistic". There's very little more tedious than debating realism in game mechanics. The turn limits are set with balance and design considerations in mind, not how fast the aliens can be reasonably expected to react. They're supposed to be achievable, but not forgettable; sometimes they miss the mark, but I very rarely had trouble.



Your last post listed quicktime events as a reason as to why you're opposed to the XCOM 2 turn system - I'm as puzzled as anyone about why you brought them up at all. This time, you mentioned RTSes - again, just as puzzled.

It's a turn-based game - You're not being asked to think faster or make decisions faster. At worst, you're asked to think harder, because the turn limit is an additional element to consider. If you used to rely heavily on being able to take forever to complete missions in XCOM: EU, I can understand it's a jarring change that can put you off. I've found, in practice, XCOM 2 meshed perfectly well with how I was playing EU anyway; I didn't have the patience for the super-cautious optimized style of play.

[tonberrian]

I usually brought two assaults and two supports (one medic, one hacker) to every fight - until I unlocked psykers. Then I think I skipped out on the medic because barring, like, the final battle, nothing needed a dedicated Medic and two assaults chomped through everything. Were I to do the final fight again, I'd make sure I had a dedicated medic simply because it's so long.

[Knaight]

We must be talking different "swords blazing" because to me that was the "easy mode". The challenge runs that asked me to not kill anyone were by far the trickiest to accomplish (noting I have not even tried the time-based runs because that's not the game I want to play). I did not mean to imply I was rushing in to the mission, but that I left no-one alive in my path to raise any alarms.
Putting aside the time based runs (I got one speed run successfully), I routinely found "don't kill anyone" one of the easier medals to get. Part of that was that I usually went for about four special medals simultaneously, which sometimes got nasty ("Don't touch the water" and "don't climb vines or ladders" on the same run was maybe not the best idea in retrospect), and part of it is that you can cheese the heck out of a lot of maps. Knock someone out, drag them somewhere, throw them to a ledge they can't climb back up, call it a day.


Yeah, definitely difference in terms there. :smalltongue: For me, "swords blazing" means dynamiting the gate, charging in and murdering the remaining guards, then standing in the middle of the square screaming "WHO ELSE WANTS SOME!?!?!?"
Also known as the "trying to get out of a loss via sword wind every five seconds" method. I've been there.

[Vitruviansquid]

Back on the topic of the expansion...

Any speculation on how zombies can figure into the gameplay?

[warty goblin]

Back on the topic of the expansion...

Any speculation on how zombies can figure into the gameplay?

There's probably a scripted mission or two with a zombie horde. I suspect they'll be weaker than the usual XCOM zombies, in order to get that mowing down the horde thing. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal though? I mean XCOM already has zombies.

[Dienekes]

Back on the topic of the expansion...

Any speculation on how zombies can figure into the gameplay?

Doesn't xcom already have zombies? Just put a small bunch of them on a map with a bunch of civilians to try and save. Each civilian they kill becomes another zombie. If they kill a squadmate maybe the squadmate could come back with all their equipment and skills to fight you, instead of the generic model.

Seems easy enough.

[Vitruviansquid]

It's just I can imagine Xcom 2, but stuffed full of psi zombies, and I can imagine there simply being pods of psi zombies, and I can imagine zombies acting like chrysalids.

But I can't imagine any of those being fun when meshed with the mechanics of Xcom 2 that I know about. Nor can I imagine War for the Chosen being so unfun. I really don't think zombies are going to be implemented in an obvious way.

[factotum]

I didn't have the patience for the super-cautious optimized style of play.

You're talking to someone who plays first person shooters in a super-cautious, slow style--I think you can imagine that I prefer slow and steady to being rushed. It's one of the main reasons I don't usually play multiplayer, because if it's co-operative the other players will be rushing me on faster than I want to go, and if it's competitive my opponent will generally be ready to attack far faster than I am and will likely beat me every time.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I really didn't much care for the Hunters DLC either until I came up with a novel solution to my problem...

I uninstalled the DLC. Yep, that's right, I would rather uninstall the entire DLC than deal with it. It is that obnoxious and annoying.

Anyway, I also have problems with timed missions. Or rather, I have problems with 90% of the missions being timed missions. Move + Overwatch was actually a pretty bad play most of the time. Overwatch comes with an inherent penalty to attack, so unless your overwatch shot could catch someone completely out of cover, it was almost always the better play to just take the shot or blow up the cover then take the shot. Unless you were a sniper, of course, who could shoot the wings off of a gnat perched on the horizon but who can still inexplicablly miss a panicked sectoid running which you supposedly have a 99% chance to hit.

Personally, I'm not gonna get hyped about this expansion until I see some actual gameplay elements. I've been lied to one too many times already. Granted, I will give them the benefit of the doubt... they have a 95% chance of not doing worse than Alien Hunters. The bad thing is that we all know how often that 95% chance to hit seems to fail...

[boomwolf]

To everyone who has an issue with the turn limits, there IS an answer.

A mod whose name currently evades me changes how they work.
The limit is even shorter, but it only triggers once the aliens actually spot you, making it more of a "we only have a short window to work once we are detected before AA gets too hot for extraction" rather than an arbitrary time limit.

Also helps alot with odd map configurations giving odd time limits. your job is to close in on the target, and then engage once you KNOW you can get the job done, while evading alien patrols otherwise.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

To everyone who has an issue with the turn limits, there IS an answer.

A mod whose name currently evades me changes how they work.
The limit is even shorter, but it only triggers once the aliens actually spot you, making it more of a "we only have a short window to work once we are detected before AA gets too hot for extraction" rather than an arbitrary time limit.

Also helps alot with odd map configurations giving odd time limits. your job is to close in on the target, and then engage once you KNOW you can get the job done, while evading alien patrols otherwise.

That's True Concealment (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=618077830), I think. There's also a version with the default timers (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=619816174), and a LW2 Version (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=847481752).

One of them's been on in virtually every game I've played.

[boomwolf]

Yea, that's the one.

Made the game a whole lot better.

[Eldan]

Looks interesting, might have to try that.

Speaking of DLC, how is Shen's Last Gift? I know Alien Hunters is terrible and I never bought it, but I kinda like hte idea of having a robot buddy.

[heronbpv]

@Shen's Last Gift
Vanilla wise, Sparks are okayish. They lack the same loadout support normal troops have, but can get somewhat powerful by the late game, depending on your build (and regular troop optimization). They could definitely use some buffs, so take a look at the workshop, since the modders got you covered already.
As for the bonus mission, it's grindy as all hell (and with a really nasty surprise in the end). You can skip it by disabling the mission before starting a campaign (or loading the DLC amidst one). It's cool the first time, though.

[Hunter Noventa]

Looks interesting, might have to try that.

Speaking of DLC, how is Shen's Last Gift? I know Alien Hunters is terrible and I never bought it, but I kinda like hte idea of having a robot buddy.

Sparks are all right, you'll want a mod or two to buff them though. The mission can be tough, but it doesn't scale in difficulty either, so if you leave it until you've got Tier 2 weapons at least, you'll have a much better time. Bring lots of Bluescreen rounds.

[Rodin]

It's decent. The SPARKS are handy to have along, but suffer from not getting stat upgrades which means they tend to fall behind in the lategame. Of course, there are mods to correct this.

Even in the base game I managed to bring my SPARK all the way to the final mission. It couldn't hit the broad side of a barn by that point, so I used it to blow the barn up instead.

The bonus mission to unlock them is interesting, though I turn it off on subsequent playthroughs because it's a very long mission.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Yea, you'll want to bring along a Gunslinger Marksman with Bluescreen Rounds to the special mission for Shen's Last Gift. Rangers are actually far less necessary, and melee rangers are likely to meet a very unfortunate surprise which ends in their demise. Bringing along a hacker Specialist is also probably a good idea. Preferably one with a Skulljack. A shredding gunner Grenadier would not go amiss either.

[smuchmuch]

I do like the idea that the resistance is divided and you'll have to unite them. That sort of make sense, and goes a long way to explain why your resistance movement is growing and why the laine aren't alway all over you by havoing other group to deal with, although we'll have to see how that's handled in the game proper.
(I mean Exalt was a cool concept and they worked well in enemy within at first but they became quickly repetitive to deal with and underwheming after a while.)

[BRC]

One thing that bugs me about the new factions is how they're using the names for both the Classes, and the Organizations.


Like, the Reapers...okay, I guess I can see a resistance group calling itself "The Reapers". Same goes for the Templars.

But "The Skirmishers". It works as the name of a class, but you're telling me that a bunch of Advent defectors started a resistance group, and decided to call themselves "The Skirmishers"?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

But "The Skirmishers". It works as the name of a class, but you're telling me that a bunch of Advent defectors started a resistance group, and decided to call themselves "The Skirmishers"?

Maybe they are too twitchy and all over the place to have a name, and that's just what everyone else calls them? I mean, there never was a group of people that called themselves "the germanic barbarians", but heck if that stopped the Romans from calling them that.

GW

[boomwolf]

True, if its not the name they chose for themselves, but a name given to them by others (what would make sense if they don't actually talk to anyone), its a reasonable name.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Not having watched or read anything about the expansion, I'd love to think that the AI for those groups will reflect their names: e.g. the Templars go out of their way to rescue civilians, even if it puts them in harms way or means not shooting, the reapers will attack all visible enemies, even if that endangers the mission by pulling in all the other pods, and the skirmishers are completely unreliable when it comes to pushing forward or holding a position.

More likely, the reapers will have heavy & splash weapons, the Templars will be more single target and the skirmishers will be mostly stealth-based, because AI tuning is hard.

GW

[BRC]

Big article from IGN about the Expansion

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/06/14/e3-2017-extensive-details-on-xcom-2-war-of-the-chosen

Some Immediate Takeaways

1) Rulers are changed. Now, they don't start appearing until you attack specific Ruler-guarded facilities. And rather than getting a full turn whenever you take an action, they are specifically triggered by Attacks and Movements within their line of sight (the article says "Free move", which could just mean Movement, with no extra attacks).

2) The Chosen are not here to kill your soldiers. Instead, they are trying to stun them to capture/interrogate them. Each Chosen tracks their "Knowledge" individually. When one gets enough information, they find the Avenger and attack it. The Chosen will also semi-randomly get new powers and abilities as the campaign goes on.

if an Agent is Captured, you'll need to do a mission to rescue them.
In addition, each campaign will randomly pair up each of the three Chosen with a Resistance faction to be their Enemy. Moving against the Chosen will mean working with that faction.


The Bond system seems pretty cool. If two agents form a Bond, they get some nifty extra abilities, like the ability for one of them to give up an action to give the other an extra turn, or the ability to clear status effects from each other.

Another cool thing to break up mission monotony is the Sitreps. Basically special mission modifiers like explosives lying around everywhere, fewer enemies but only 3 soldiers.

SPARKS are tougher and more accurate now.


There's a lot in the article I'm not talking about here, but one thing that brought a smile to my face was the addition of Resistance Soldiers, presumably for Retaliation Missions, who are AI-Controlled Allies who can help you out.


Oh, finally. Will is the big change. It seems that they're introducing a few Darkest Dungeon-esque mechanics. Will gets reduced when in combat, and gets replenished by being on the bench. If you send somebody back into the fray when they're tired they might pick up negative traits.

[tonberrian]

Looking at some further info on the expansion, everything looks pretty good!

[Vitruviansquid]

Once the ultimate threat to XCOM, they’ve been scaled back and reigned in.

:smallannoyed:

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Halfway through the article, the "Skirmishers" are called "the Scrappers" instead, btw.

the [redacted] we’ll get from the three resistance factions, the Scrappers, the Templars, and the Reapers.

GW

[BRC]

Halfway through the article, the "Skirmishers" are called "the Scrappers" instead, btw.


GW

They use "Skirmishers" again later, so I think that's just a typo.

[boomwolf]

Maybe they got a separate faction and class names and it gets people confused?

[Vitruviansquid]

I'm pretty sure "Scrappers" won't be a thing. There is a brief flash of each faction's name in the announcement trailer (on 0:48) and it displays "Skirmishers" as the name of the faction.

edit: And upon viewing the announcement again, I think the first negative reaction I had about this expansion owes a lot to how humanlike these Chosen aliens are. The Firaxis Xcoms were really good at emphasizing how alien the aliens were. Xcom 2 utilizes human-like body shapes to give the uncanny valley feeling. Advent are humanlike only until you remove the armor, Sectoids have that nakedness and crawl around unintuitively, the Mutons resemble muscular humans toward the bottom but look really top-heavy due to their oversized head, even the sneks have human body shapes but don't know how to move like humans. These Chosen, on the other hand... just seem like blue humans. They move naturally in human-proportioned bodies. They have humanlike expressions. They are distinctly un-creepy.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Maybe they just had a different name in development and someone failed to properly copy/paste

[smuchmuch]

Some more info (if that youtuber is to be trusted):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdZKtdoAxn8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2jgwlRO7_0

[Aotrs Commander]

Well, in some ways, glad I haven't picked X-Com 2 up yet - one, as/when/if I get it, they'll be more to it - and there will likely be mods to deal with the time-limit issue I didn't even know about it and would have disliked.



It's a turn-based game - You're not being asked to think faster or make decisions faster. At worst, you're asked to think harder, because the turn limit is an additional element to consider. If you used to rely heavily on being able to take forever to complete missions in XCOM: EU, I can understand it's a jarring change that can put you off. I've found, in practice, XCOM 2 meshed perfectly well with how I was playing EU anyway; I didn't have the patience for the super-cautious optimized style of play.

I don't like time limits in any type of game, be they hard (like in an RTS) or soft (like in a turn-based game).

The second fastest way to discourage me from a game is time limits (and one of the fastest ways to make me pass up on a purchase in the first place). I don't WANT to be pushed when playing my computer games - that's explictly the exact opposite of what I want out of them. (As I aways say, if want that, I play a tabel-top wargame (our specfic sort, anyway).) It's too much like hard work for my entertainment. (Bearing in mind that I am strictly a "never higher than normal difficulty at most" sort of Lich.)

Sure, I managed to cope with Starcraft 2's timed and psuedo-timed limits that were exactly on the border of what I was confortable with, but at the same token, I've not exacvtly hurried to replay 'em. And I never finished NWN2 Mask of the Betrayer, because evcentually I got fed-up of feeling like I was being rushed through the game.

I wasn't best thrilled about the whatever-it-was gel gubbins in the last X-com game from the expansion, but at least you only lost bonus stuff on the timer.

[Vitruviansquid]

I can't tell if this guy sounds bored because he is bored, he's affecting boredom, or that's just his voice.

[huttj509]

I can't tell if this guy sounds bored because he is bored, he's affecting boredom, or that's just his voice.

I think it's just a combination of his voice and having rehearsed the lines.

He also seems to be trying to speak more clearly and slowly than normal conversation chatter. Which is great for understandability, but can sound like, well, a high school filmstrip.

Basically, it sounds like he's considering what he's saying, how he's saying it, because he wants to communicate the stuff people want to know, rather than just "oh wow" infodump of stuff.

Edit: Listening to another of his videos, it sounds like there's also a mic/mixer difference that increases the bass a little (emphasizing his already deep voice) on the linked videos, which doesn't help.

Edit 2: Turning it to 1.25 speed sounds more natural. I think yeah, a lot is a deliberate slowing of speech pace in order to increase understandability.

[Eldan]

I wasn't best thrilled about the whatever-it-was gel gubbins in the last X-com game from the expansion, but at least you only lost bonus stuff on the timer.

XCOM2 really is not as bad as the Meld in Enemy Within in that regard. It's quite tolerable. I've never found the time limits all that restrictive, most of the time, they just mean that you have to break off an engagement with the enemy and run to the escape point, instead of killing every last alien on the map.

[boomwolf]

Truth.

Just how many times have you guys actually triggered the time limit?

All the time limit does is prevents the "overwatch crawl" that plagues the first game, where you take a set with one dude, then overwatch everyone-ad infinity, and when you finally trigger a pod, you do nothing but pull back and overwatch.

Once that "stratagy" got out, the game could be balanced without having to actually counter that level of cheese, so pods don't HAVE to have so many cant-miss ability and other such nonsense the fist game's aliens relied on.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Truth.

Just how many times have you guys actually triggered the time limit?

All the time limit does is prevents the "overwatch crawl" that plagues the first game, where you take a set with one dude, then overwatch everyone-ad infinity, and when you finally trigger a pod, you do nothing but pull back and overwatch.

Once that "stratagy" got out, the game could be balanced without having to actually counter that level of cheese, so pods don't HAVE to have so many cant-miss ability and other such nonsense the fist game's aliens relied on.

That only worked on lower difficulties. At higher levels, overwatches were a practically guaranteed miss, you were almost always better off taking the offensive rather than trying to set up overwatch. Dat attack penalty, tho, it's like being in half cover, out in the open. If they actually have cover? Yea, no way in hell is anything going to land. And that puts you in a turtling defensive position which is a BAD idea when dealing with aliens, who are far more accurate than you are, and generally have more powerful weapons to boot. And if you are ever in a situation in which you have the better weapons, there's no need to nerf yourself by setting up overwatches.

[Dienekes]

That only worked on lower difficulties. At higher levels, overwatches were a practically guaranteed miss, you were almost always better off taking the offensive rather than trying to set up overwatch. Dat attack penalty, tho, it's like being in half cover, out in the open. If they actually have cover? Yea, no way in hell is anything going to land. And that puts you in a turtling defensive position which is a BAD idea when dealing with aliens, who are far more accurate than you are, and generally have more powerful weapons to boot. And if you are ever in a situation in which you have the better weapons, there's no need to nerf yourself by setting up overwatches.

I disagree man. The Overwatch crawl was the way to go through XCOM:EU-EW on Impossible. Mind you, you had to use it right. Basically, use it every turn you aren't in direct combat, so that you don't accidentally trigger a new pod, and if one does run into your zone your team gets free shots (even at penalty they were still worth it) on them. Then there's pinning them down. Enemies that know you're in Overwatch won't move and risk the shot. Which, means if you're in a better position, you can keep them pinned down right up until you get your flanker or demolitions into position.

Then there were just snipers which could be set up to ignore the penalty completely, or, had such high aim at the end the penalty didn't actually matter.

[Silfir]

That only worked on lower difficulties. At higher levels, overwatches were a practically guaranteed miss, you were almost always better off taking the offensive rather than trying to set up overwatch. Dat attack penalty, tho, it's like being in half cover, out in the open. If they actually have cover? Yea, no way in hell is anything going to land. And that puts you in a turtling defensive position which is a BAD idea when dealing with aliens, who are far more accurate than you are, and generally have more powerful weapons to boot. And if you are ever in a situation in which you have the better weapons, there's no need to nerf yourself by setting up overwatches.

You latched onto just one part of boomwolf's post, where he advocated pulling back and going into Overwatch upon triggering a pod. The Overwatch *crawl* concerned the optimal strategy used on the highest difficulties when no pod was active - making sure that when one did get triggered, you'd get a bunch of Overwatch shots for free by advancing the entire team only one square at a time. As a result, the game took forever, particularly on high difficulties where playing optimally was crucial to success. *That's* the problem that the mission time limits in XCOM 2 are intended to eliminate. (Even Meld in Enemy Within was introduced the way it was in order to combat this type of dawdling.)

Pulling back into Overwatch *after* triggering a pod is something else entirely; I think that's a suboptimal strategy as well. The first goal is to eliminate the menace as quickly as possible, for which you have all kinds of aggressive options, like destroying cover, using abilities, flanking and so on; and barring that, to reduce the alien threat as much as possible using means like suppression, smoke grenades, full cover and such. There's a wealth of possibilities, is the point - this isn't the part of the game that was actually a problem.

[warty goblin]

Truth.

Just how many times have you guys actually triggered the time limit?


I think I missed evacuating one soldier once, and another time was right up against the limit, and was definitely doing a lot of really stupid things to get everybody out in time. Which I at least found really cool, because it actually turned into a desperate and unusual fight where I wasn't using cover right and the whole thing could have gone just terribly had the aliens not gotten some crappy rolls. Not a thing I want every mission, but a very nice changeup from business as usual.

[BRC]

You latched onto just one part of boomwolf's post, where he advocated pulling back and going into Overwatch upon triggering a pod. The Overwatch *crawl* concerned the optimal strategy used on the highest difficulties when no pod was active - making sure that when one did get triggered, you'd get a bunch of Overwatch shots for free by advancing the entire team only one square at a time. As a result, the game took forever, particularly on high difficulties where playing optimally was crucial to success. *That's* the problem that the mission time limits in XCOM 2 are intended to eliminate. (Even Meld in Enemy Within was introduced the way it was in order to combat this type of dawdling.)

Pulling back into Overwatch *after* triggering a pod is something else entirely; I think that's a suboptimal strategy as well. The first goal is to eliminate the menace as quickly as possible, for which you have all kinds of aggressive options, like destroying cover, using abilities, flanking and so on; and barring that, to reduce the alien threat as much as possible using means like suppression, smoke grenades, full cover and such. There's a wealth of possibilities, is the point - this isn't the part of the game that was actually a problem.

The issue with the Pod system was that triggering an enemy pod basically gave them a free move. Especially if it happened near the end of your turn.

You trigger the enemy pod, they get a free move to position themselves based on where you are, and then they get to take a full turn. Best case scenario when triggering a pod on your turn is that you're down half an activation, since you popped them on your first move.

The only way to get a full turn of activations against a new pod was for them to stumble into you on your turn.

Which means that the best strategy was to creep forward as slowly as possible, giving the enemy lots of time to wander into you.

The Pod System allows missions to take the form of a series of distinct firefights, which is good. But the transition between exploring the map and entering a fight is always a weak point.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I disagree man. The Overwatch crawl was the way to go through XCOM:EU-EW on Impossible. Mind you, you had to use it right. Basically, use it every turn you aren't in direct combat, so that you don't accidentally trigger a new pod, and if one does run into your zone your team gets free shots (even at penalty they were still worth it) on them. Then there's pinning them down. Enemies that know you're in Overwatch won't move and risk the shot. Which, means if you're in a better position, you can keep them pinned down right up until you get your flanker or demolitions into position.Actually, on I/I, it was better for your guys to hunker rather than overwatch. You'd waste ammo missing overwatch shots, then you'd have to spend a precious action reloading instead of trying to do something to get rid of the aliens, typically at a most inconvenient time.

Snipers are, of course, the exception. They're supposed to be, that's their class ability. Having a sniper with a clear lane of fire on high ground in overwatch basically meant you had one fewer enemy per pod you had to worry about. But anyone else? No, overwatches were a trap. If you were worried about triggering a pod on a full move (full moves being generally a bad idea unless it can get you into full cover), then you went a half move and hunker.


Then there were just snipers which could be set up to ignore the penalty completely, or, had such high aim at the end the penalty didn't actually matter.That's pretty much their class ability. Without that, there would be no use for the class at all.

[Lacuna Caster]

How much this bothers you probably comes down to how cool you find a flying aircraft carrier vs. how dumb you find a flying aircraft carrier as a base of operations for an insurgency fighting an irregular war balanced by how totally ignorable you find the whole flying aircraft carrier in the first place.

As far as the mixed aesthetic. For me, it was the Tier 3 armors that did it. Tier 1 was fine, especially with the Anarchy's Children/Resistance Warrior Pack stuff. Tier 2 looked like Shen built it out of scrap metal, which was also fine.

Tier 3 was too sleek, too manufactured. My ragtag resistance army suddenly looked like they belonged in an apple commercial.
What bothered me most was that my ragtag resistance research lab was capable of performing consciousness transfers into a cloned alien host-body, and found ways to mass-produce top-end power armour at nominal unit cost, but never mastered the art of crafting sniper scopes or ammo drums. Those you have to scrounge from the enemy, right up to the end.


I think the first negative reaction I had about this expansion owes a lot to how humanlike these Chosen aliens are. The Firaxis Xcoms were really good at emphasizing how alien the aliens were. Xcom 2 utilizes human-like body shapes to give the uncanny valley feeling. Advent are humanlike only until you remove the armor, Sectoids have that nakedness and crawl around unintuitively, the Mutons resemble muscular humans toward the bottom but look really top-heavy due to their oversized head, even the sneks have human body shapes but don't know how to move like humans. These Chosen, on the other hand... just seem like blue humans. They move naturally in human-proportioned bodies. They have humanlike expressions. They are distinctly un-creepy.
Yeah, there's a very star-trek-esque feeling to these guys. Though I like the sound of the Bond system and general tweaks and balancing.

[factotum]

As a result, the game took forever, particularly on high difficulties where playing optimally was crucial to success. *That's* the problem that the mission time limits in XCOM 2 are intended to eliminate. (Even Meld in Enemy Within was introduced the way it was in order to combat this type of dawdling.)


Well, two things there: firstly, if people *want* to play a single player game at a glacial pace then they should be allowed to do so--they're not hurting anyone by failing to complete a mission in 8 turns, are they? Secondly, there was already a much better fix for this tactic in X-Com 2 anyway, namely, the alien pods not becoming alerted to your presence until you entered their threatened area. You never got the situation where you'd find an alien pod and they'd immediately blast seven bells out of you.

[Silfir]

Well, two things there: firstly, if people *want* to play a single player game at a glacial pace then they should be allowed to do so--they're not hurting anyone by failing to complete a mission in 8 turns, are they? Secondly, there was already a much better fix for this tactic in X-Com 2 anyway, namely, the alien pods not becoming alerted to your presence until you entered their threatened area. You never got the situation where you'd find an alien pod and they'd immediately blast seven bells out of you.

I'm not sure you understand the problem at all. The fact that alien pods do nothing until you spot them is the problem, since it results in the optimal strategy being slooooowly plodding fooooorwaaaaard. That just wasn't fun. I basically had to houserule myself to not do it. That's why I think XCOM2's approach makes for a better game of strategy.

The old XCOM games dodged this by having the aliens search you out by themselves and shoot at you first, if you don't make an effort to sniff them out in time. There was always a sense of urgency.

A sense of urgency, of danger, is one of the quintessential elements of squad-based tactical combat games in general, and XCOM in particular. If you don't enjoy that element, that's completely your call, but it doesn't mean XCOM is doing anything wrong - it's simply not trying to be the kind of game you enjoy.

[BRC]

Well, two things there: firstly, if people *want* to play a single player game at a glacial pace then they should be allowed to do so--they're not hurting anyone by failing to complete a mission in 8 turns, are they? Secondly, there was already a much better fix for this tactic in X-Com 2 anyway, namely, the alien pods not becoming alerted to your presence until you entered their threatened area. You never got the situation where you'd find an alien pod and they'd immediately blast seven bells out of you.

It's a matter of what sort of gameplay the game is encouraging, and is that a fun way to play?


It's like this. Imagine XCOM had a class called "The Flash", The Flash doesn't get any weapons. He just punches aliens for 1 damage with a 50% miss rate. However, he gets an unlimited number of activations. The Aliens don't get a turn until you click "End Turn".

This produces what is clearly the ideal strategy. Use The Flash, have him run into melee with an alien, and keep punching them until they die. repeat until the map is clear This has a 100% success rate (forget about Alien Rulers for a moment here).

This would not be fun. However, it is clearly the optimal strategy. There is no situation where you can justify any other tactic. Yes, the player can simply not use The Flash, but that is objectively a bad tactic. A well-designed game should avoid putting the player in situations where it is more fun to play badly. If the best tactic is not a fun tactic, then it shouldn't be an option.


The issue isn't the people who want to play the game at a glacial pace. The issue is all the people who want to be able to throw themselves as the game with full enthusiasm, using the best tactics available, and still have fun. The Time Constraints are a part of the challenge, just as the Aliens are. By eliminating a reliable-but-boring strategy, they make the game more exciting.

[Anteros]

It seems odd to me that this thread is full of difficulty complaints. It's a strategy game isn't it? There are supposed to be wrong choices. That's the whole point.

So yeah, you can build your team wrong or move too slow and lose. That's like whole point isn't it? If you want to play a game where every strategy is equally valid...well that's not a very good strategy game.

[warty goblin]

It seems odd to me that this thread is full of difficulty complaints. It's a strategy game isn't it? There are supposed to be wrong choices. That's the whole point.

So yeah, you can build your team wrong or move too slow and lose. That's like whole point isn't it? If you want to play a game where every strategy is equally valid...well that's not a very good strategy game.

I think the difference is that a lot of the choices in XCOM and perhaps to a lesser extent XCOM 2 aren't actually strategic choices, but simply trap options. The distinction being that a good strategic choice between A and B is when, depending on my circumstances, sometimes A is the right choice and sometimes B is the right choice. With a lot of elements of XCOM/2 however one of the options isn't situationally the right answer, it's nearly always the right answer, and therefore only adds to the difficulty and richness of the game insofar as it exists to punish people playing for the first time. Suffering for making the wrong choice isn't a matter of failing to understand your situation and how best to utilize your resources, it's the game just kicking you in the teeth for not having paid enough n00b tax yet and not realizing that really, only the one side of this skill tree is useful.

So in XCOM 1 the optimal way to play being a crawl isn't an interesting choice based on your understanding of a fluid tactical situation, it's simply damn near always the thing you should be doing, and the game just beats you with a stick until you learn that. Which would be less frustrating for a lot of people if the crawl being the best way to play wasn't almost entirely a result of the extremely artificial feeling pod system.


It would also be nice if the game didn't actively nag players to do things that were quite likely extremely stupid to rush into. I'm thinking in particular of the Codex in XCOM 2, which is basically 'what, you paid attention to the NPCs? Well screw you!' in mission form.

[Vitruviansquid]

If simply having trap options is bad, nobody would play DnD 3.5.

The real question is whether there is enough of a breadth of non-trap options to make the game interesting.

I'd also point out that a lot of times, we see options as traps when they are not because we have our individual playstyles. Sometimes, things look like trap options to us because it doesn't fit our play preferences. For example, I always got the Predator Armor or Carapace Armor first rather than the Magnetic Weapons or Laser Weapons. I do this because I don't like a random crit from a basic enemy outright killing my soldiers from cover. I am aware that this puts me in the minority, as most people prefer to have tier 2 weapons before tier 2 armor in order to eliminate enemies faster. Both obviously work, because I have beaten Xcom 2 and Enemy Unknown with this strategy and other people have beaten the games with their other strategy. Sometimes, things also look like trap options to us because we are simply bad at using them. I never use Sharpshooters specialized in sniping in Xcom 2 because they tempt me into getting into extended shootouts against aliens, and that's incredibly bad. Obviously, other people without this problem are fine using Sharpshooters as snipers, and it's not a big problem for them.

[factotum]

The Time Constraints are a part of the challenge, just as the Aliens are. By eliminating a reliable-but-boring strategy, they make the game more exciting.

But that's my entire problem with the turn limits in a nutshell--I don't think that an arbitrary turn limit *does* add to the challenge, it just adds to the frustration. If the time limit was not arbitrary I wouldn't have a problem with it--for instance, have it so that the game spawns a squad of a dozen alien heavies when the turn limit expires, so you have the choice of fighting them or running away. I would rather lose my entire squad to said spawned in heavies than lose a soldier (or the entire mission) because they were three inches outside the pickup zone at the end of turn 8.

The first game did this, incidentally--in rescue VIP missions it would start spawning additional alien troops once you rescued the VIP, in order to make the return to the pickup zone harder. In bomb missions, which *did* have a hard time limit, you could go to the sub-transmitters and shut them down to gain an extra couple of turns. Both of these methods worked far better to encourage urgency in me than X-Com 2's method did.

[ICN]

Actually, on I/I, it was better for your guys to hunker rather than overwatch. You'd waste ammo missing overwatch shots, then you'd have to spend a precious action reloading instead of trying to do something to get rid of the aliens, typically at a most inconvenient time.

Snipers are, of course, the exception. They're supposed to be, that's their class ability. Having a sniper with a clear lane of fire on high ground in overwatch basically meant you had one fewer enemy per pod you had to worry about. But anyone else? No, overwatches were a trap. If you were worried about triggering a pod on a full move (full moves being generally a bad idea unless it can get you into full cover), then you went a half move and hunker.

That's pretty much their class ability. Without that, there would be no use for the class at all.

Let's examine that claim mathematically. We've got a squad of four rookies, so four overwatch shots at 65 base aim. Overwatch modifies aim with a .7 multiplier in EW. That means each overwatch shot will have an aim of 46.5. With four soldiers, we can usually expect for two shots to hit. In the early game, which is the only time we'd expect such a group composition, that means that you're generally trading one ammo from each soldier to kill one alien. I like pod sizes of two much better than pods of three. As aim and squad size increase, the opening overwatch salvo becomes even more deadly. While the innate defense of some aliens can make overwatch less reliable, it is still a far better pre-encounter move than hunkering down.

Also, snipers were incredibly strong in EU/EW. Once they got squadsight, they were near untouchable if used well, with strong offensive potential to back the rest of the squad up.

[boomwolf]

DnD is a very bad example as its an RPG, and never intended to be played "seriously".

However, if your group is even so slightly powergaming, anyone foolish enough to pick fighters, monks, paladins, etc is an outright useless character and will feel so very quickly-the game design of 3.5 is very, very poor.


"Trap" options in Xcom comes in many forms.
Advancing too fast? that's a trap. you'll get yourself killed and (in vanilla xcom, unlike EW and Xcom2) there is never any advantage to do so.
Fulfilling "quests" ASAP? bad move. you'll get stomped by what that quest triggers. (shen's last gift being the exception, as it doesn't actually trigger anything except its own mission that you CAN and SHOULD crawl through)
Some of the equipment choices are just plain bad.
Some of the perk choices are just plain bad compared to what perks you give up for. (was more of an issue in EU/EW)


There are many traps in xcom. some are strategic traps (as in, you MIGHT be good enough to merit choosing the "wrong" option), but some are simply a bad choice no matter what you do (usually things that involve rushing. there is practically never an advantage to rushing missions unless there is a timer)

[Vitruviansquid]

DnD is a very bad example as its an RPG, and never intended to be played "seriously".

However, if your group is even so slightly powergaming, anyone foolish enough to pick fighters, monks, paladins, etc is an outright useless character and will feel so very quickly-the game design of 3.5 is very, very poor.


"Trap" options in Xcom comes in many forms.
Advancing too fast? that's a trap. you'll get yourself killed and (in vanilla xcom, unlike EW and Xcom2) there is never any advantage to do so.
Fulfilling "quests" ASAP? bad move. you'll get stomped by what that quest triggers. (shen's last gift being the exception, as it doesn't actually trigger anything except its own mission that you CAN and SHOULD crawl through)
Some of the equipment choices are just plain bad.
Some of the perk choices are just plain bad compared to what perks you give up for. (was more of an issue in EU/EW)


There are many traps in xcom. some are strategic traps (as in, you MIGHT be good enough to merit choosing the "wrong" option), but some are simply a bad choice no matter what you do (usually things that involve rushing. there is practically never an advantage to rushing missions unless there is a timer)

Ok, let me put it more simply because you are still focusing on the presence of trap options.

It does not matter how many options are traps. What matters is how many options exist that are not traps.

If you have a game that has 5 options, and all 5 options work, it is as deep as a game that has 15 options, and 10 of those options are traps.

You are still left with a game that have 5 realistic options. 5 = 5.

This is true no matter what game you are playing - whether it's a computer strategy game, a tabletop RPG, or even a sport.

[boomwolf]

Not entirely accurate.

5 non traps options game is better than a 15 choice game with 10 traps, because the traps are creating fake difficulty.

is 5 non-traps game better than 15 options with 9 traps? don't think so, but its debatleable just how much do traps lower value, and at what point they are actually reducing the value of real options (probably at the point where the real options are hard to find within all the junk)

The mere existance of traps though, is a problem in game design. because they are not intentional, they are just something the devs tried to do, and failed.
Part of the reason why they make SO MUCH, is that for the traps that are bound to happen not to turn the game mono-stratagy, unfortunatly in EW, that didn't quite work, as the game WAS mono-stratagy, crawl.

[Vitruviansquid]

Not entirely accurate.

5 non traps options game is better than a 15 choice game with 10 traps, because the traps are creating fake difficulty.

is 5 non-traps game better than 15 options with 9 traps? don't think so, but its debatleable just how much do traps lower value, and at what point they are actually reducing the value of real options (probably at the point where the real options are hard to find within all the junk)

Trap options actually reduce value? Really?

So supposing tomorrow Xcom 2 released a patch that added in an 8th class that uses a shield. Let's say this 8th class is actually underpowered and is a trap option - you are always better served taking another class of soldier into a mission, and you are always better off dedicating the resources you would've spent to acquire shield guy on another type of soldier.

Since you think trap options create negative value, you would actually opt not to install the patch that adds shield guy?


The mere existance of traps though, is a problem in game design. because they are not intentional, they are just something the devs tried to do, and failed..

Okay, so game A attempted 15 things and ended up with 5 things while game B attempted 5 things and ended up with 5 things.

You are saying game A is inferior just because it tried stuff and failed?

Let's say I mod Xcom 2 and add a new gun for Rangers. Rangers can now take a "shotgun," a "rifle," and a gun called "THIS WEAPON SUCKS, DON'T TAKE IT." You actually think people will equip my mod weapon into their Rangers' loadouts, and then complain that it was a trap option?

How many people who are playing Street Fighter seriously pick Dan Hibiki?


Part of the reason why they make SO MUCH, is that for the traps that are bound to happen not to turn the game mono-stratagy, unfortunatly in EW, that didn't quite work, as the game WAS mono-stratagy, crawl

That's an insanely gross oversimplification of Xcom EW (and will also starve you of meld, so it's not even the optimal strategy). It's like you're looking at chess and saying it's a mono-strategy game where the only strategy was to checkmate the other guy's king. Sure, that's the goal of the game, but there are a gigantic number of decisions you make about how to go about it.

I think you are also being too focused on trap options that you can't see the wealth of real options in that game. Let's say we are talking about Xcom EU, where you actually almost never wanted to rush. There are still plenty of real options about how exactly you want to crawl.

[Knaight]

Trap options actually reduce value? Really?

So supposing tomorrow Xcom 2 released a patch that added in an 8th class that uses a shield. Let's say this 8th class is actually underpowered and is a trap option - you are always better served taking another class of soldier into a mission, and you are always better off dedicating the resources you would've spent to acquire shield guy on another type of soldier.

They can. For all that I love Dominions 3, this is one of the major points against it (although the UI being staggeringly bad, the tutorial being a scenario with a writeup in the manual, and the system being ridiculously opaque all come earlier). It has something to the tune of 2000 spells. Maybe 60 of them are ever worth using, and even aside from how the rest will distract your mages from their battle scripts they also make the game that much harder to learn. Given that the learning curve is characterized by multiple overhangs, that's not a good thing. It drags out the period where you're flailing around instead of playing strategically, it makes the game more intimidating for new people and thus less viable for local multiplayer, and even when you know the game well the very existence of the options in the spell selection menu makes it harder to use.

[boomwolf]

Trap options actually reduce value? Really?

So supposing tomorrow Xcom 2 released a patch that added in an 8th class that uses a shield. Let's say this 8th class is actually underpowered and is a trap option - you are always better served taking another class of soldier into a mission, and you are always better off dedicating the resources you would've spent to acquire shield guy on another type of soldier.

Since you think trap options create negative value, you would actually opt not to install the patch that adds shield guy?

Yes, because his mere presence in the game reduces the value.
I might get stuck with soliders I never, ever want to use because "shieldguy" is an always bad class. if it had some sort of merits, and some scenarios it rocked, while being generally unimpressive, that's one thing-I could keep one around as a "just in case"-but as long its an always-bad option, Its better not being in the game.


Okay, so game A attempted 15 things and ended up with 5 things while game B attempted 5 things and ended up with 5 things.

You are saying game A is inferior just because it tried stuff and failed?

Assuming the games are otherwise completely identical, yes. more content does not necessarily equals higher quality.


Let's say I mod Xcom 2 and add a new gun for Rangers. Rangers can now take a "shotgun," a "rifle," and a gun called "THIS WEAPON SUCKS, DON'T TAKE IT." You actually think people will equip my mod weapon into their Rangers' loadouts, and then complain that it was a trap option?

No, I think people wouldn't bother installing your mod, unless doing some sort of silly handicap run.


How many people who are playing Street Fighter seriously pick Dan Hibiki?

As a competitive game by nature, "joke characters" have a value-as long as there is ONE and exactly one.
Its meant to be used as a taunt of sort. "I'm so much better than you, I could beat you with Dan."



That's an insanely gross oversimplification of Xcom EW (and will also starve you of meld, so it's not even the optimal strategy). It's like you're looking at chess and saying it's a mono-strategy game where the only strategy was to checkmate the other guy's king. Sure, that's the goal of the game, but there are a gigantic number of decisions you make about how to go about it.

I think you are also being too focused on trap options that you can't see the wealth of real options in that game. Let's say we are talking about Xcom EU, where you actually almost never wanted to rush. There are still plenty of real options about how exactly you want to crawl.

I said that's a EU problem partly solved by EW (with meld), however once you nab the meld, it went right back to EU-best strategy is crawl, always, no exceptions. (other than the odd timed council mission)

The chess analogy is silly. checkmate is the goal, the strategy is how you get it done.
EU had one strategy dominant above all else-move as little as humanly possible and drag it out, you have nothing to gain from going fast, and everything to lose.

There are not "many ways to crawl". you take one step, and end the turn. its an always superior strategy-and by such a problem.
Xcom2 (and to a lesser extent EW) blended that up with having timers-you can't afford to take forever, but if you go too fast you can get yourself in trouble-this added a risk/reward layer of strategy, how much are you willing to risk getting caught out of position compared to how much you are feeling you can take your time.
Take too long, you get screwed-go too fast, equally or more screwed.
However there isn't a one-solution-fits-all-cases scenario here, sometimes you need to hurry, sometimes to take it slow-depends on your team, the current enemy level, the terrain, how far has the timer ticked already, what the timer is even for, and the material your balls are made of.

The timers added REAL choices. by removing the once dominant strategy.

[Vitruviansquid]

They can. For all that I love Dominions 3, this is one of the major points against it (although the UI being staggeringly bad, the tutorial being a scenario with a writeup in the manual, and the system being ridiculously opaque all come earlier). It has something to the tune of 2000 spells. Maybe 60 of them are ever worth using, and even aside from how the rest will distract your mages from their battle scripts they also make the game that much harder to learn. Given that the learning curve is characterized by multiple overhangs, that's not a good thing. It drags out the period where you're flailing around instead of playing strategically, it makes the game more intimidating for new people and thus less viable for local multiplayer, and even when you know the game well the very existence of the options in the spell selection menu makes it harder to use.

To nitpick:

Your main problem there is the spell scripting system being bad, not there being too many spells. One might also argue that the spell scripting system is actually good for forcing you to make the most of your first five turns and script your mages decisively, and this only works if there are a bunch of iffy spells mixed in with the really good ones.

Many of the spells that you have dismissed are actually useful in edge cases and so have a positive impact on the game. For example, you can run into situations where your strategy is to nuke people with spell A, but your mages generated with the wrong paths or you don't have booster production up yet or you haven't gotten the right research yet, so you have to nuke them with another spell.

To not nitpick:

Correlation is not causation, and I seriously doubt the large, complex magic system is what keeps newbies from playing Dominions 3.

There are a gigantic number of reasons why newbies don't play Dominions 3:

- Can be a pain to organize and then sustain a game with many players and it is far less fun to play with fewer players.
- The game is straight up ugly. Let's not lie to ourselves here.
- The UI is terrible and there is almost no tutorial.
- The game was not sold on shelves or Steam for a very long time, and only came to Steam a bit after release
- The game did not have very good advertising. It mostly only spreads by word of mouth.

[Silfir]

This is one of the "happy medium" deals. A certain number of "trap" options are still beneficial compared to not having them because figuring out that they are traps in the first place is part of the fun. There's a vast gap between there being 10-20 of them and 1940.

Usually "traps" aren't intentionally designed that way, anyway. Designers come up with a multitude of potential ways to play the game, and as the game is constantly being worked on it's never clear which of them are traps and which aren't. It's the players, after release, who figure this stuff out over time. Then the developers get the opportunity to figure out tweaks to some of their "trap" options to turn them into full-fledged options.

So I think the game with 15 options, ten of which serve no purpose, is slightly better off than the game that has five options, all of which serve a purpose, because tweaking things so that some of the options gain a purpose is easier to do than coming up and implementing new options.

EDIT: About Dominions 3 (or 4) -

I don't play the games because the singleplayer isn't fun, and turn-based strategy multiplayer with strangers in a game this complex sounds like a horrifying prospect.

The other stuff applies, too, I just wanted to add to the list.

[Vitruviansquid]

Yes, because his mere presence in the game reduces the value.
I might get stuck with soliders I never, ever want to use because "shieldguy" is an always bad class. if it had some sort of merits, and some scenarios it rocked, while being generally unimpressive, that's one thing-I could keep one around as a "just in case"-but as long its an always-bad option, Its better not being in the game.

Wow okay.

I would've simply not used this class and went on with life. Guess that's where we disagree.



Assuming the games are otherwise completely identical, yes. more content does not necessarily equals higher quality.

I thought you were arguing that trap options made games LOWER quality. I know it would not be of higher quality, I was arguing that adding a trap option made games of equal quality. I want to know whether you think this type of addition would make the game of LOWER or EQUAL quality, not simply that it isn't of higher quality.



No, I think people wouldn't bother installing your mod, unless doing some sort of silly handicap run.

Eh. Bad example, I guess, since this statement also makes it impossible to distinguish if you meant the mod would make the game of worse quality or of equal quality.


As a competitive game by nature, "joke characters" have a value-as long as there is ONE and exactly one.
Its meant to be used as a taunt of sort. "I'm so much better than you, I could beat you with Dan."

Welp, another bad examle, I guess.



I said that's a EU problem partly solved by EW (with meld), however once you nab the meld, it went right back to EU-best strategy is crawl, always, no exceptions. (other than the odd timed council mission)

Might want to edit your post. You have definitely typed "EW" in there. It definitely gets kinda flimsy if you are arguing that EW has a mono-strategy only after you do this thing that requires multiple strategies.


The chess analogy is silly. checkmate is the goal, the strategy is how you get it done.
EU had one strategy dominant above all else-move as little as humanly possible and drag it out, you have nothing to gain from going fast, and everything to lose.

Look, I can go in circles too:

"What you're saying about EU is silly. Crawling is the goal, the strategy is how you get it done.
Chess had one strategy dominant above all else-checkmate the opponent's king by maneuvering so that he has nowhere to go, you have nothing to gain from allowing the enemy to instead checkmate your king."

Because you haven't figured out yet that deciding whether to crawl or not to crawl isn't the only decision you need to make in EU, let met help you out with a few other possibilities

- When you crawl, which tiles will you want to crawl to and which soldiers will stand on which tiles? Oftentimes, you will not have enough high cover to go around.
- When you crawl, which classes do you want to be using more of during your crawl? Should we have heavies for this crawl because they can blow up a bad situation but lose money, or do we crawl with snipers/rifle classes so we can shoot enemies for extra loot? If I'm okay with blowing up the enemies, how many rockets do I think I'll need for a particular mission? Do we crawl completely without Shotgun assaults, or do we pack one just in case some big tanky guy pops out at us and we need extra firepower?
- Are we really going to ignore the fact that Thin Men are specifically designed to own anyone who gets in an extended shootout with them, by virtue of having high aim, defense, and poison that doesn't care about cover?
- Do I want to take the same guys on my crawls over and over again or do I want to spread the crawling duties around, so if I get unlucky and have a death, I have decent replacements?

There are a hundred things to decide on in EU besides whether you want to crawl or not.


There are not "many ways to crawl". you take one step, and end the turn. its an always superior strategy-and by such a problem.
Xcom2 (and to a lesser extent EW) blended that up with having timers-you can't afford to take forever, but if you go too fast you can get yourself in trouble-this added a risk/reward layer of strategy, how much are you willing to risk getting caught out of position compared to how much you are feeling you can take your time.
Take too long, you get screwed-go too fast, equally or more screwed.
However there isn't a one-solution-fits-all-cases scenario here, sometimes you need to hurry, sometimes to take it slow-depends on your team, the current enemy level, the terrain, how far has the timer ticked already, what the timer is even for, and the material your balls are made of.

The timers added REAL choices. by removing the once dominant strategy.

I agree with everything except that first line here, which I addressed above. I am not, nor was I ever saying that the timers in Xcom 2 are bad.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

I would've simply not used this class and went on with life. Guess that's where we disagree.

Point of order*: Without modding, it's rather difficult to 'simply not use this class and get on with life'. Assuming that our hypothetical rubbish shield-bearer was a regular class (rather than a 'constructed' one such as the Psi Trooper or SPARK), you are going to get some of your soldiers randomly generated as shield-bearers, and will either be stuck using them or stuck with less soldiers - and given how few troops one has in the early game, that likely means having to use them for a time or actually deploy an incomplete squad.

*Not actually a point of order but who cares.

[Silfir]

Point of order*: Without modding, it's rather difficult to 'simply not use this class and get on with life'. Assuming that our hypothetical rubbish shield-bearer was a regular class (rather than a 'constructed' one such as the Psi Trooper or SPARK), you are going to get some of your soldiers randomly generated as shield-bearers, and will either be stuck using them or stuck with less soldiers - and given how few troops one has in the early game, that likely means having to use them for a time or actually deploy an incomplete squad.

*Not actually a point of order but who cares.

Well, this means the example is flawed - having a useless class thrown into the mix has detrimental or limiting effects on XCOM 2 as a whole, precisely because class selection is not optional.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Well, this means the example is flawed - having a useless class thrown into the mix has detrimental or limiting effects on XCOM 2 as a whole, precisely because class selection is not optional.

It's more than the example, though: the logic behind it is also flawed. A strategy game with options which are traps is a problem for many of its players. If Vitruviansquid is not affected, I honestly am happy for him, but from my perspective, I hate trap options, because I'd like to be able to play with the full product I bought.

If the game really is designed in such a way that 3 of the 7 classes are traps (or just plain boring, like the Xcom2 psions, whose optimal development strategy is to leave them in their fish tank until they are maxed out), and of the other 4, half their skill tree is detrimental to your efforts, I feel like 1) I'm being railroaded and like a bad DM the game will punish me if I don't do what it expects me to. And more importantly, 2) I happen to like variety teams. I like to have one of everything, because it's the flexibility of a team squad that I enjoy the most about team-based TBS (and I do mean one of everything: if I have two skill trees, I would prefer to have two builds that mostly cover both sides, except where the skill, useful as it may be, just doesn't match my preferred playing style).

Yes, if 95% of options are crap, then I feel like I bought crap, even if the 5% left is actually a good game. Because it's the illusion of choice, and I'm sure the game promised 12 classes and 100 different builds when they sold me the game - XCOM certainly did, for whatever numbers.

Now, XCOM is NOT that bad. My complaint about turn limits is mostly against Long War 2, which I found ridiculous that every mission had it. It made every mission play out the same: run, run, run*. In vanilla, I accepted some mission had a time constraint and therefore I adapted to them as best I could, but they consistently rank as the least enjoyable for me. To be clear: I never ran against the limit. I suspect I complete the missions in about the same number of turns, timer or no timer. But the very fact that it's there reduces my enjoyment of the game.

Grey Wolf

* ETA: And to be absolutely clear: strategy games biggest issue is feeling of repetition: that every mission is like all the others. XCOM 1 & 2 suffer with this quite a bit (2 more than 1, whoi at least got the set piece battles to break the monotony), but the problem seems to have exacerbated massively by Long War 2, especially since they heaped even more missions, increasing the feeling of just running in place.

[AMX]

"Just ignore the bad options" may be fine for veteran players who have already tried everything, and maybe that type of player who enjoys reading a bunch of strategy guides before getting started with the actual game.

But for your standard-issue newbie, "trap options" are negative value.


Getting back to the actual topic... I'm just not convinced. From my POV the new content seems to vary between "meh, whatever" and "that sounds kinda problematic, actually."
If it's cheap enough I'll probably get it on sale, for completeness' sake.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Well, this means the example is flawed - having a useless class thrown into the mix has detrimental or limiting effects on XCOM 2 as a whole, precisely because class selection is not optional.

That was rather my point - regardless of the effects (or lack thereof) of trap options where they can be ignored by a competent player, much of what we're discussing relates to poor 'options' that cannot be avoided, and thus are damaging regardless of player judgement or skill.


Now, XCOM is NOT that bad. My complaint about turn limits is mostly against Long War 2, which I found ridiculous that every mission had it. It made every mission play out the same: run, run, run*. In vanilla, I accepted some mission had a time constraint and therefore I adapted to them as best I could, but they consistently rank as the least enjoyable for me. To be clear: I never ran against the limit. I suspect I complete the missions in about the same number of turns, timer or no timer. But the very fact that it's there reduces my enjoyment of the game.

Uh, LW2 has a lot of missions where the timer doesn't apply. Troop Ambushes, Supply Raids, Rendezvous, Liberations, and Retaliations to name a few. The timers and stealth predominance have also been toned down quite a lot in 1.4.

[Silfir]

It's more than the example, though: the logic behind it is also flawed. A strategy game with options which are traps is a problem for many of its players. If Vitruviansquid is not affected, I honestly am happy for him, but from my perspective, I hate trap options, because I'd like to be able to play with the full product I bought.

If the game really is designed in such a way that 3 of the 7 classes are traps (or just plain boring, like the Xcom2 psions, whose optimal development strategy is to leave them in their fish tank until they are maxed out), and of the other 4, half their skill tree is detrimental to your efforts, I feel like 1) I'm being railroaded and like a bad DM the game will punish me if I don't do what it expects me to. And more importantly, 2) I happen to like variety teams. I like to have one of everything, because it's the flexibility of a team squad that I enjoy the most about team-based TBS (and I do mean one of everything: if I have two skill trees, I would prefer to have two builds that mostly cover both sides, except where the skill, useful as it may be, just doesn't match my preferred playing style).

Yes, if 95% of options are crap, then I feel like I bought crap, even if the 5% left is actually a good game. Because it's the illusion of choice, and I'm sure the game promised 12 classes and 100 different builds when they sold me the game - XCOM certainly did, for whatever numbers.

Now, XCOM is NOT that bad. My complaint about turn limits is mostly against Long War 2, which I found ridiculous that every mission had it. It made every mission play out the same: run, run, run*. In vanilla, I accepted some mission had a time constraint and therefore I adapted to them as best I could, but they consistently rank as the least enjoyable for me. To be clear: I never ran against the limit. I suspect I complete the missions in about the same number of turns, timer or no timer. But the very fact that it's there reduces my enjoyment of the game.

Grey Wolf

* ETA: And to be absolutely clear: strategy games biggest issue is feeling of repetition: that every mission is like all the others. XCOM 1 & 2 suffer with this quite a bit (2 more than 1, whoi at least got the set piece battles to break the monotony), but the problem seems to have exacerbated massively by Long War 2, especially since they heaped even more missions, increasing the feeling of just running in place.

No game is ever designed to have traps. Imbalances crop up naturally, because game designers aren't divine beings, and game development is difficult.

I had not trouble at all playing XCOM 2 using a variety approach, anyhow. Can't speak for Long War 2 - I wasn't a fan of Long War 1 to begin with.

[Knaight]

Correlation is not causation, and I seriously doubt the large, complex magic system is what keeps newbies from playing Dominions 3.

It's what makes it harder to get into - even once you've shelled out the money for a copy of the game and gotten used to dealing with it's god awful UI the spell list stands as a big imposing thing because it's chock full of useless padding.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Let's examine that claim mathematically. We've got a squad of four rookies, so four overwatch shots at 65 base aim. Overwatch modifies aim with a .7 multiplier in EW. That means each overwatch shot will have an aim of 46.5. With four soldiers, we can usually expect for two shots to hit. In the early game, which is the only time we'd expect such a group composition, that means that you're generally trading one ammo from each soldier to kill one alien. I like pod sizes of two much better than pods of three. As aim and squad size increase, the opening overwatch salvo becomes even more deadly. While the innate defense of some aliens can make overwatch less reliable, it is still a far better pre-encounter move than hunkering down.Wrong. In I.I base sectoids had extra health, meaning it was impossible to one-shot a sectoid without a crit in the early game, while it was VERY easy to for a sectoid to one-shot your people. In other words, you waste minimum two probably three out of your four shots, and the last one might damage a sectoid, depending on circumstance.

The other fallacy you are resting on is the base accuracy being universally used. There's range penalties and other terrain penalties to be considered as well. And remember, an overwatch will pop as soon as the alien comes into line of sight, which means you are maxing out your chance for a range penalty. So you're looking at significantly LESS than a 50% shot on each rookie. Personally, I never saw higher than a 35% chance to hit out of an overwatch until I got a sniper.

However, Hunkering gives your rookies a much better chance of surviving due to being missed, meaning less casualties and more overall firepower to apply in future rounds of combat. Plus less ammo consumed. This goes double if you are not in heavy cover. If you are not in heavy cover, then not hunkering down is essentially throwing away that soldier's life. Aliens get stupid accuracy bonuses and damage bonuses in I/I, making it nearly impossible for them to miss a shot against troops in no or even light cover.

That's not to say that overwatch is useless, far from it. However, it is far less useful than most people seem to think it is, and a huge trap in the early sections of the game before you have the accuracy to do more than provide a pretty light show when overwatching.

Also, overwatch + shotgun = complete and utter fail. Shotguns have crippling range attack penalties, and Overwatch works by triggering as soon as they enter the shotguns range, meaning you have the maximum crippling range penalty on top of overwatch penalty, which means you aren't hitting squat. Shotty Assaults are awesome, no doubt. But they have no business overwatching unless you are using one of a few very specific tactics which involve forcing an alien around a corner into a point-blank shot.

For that matter, even into the late game, the only classes who should regularly be overwatching are Snipers, because they negate the aim penalties from Overwatch, range, and have stupidly high Aim anyway, and Specialists. Heavies don't have the Aim to hit anything with an Overwatch unless you are explicitly setting up traps, and Assaults are typically using shotguns and so do very badly at overwatch as mentioned above.


Also, snipers were incredibly strong in EU/EW. Once they got squadsight, they were near untouchable if used well, with strong offensive potential to back the rest of the squad up.Agreed. And a large part of that strength was Squadsight and Opportunist. In other words, it requires a specific build from a specific class to make Overwatch viable.


Trap options actually reduce value? Really?

So supposing tomorrow Xcom 2 released a patch that added in an 8th class that uses a shield. Let's say this 8th class is actually underpowered and is a trap option - you are always better served taking another class of soldier into a mission, and you are always better off dedicating the resources you would've spent to acquire shield guy on another type of soldier.

Since you think trap options create negative value, you would actually opt not to install the patch that adds shield guy?

It wouldn't matter once you get the building that lets you train up specific classes from rookies. So your example is flawed because it is easily circumvented. Which is one of the things XCOM2 did right.

[Vitruviansquid]

That was rather my point - regardless of the effects (or lack thereof) of trap options where they can be ignored by a competent player, much of what we're discussing relates to poor 'options' that cannot be avoided, and thus are damaging regardless of player judgement or skill.

Let example genie grant your wish: Pretend the new class is actually purely optional like SPARKS or Psi Operatives.

[Anteros]

"Just ignore the bad options" may be fine for veteran players who have already tried everything, and maybe that type of player who enjoys reading a bunch of strategy guides before getting started with the actual game.

But for your standard-issue newbie, "trap options" are negative value.



I disagree. Figuring out what options are good and what options aren't is one of the main draws of this type of game. It's far more satisfying to meticulously create an effective army than it is to just mash buttons on the keyboard with no plan because you know anything can work.

[ICN]

Wrong. In I.I base sectoids had extra health, meaning it was impossible to one-shot a sectoid without a crit in the early game, while it was VERY easy to for a sectoid to one-shot your people. In other words, you waste minimum two probably three out of your four shots, and the last one might damage a sectoid, depending on circumstance.

The other fallacy you are resting on is the base accuracy being universally used. There's range penalties and other terrain penalties to be considered as well. And remember, an overwatch will pop as soon as the alien comes into line of sight, which means you are maxing out your chance for a range penalty. So you're looking at significantly LESS than a 50% shot on each rookie. Personally, I never saw higher than a 35% chance to hit out of an overwatch until I got a sniper.

However, Hunkering gives your rookies a much better chance of surviving due to being missed, meaning less casualties and more overall firepower to apply in future rounds of combat. Plus less ammo consumed. This goes double if you are not in heavy cover. If you are not in heavy cover, then not hunkering down is essentially throwing away that soldier's life. Aliens get stupid accuracy bonuses and damage bonuses in I/I, making it nearly impossible for them to miss a shot against troops in no or even light cover.

That's not to say that overwatch is useless, far from it. However, it is far less useful than most people seem to think it is, and a huge trap in the early sections of the game before you have the accuracy to do more than provide a pretty light show when overwatching.

Also, overwatch + shotgun = complete and utter fail. Shotguns have crippling range attack penalties, and Overwatch works by triggering as soon as they enter the shotguns range, meaning you have the maximum crippling range penalty on top of overwatch penalty, which means you aren't hitting squat. Shotty Assaults are awesome, no doubt. But they have no business overwatching unless you are using one of a few very specific tactics which involve forcing an alien around a corner into a point-blank shot.

For that matter, even into the late game, the only classes who should regularly be overwatching are Snipers, because they negate the aim penalties from Overwatch, range, and have stupidly high Aim anyway, and Specialists. Heavies don't have the Aim to hit anything with an Overwatch unless you are explicitly setting up traps, and Assaults are typically using shotguns and so do very badly at overwatch as mentioned above.

Agreed. And a large part of that strength was Squadsight and Opportunist. In other words, it requires a specific build from a specific class to make Overwatch viable.

Base assault rifle has a range of 2-4 damage, which means that yes, they can in fact one shot any sectoid that's not mind melded. No sectoids are going to be mind melded before you trigger a pod. Which is the situation to which I was referring; looking back, I think I misinterpreted your initial post. Yes, hunkering down has its uses after triggering a pod. Before triggering a pod, overwatch is better, because aliens can't shoot at you until you activate the pod.

Only shotguns get penalties for long range by the way. http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Chance_to_Hit_%28EU2012%29#Weapon_ Range

Overwatch is perfectly viable in a wide variety of situations even without special abilities. Possibly it just doesn't mesh with your playstyle. Snipers don't get opportunist until captain rank, by which time many games will have already started snowballing. They're still fantastic even without opportunist.

[Lacuna Caster]

Overwatch is perfectly viable in a wide variety of situations even without special abilities. Possibly it just doesn't mesh with your playstyle. Snipers don't get opportunist until captain rank, by which time many games will have already started snowballing. They're still fantastic even without opportunist.
I haven't played a lot of Impossible/Ironman- basically because I found the early game so punishing that you need a good slice of luck regardless of tactics- but based on what I've seen of Beaglerush in action, optimal strategy in EU/EW is to send out one dude to scout, have everyone else follow precisely in their footsteps, then have everyone overwatch.

I rarely have the patience to do exactly that, even though I know it's technically optimal given the faintly artificial pod mechanics, so what I usually do is have two scouts go in slightly different directions, then follow up with 2-3 guys on overwatch and 1-2 dashing to keep pace. I never gave shotguns to my assaults, since I prefer the versatility of assault rifles, and while snipers are tiny gods at high levels, heavies were my workhorse for the early game (at least outside of Long War.) The ability to reliably nuke the enemy saves an awful lot of trouble.

[boomwolf]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVJg_KrLzBA

Reaper overview.

The most intresting thing here is the odd skill tree. makes me wonder if all soldiers switch to this new tree style, or will it be unique for the factions.

4 trees, not every tree has an ability every level, but every level has 2-3 choices, and looks like some are linked? (one requires the other)

Anyways, reapers. sorta-sniper rifles and claymores-with a heavy sneaky theme. cool stuff.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVJg_KrLzBA

Reaper overview.

The most intresting thing here is the odd skill tree. makes me wonder if all soldiers switch to this new tree style, or will it be unique for the factions.

Unique to the factions. They don't level up via XP/kills - you have to use your intel* points (which you get by flanking enemies and killing from high ground and so on) to get the new abilities. This is intended to be a limited resource, which you will have to decide between leveling these faction VIPs, or your own regular characters (where you can use it to grab extra abilities from the levels you have already unlocked for them, or, in some cases, from other paths' abilities)

ETA: I got this info from a eurogamer video with "112 details about XCOM 2: War of the Chosen" in YouTube (or possibly a similar 100+ number)

Grey Wolf

* May have a different name - I think intel points is something the enemies collect now, and the "flank points" have a different actual name

[Lacuna Caster]

Unique to the factions. They don't level up via XP/kills - you have to use your intel* points (which you get by flanking enemies and killing from high ground and so on) to get the new abilities.
Ugh. This sort of thing drives me bonkers. I already hated how Psi operatives levelled up exclusively from training-on-base. Surely everyone should get better from both training and missions, simulationism-wise? What is this metagame-currency gibberish doing in my nice gritty crits-and-panic wargame?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Ugh. This sort of thing drives me bonkers. I already hated how Psi operatives levelled up exclusively from training-on-base. Surely everyone should get better from both training and missions, simulationism-wise? What is this metagame-currency gibberish doing in my nice gritty crits-and-panic wargame?

Very much agreed. If they must use these points, maybe limit them to unlocking abilities, and that other stats would still require combat (so you still get more accurate and tougher and so on by going on missions and experiencing combat, and these points would just represent advance training on weapon use which you do need to do at base).

GW

[heronbpv]

I agree that the system may seem wonky, but I think there's a really good side to it: it can be modded out.
That said, maybe wait some time before buying the DLC to see which mods appear? When XCOM2 was first launched, most of the annoying/wonky functionality where either modded out or tweaked by mods in the first thirty days.

There's also always the option of modding it yourself, as well.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I agree that the system may seem wonky, but I think there's a really good side to it: it can be modded out.
That said, maybe wait some time before buying the DLC to see which mods appear? When XCOM2 was first launched, most of the annoying/wonky functionality where either modded out or tweaked by mods in the first thirty days.

There's also always the option of modding it yourself, as well.

Is there a mod that replaces the "you can keep your psionic soldiers in the tank and they level" with "they use the same XP system of the rest of the squad"?

GW

[heronbpv]

I believe LW2 did something close, in which you need to level up your PsiOps, but also need to tube him in order to learn the psi abilities. I'm aware of at least one other Mod on the workshop that reworks the psionics system, although I'm not sure exactly what changes it did.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Is there a mod that replaces the "you can keep your psionic soldiers in the tank and they level" with "they use the same XP system of the rest of the squad"?

GW

There's the Psi Rookies (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=621630722) mod (and the LW adaptation of it (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=804756952)). Basically makes a 'normal class' version of the Psi Trooper.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

There's the Psi Rookies (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=621630722) mod (and the LW adaptation of it (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=804756952)). Basically makes a 'normal class' version of the Psi Trooper.

Thanks!

GW

[Rodin]

It just occurred to me.

If I want to experience the expansion as intended, I'm going to have to uninstall the 20+ mods I currently have.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1451686245/scream__1__400x400.jpg

[Grey_Wolf_c]

It just occurred to me.

If I want to experience the expansion as intended, I'm going to have to uninstall the 20+ mods I currently have.

No, just unselect them from the load-up dialogue. And some quality of life improvements (HP displays, evac all, etc) probably can stay regardless. The only one you'd probably need to uninstall rather than just turn off is LW2.

GW

[Rodin]

No, just unselect them from the load-up dialogue. And some quality of life improvements (HP displays, evac all, etc) probably can stay regardless. The only one you'd probably need to uninstall rather than just turn off is LW2.

GW

I meant more playing without them. I've got a lot of tweaks to stuff (relaxed timers, better flanking angles, upgrades to MEC units, etc.) as well as several major changes like suites of additional enemies and the LW2 Toolbox that I really don't want to lose but which will fundamentally change how the game is played.

Losing a dozen enemies with associated improved AI over Vanilla and only gaining 3 or 4 new enemy types in return seems like a bum deal.

[boomwolf]

Why would you need to uninstall LW2? its getting activated just like any other mod.

Also, I'm willing to bet LW2 will be updated to cmpatability within days, if not on lunch of the new expansion.

so would many other mods who are made by passionate modders. these guys tend to be really on-point with patching up their creations when the game updates.

[Rodin]

Why would you need to uninstall LW2? its getting activated just like any other mod.

Also, I'm willing to bet LW2 will be updated to cmpatability within days, if not on lunch of the new expansion.

so would many other mods who are made by passionate modders. these guys tend to be really on-point with patching up their creations when the game updates.

I'll stress "experience as intended".

It's hard to judge a game on its merits when you're starting the game with a dozen mods installed. I prefer not to mod at all until I've played vanilla first. It's just...daunting...to do so for XCOM 2 because they made the game so moddable to begin with.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Most of the quality of life mods like Gotcha will probably updated quite quickly after WotC comes out. You'll probably only be waiting long for things like AI changes, A Better Advent and LW2.

[Lacuna Caster]

Very much agreed. If they must use these points, maybe limit them to unlocking abilities, and that other stats would still require combat (so you still get more accurate and tougher and so on by going on missions and experiencing combat, and these points would just represent advance training on weapon use which you do need to do at base).
That's not a bad idea. I'm generally quite supportive of elder-scrolls-style progression-through-practice mechanisms, so in principle the idea of having certain perks that will only unlock by actively performing related tasks makes sense to me.

[CleverUsername]

If this is implemented well it could be the best thing ever.

I know, right? I really can't wait.
if Aiko Kojima and Sgt. Johnson don't end up being in a relationship I'll kill someone

[Aotrs Commander]

Ye gods. The expansion is priced at £35 at the moment on Steam. As much as the original game itself!

That's... Brave of them. (Especially given 2K's recent PR debarcle...)

For that sort of price, they'd better have added as much content again as the base game, or they are going to get pretty much reemed...!

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Ye gods. The expansion is priced at £35 at the moment on Steam. As much as the original game itself!

That's... Brave of them. (Especially given 2K's recent PR debarcle...)

For that sort of price, they'd better have added as much content again as the base game, or they are going to get pretty much reemed...!

I'm not aware of a PR debacle with 2k since Duke Nukem Forever and they changed PR teams over a certain tweet... but that was years ago.

This is supposed to be the XCOM2 equivalent of Enemy Within, which ran for the same price that Enemy Unknown ran, and it worked well for them. And from what I am given to understand, there IS as much content added again as the base game, plus substantial changes to core mechanics to correct many issues in the vanilla version.

[Aotrs Commander]

I'm not aware of a PR debacle with 2k since Duke Nukem Forever and they changed PR teams over a certain tweet... but that was years ago.

This is supposed to be the XCOM2 equivalent of Enemy Within, which ran for the same price that Enemy Unknown ran, and it worked well for them. And from what I am given to understand, there IS as much content added again as the base game, plus substantial changes to core mechanics to correct many issues in the vanilla version.

Sorry, confusing 2K with Take-Two for some reason...



Guess we'll see then...