A new look at a fair RB?

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.


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

I lean very heavily towards moddable. From the many discussions here, there are some that willl only be happy when the game is tailored the way they want it to be. This is not meant to be a knock on anyone. It just seems obvious that many see the need to nerf this and that, but there doesn’t appear to be a common ground on the details to accomplish this.

I would like to see Snapshot address the extreme and obvious inbalances and leave the fine-tuning to modders. And for the latter, Snapshot needs to support the mod community.


Building the rules of the whole game for a beginner, robs the game of depth and gradual expansion and improvement of experience.
I think OP skills were aimed at beginners. And it didn’t help. We are all here, as a result.
Of course it is possible that OP skills were the answer to OP Pandor for Legend, do you think so?

I would not go this way if I have to design a game from scratch but we are where we are and I don’t think that at this point beginning to nerf OP skills, even if you also nerf the Pandas the same time will reach the many players that struggle on easy. Just look on all the threads we are discussing these themes, there are many players that doesn’t understand this balancing ideas because they are actually struggling with OP pandas. A bad reputation from their side is not better than a bad reputation from the other side.

Who is “we are all here”?
I’m personally mostly fine with most of the discussed solutions but look at some of the other answers.

I really don’t know but for me it seems that they are somewhat balanced for legend difficulty and that’s why they are mostly redicilous OP on the easier difficulties if you know how they work and you can maximize their output. But only my thoughts, I never played on legend, at the moment I’m fine with hero. I have my own restrictions and I have fun to play it my way. That’s why for me personally there is actually no reason to do anything with any of these OP thingies before or even at the same time they handle the easy difficulties to be really easy for the struggeling players.

On legend all terminator’s builds still effective. Main difference of difficulty levels - is an in-game time till ODI go to 100%.

1 Like

Phoenix Point with Basic Mechanics: ballistics, etc. … cannot be an easy game, only if the balance is not upset, for the remaining difficulty levels, if it is in a overall system, as it is now.
Therefore, the balancing center should be installed on the Veteran difficulty. And then, separately create a disturbed balance for the Beginner.
And you can start the rebalance separately from the current game. The [rebalance test] button near the New Game in the start menu.


Who is “we are all here”?


1 Like

I would like that, but do you really think snapshot will go this way?

Actually it seems for me they concentrate on the real issues that are gamebraking like bugs and some stuff and also bringing new content. Maybe the latter could be delayed, but that could also mean lower income over time. At least I don’t know about their real longer term strategy but I don’t see any balancing overhaul of this level in their lists on canny.

1 Like

In this case, you can get acquainted with the game through a separate game in super heroes, and break the balance as you want.
And then, start a thoughtful game for a soldier ready to sniff gunpowder. :firecracker: :crossed_swords:

I for one have no desire to spend more money on this game until they can get it “balanced & fair”. From what I’ve read here, even their “new content” (DLC) has major balancing issues unrelated to the core issues of the game itself.

1 Like

About this fast paced combat issue touched here:

I also have opinion that combats should take more time in terms of number of turns. But to not overextend battles there should be:

  • option to quicken AI turns (by making common animation faster, and also disabling action camera for enemies)
  • change deployment algorithm to spawn less number but more evolved enemies (or just stronger units if evolution is not so advanced for weaker units).

So there should be at least 3 turns to position units and then 3 or 4 turns to deal with the enemy. That is some estimation not a rule. There could be of course cases where you start your fight in first turn if you spot an enemy in the open and your sniper has line of sight.

That would require decreasing few factors:

  • Speed of soldiers but also aliens. That is why there would be few turns required to get into fighting positions.
  • There should be overall decrease in damage output per turn. Currently you can deal over 1000 damage with single soldier in one turn. That should not be possible. Maybe except shotgun to the face fired 2 times in a turn - but you remember about speed decrease? It wouldn’t be so easy to execute. Lesser number of enemies would balance that lower damage output.

What more if tests would indicate that single battles take more time there should be decrease in number of combats spawned on geoscape to not make this game so tedious like Long War did with FiraXCOM.

Those 2 points (lower speed and damage output) would resolve alpha-strike issue. :slight_smile:


In theory, that sounds good because …

  1. super high risk arises to run directly in front of the opponent’s nose (currently the best and most unfair method)
  2. AP and WP recovery (infinitely overpowered loop) is greatly reduced because no kills are possible as quickly.

But one thing is missing: If you reduce the mobility without the accuracy, the snipers will be the new kings.

I would even cut the current state of the game by 1/4. This is due to rather similar missions (kill all enemys).

Snipers must be kings at long range. Bring forest/city/inside_building maps into game.
Also, with decreasing mobility I’ll increase accuracy. Only laser sniper has it at rate that must have sniper. About AR or heavy weapons even don’t want to talk.

That, IMO, is way too much. Cut it to 1 turn and you are not missing anything. As a rule. There should be a few special missions, or even a mission type with some suspenseful discovery, but it has to be used sparingly.

Yes to speed, accuracy and damage decrease by nerfing buffs.

If then you have engagements that last a little more, I don’t have a problem with that. But 3 turns to get into position, not for me :wink:

I agree, the late game outstays its welcome.

+1 to that. I even wrote a post about it: So, the game currently outstays its welcome [SPOILERS REDACTED]

Simple fix to that would be to reduce all endgame research times by 1 or 2 days.

That would be great also …
If you currently decide the whole match in the first turn.