A new look at a fair RB?

Do not let shoot or shoot at the center of mass with SR (with high accuracy).
And any other 3AP weapons (Hello :100: miss :innocent:).

If I think about it, your guess might be correct as the devs don’t respond to all the anti alpha strike threads. At least I don’t see that in the patches and not in this forum either … In fact, after the Leviathan patch you can even breed ultra superheroes. (Of course, this patch also did a few things right)

If that’s the reason why cooldowns somehow don’t make it into the game, then I wonder why the devs give the gently dangerous enemys any interesting skills at all? Seriously: If I see a chiron or a scylla, then they are either swept away with teleport spell or with a meteor shower with unlimited range. I even stopped looking at the mutations of these “dangerous” enemys because it doesn’t matter. You could just as easily replace these opponents with large blocks of armor and HP … Anyone who has seen through the advantages of mobility and accurancy can use these unfair methods. The OP skills are the cherry on the cake.
If this is not dealt with and is even intentional, the game will apply alpha strike to itself.
I hope it isn’t …

For me personally it is also an alpha strike if I either eliminated most of the heavy boys in the first round or disabled them (no movement, no weapons). If several rounds are then required for the rest of the small cattle, it has no effect on the outcome of this encounter.

1 Like

Why not? Look at bionic augmentations with built-in skills.

  • Swipe burst - 2 burst, cost “4AP +4WP” for all machine guns, use only people with heavy prof (PP, NJ, Free).

I think, or better I hope, they are aware of these threads, but, to be honest, what do you expect from them? There are also many threads about the “ridiculous difficulty” even on easy and they are also not really responding there. If they balance the player side they also have to balance the other side and at the end we propably have almost the same as now. All players that understand how it works will continue to rock the game even on legend and others still struggeling on easy.

For instance, what should they say to a thread like this one? Without any balance to the other side they can’t nerf RB, even when they are aware of that it is obviously broken.

A simple question:
What should they nerf on the panda side? Making scyllas or chirons even more weaker? These are the most called cases where RB is needed.

My personal opinions:
At the moment the whole game seems to be mostly somewhat balanced, many players need these alpha strikes to have a chance against the sometimes overwhelming Pandas.
Sure, it could be much better and more and more I think the first way can only be to do something with the lower difficulties. Easy should be really easy and this seems not to be the case for many players if I look around this forum.
Then we can talk about restrictions/nerfs/balancing for all these alpha striking, RB, dash …

But my favorite would always be a form of “second wave” adjustments as it is in firaxis xcoms and even more of them. I think, with such an underlying setting tool independent from the global difficulty setting, you could handle many different cases for the majority of all players.

Yeah, that’s why I say obliterate the opponent, doesn’t mean kill, or disable all of the enemies, or even most of them, just make it impossible for the opponent to respond. Think of it as if you were playing with Panda, what could you do on your turn after PP’s first move? If the answer is not much after what PP did on the first move, then it’s an alpha-strike.

What I disagree with is using alpha-strike to refer to any OP attack by the player, or even the AI, which can’t alpha-strike because it moves second.

“Fast and furious” is different from alpha-strike. From the Q&A my understanding is that the devs do want something “fast” or without the fluff, as I would put it.

I agree with that approach. The way I think about it is that when I’m playing any short turn based match in almost any game, usually there will be just 1-3 really decisive turns. The rest I could really do without. Even more so in a game where I have to do around 100 missions to win. Make 10% of these missions a bit more involved, but for the rest I’m glad they are short matches.

Alpha-striking is an unwanted byproduct of this approach, and I’m 100% sure that it will done away with, simply because you can’t bring the game to Steam with this. There is stuff you can leave for later, but if the players can reliably beat the AI before it had a chance to move it will be crushed by players’ reviews.

Why not? Yes, let the weak and skinny begin, and gradually they will build up fat and muscle. With a lag, send the next and next. Let the curve of difficulty increase gradually.

add
(Simple amateur solutions)
Set Pandor Balance for Veteran. Reduce the number of Pandors on first appearance for beginners. Then everything depends on how to set up the evolution system + dynamic difficulty.
Adjust the balance of skills for Legend. Increase bonuses and decrease the cost of skills more and more for each difficulty down: Hero, Veteran, Beginner.

Unfortunately, you argue just like those who find the game too difficult … sorry not meant bad :wink:
I agree with many of your arguments … but
The argument that I always read is: if you weaken this skill, I can’t stand against high tier pandas. The chiron breaks my team in one turn, which is why I absolutely need skills that I can use to destroy the pandas in one turn (before it’s his turn).
I do not want to name the OP-Panda problems in detail, because you and probably everyone else who writes in this thread know it very well.
It’s NOT about making both sides OP! It is about balancing both sides FAIRLY, so that the opposite side has opportunities to counter or noticeably reduce the first strike. And that is NOT the same!

To be honest, I’m not sure if this is true. Compare it to Firaxis XCOMS. Yes, there is not one Alpha Strike for one mission like in PP but in FXCom every “pod” you will always alpha strike because otherwise they will wreck you to hell. One mission in FXCom is a follow up of more ore less independent alpha strikes and many players likes that or at least don’t complain that very loud.

I’m completely with you, they should begin with something. But I really don’t know with what, because in my opinion RB is not the biggest problem.

Edit:
Ups, it is going fast here … :wink:
@walan, see above, I’m mostly with you :slight_smile:

That is a good definition

I hope so too …
Therefore:

I think your definition of alpha-strike is too rigid, because there are several different ways that alpha-striking can occur:

  1. Exploiting Skill combos to win the mission on Turn 1 or 2.
  2. Crippling the other side in 1 turn so that it cannot strike back effectively.
  3. Inflicting so much damage on the enemy that it has no long-term chance of survival in the mission.
  4. Hitting an individual target so hard that it is taken out in a single turn.

Definitions 1&2 conform to your rigid interpretation of alpha-strike and should be rendered impossible.
Definition 3 is what everyone is complaining about with Acid Chirons and should also be nerfed - it’s just as much of an alpha-strike when 1 or 2 Chirons suddenly appear out of nowhere and pepper half your squad with acid before they have any chance to react.
Definition 4 is a perfectly legitimate way of dealing with a Siren/Chiron/other Nasty, and should be possible if you know how to do it right.

The thing is, as the game currently stands, Definitions 1-3 completely overwhelm Definition 4, turning the game into a mess of Mutually Assured Destruction that satisfies no-one (or very few who have a voice). The way you and I limit ourselves does away with 1&2, but probably exposes us quite badly to 3 - though I was lucky enough to avoid any massive acid attack on my playthrough, partly because I apply strike 4 religiously to the most dangerous enemies on the map.

Really? I find a mission that lasts only 3 turns deeply unsatisfying. It feels like an anti-climax. But then, I like LW2 so I’m invested in deeper, longer play. I’m not saying all missions should drag out to 10+ turns by any means, but 3 turns simply isn’t enough time to have an interesting tactical engagement - it just feels like a hit-and-run, rather than a skirmish.

It also contributes significantly to the lack of any sense of menace that so many people miss in this game. Take XCOM as the obvious benchmark - on most missions, you would have a couple of turns at the beginning where nothing much happened as you were getting yourself into position and reacting to the noises off-screen. And it was great! The sense of tense anticipation it generated before everything kicked off was exhilarating - and is completely absent in this game.

  1. Get rid of Acid Chirons on all but the highest difficulty settings, and nerf acid damage to Health, but increase it against armour.
  2. Adjust the DDA so that Arthrons get more armour (making them harder to kill) but do less damage. Atmo, mid-endgame Crabbies are essentially 1-shot killing machines if you’re not careful, so you have to alpha-strike them. Make them less dangerous but more durable, and you immediately have a more interesting encounter.
  3. Sirens should only be able to MC with LoS.
  4. OPPOSITE TO NERF: Make the Scylla less of a glass-jawed boxer: We have to talk about the Scylla in the room
2 Likes

I strongly disagree. It is unfair to the player, but for reasons different from those that make alpha-striking “unfair” to the AI.

See, the players can do something to prevent an explosive/acid Chiron from wrecking havoc with their squads, and that is besides disabling the Chiron permanently, or temporarily for one turn before it gets a chance to act.

The Chirons only attack detected soldiers, they are controls on the player who is careless about detection, just as Sirens are controls on the player who over extends, and/or spends too many WPs. Moreover, the damage dealt by the explosive Chiron is eminently manageable with heavier armor, even with the current occasional double damage explosion, so they are also controls on scantly dressed soldiers who like to run a lot, or get high accuracy buffs (The acid Chiron is a separate issue because of the current acid mess).

That doesn’t mean that a Chiron hitting you out of nowhere and dealing massive amounts of damage is good balance. It is not. However, to make it fair and balanced the solution is (besides fixing the stupid double damage from explosions bug) to make detection mechanics more visible and transparent, and to make them work better. Perhaps also limit the appearance of these Chirons to maps of certain size and/or architecture.

There is a reason I insist on a rigid, or strict definition of AS, and that’s because different problems require different solutions. There are many, or at least several balances issues in PP. Alpha-strike is a subset within this bigger set. Chirons are different subset within the same.

Yes, for the first 5, 10, 20 missions. After that the dread is doing the exact same thing over and over again, knowing that if you do things in a certain way, or according to some routine it’s going to be OK, but you still have to go through all the motions just the same.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for having a few longer missions on bigger maps, but not as a rule. That’s what the story missions should be for. Some of them are OK, but many are just not that great. (those ruins come to mind…)

In some cases they can, in others (good example: most Lairs) they can’t.

I agree that they are a balancing mechanic to punish players for acting stupidly (and I’m sure I’m gonna get flamed for that, cos apparently standing in a group out in the open before a Chiron’s been revealed isn’t stupid :face_with_raised_eyebrow:) - but that still doesn’t alter the fact that a Chiron appearing out of nowhere and covering 3 of your precious 6 squaddies with acid is to all intents and purposes an alpha-strike on the part of the Pandas.

To be honest, Voland, I don’t think your over-rigid definition of alpha-striking is helping much. Whether you believe it’s their fault or not, a good proportion of players on this forum feel very unfairly treated when a Nasty pops out of nowhere and completely disables a large percentage of their squad in 1 turn with acid/explosives/MC - and that contributes to the MAD spiral of alpha-destruction that we are faced with at the moment.

Remove the Panda potential to ‘alpha’ a squad at the same time as removing the squad’s potential to alpha the map, and you’ll end up with a much fairer, more balanced and tactically satisfying experience than we have at the moment.

That’s true of all these types of game. Let’s face it: all we’re really doing is moving little piece across a map over and over again.

Still doesn’t alter the fact that I still get a tingle up my spine every time I enter a forest and that spooky music starts up in XCOM - and I’ve lost count of the amount of XCOM campaigns I’ve played. Also doesn’t alter the fact that I and many others completely miss that sense of suspense in this game and feel is is a real downside.

Yes, you got a good point there.
In PP it is possible to become extremely active in the first round, which eliminates all tension. Even worse: PP has gambled away its creepy atmosphere with this hyper-fast game mechanic.

That’s why I say

All I am saying is that alpha-striking and Chirons are different problems. Both need fixing, but both problems are different and the solutions to them are also different.

The solution to alpha-striking is basically do something about the accuracy/speed/damage buffs to player’s characters.

The solution to Chirons is do something about Chirons, which, once the double explosion bug and acid damage are fixed (again, separate issues that are not confined to Chirons), IMO has to do with detection mechanics (actually, also a separate issue, but seems to be a problem only with Chirons) and placement/deployment of these critters.

What I’m advocating for here is a bit of order in the discussion, not throwing together different things like alpha-striking (basically an exploit for the players), with the pace of the game, with bugs (like double explosion), with momentary screw-ups (acid, which the devs have already said will be reworked), with different issues concerning one, or another enemy type (be it Chirons, or Sirens, or something else), etc. etc. etc.

These are all legitimate issues worthy of discussion, but not in a totum revolutum.

2 Likes

I actually don’t have a problem with some abilities being a once in mission thing. I role play it this way anyway.

Rage Burst must work only with weapon, that firing bursts. It’s elementary logic.
And it’s all that need to do with RB skill.

For me personally it depends on the ability, for instance RB would also be no problem for me if I can use it only once per mission.
But the point is, we can more or less handle this without any gamewide setting by restricting our self. But if this would be a gamewide setting others maybe don’t have the possibility to beat the game even on easy difficulty.

My Opinion:
First make easy really easy and then go for all these OPness in the game. And then make all of these pretty nice ideas optional in a seperate setting or at least moddable and everyone can chose a preferred setting for their own playstile.

1 Like