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 … 
@walan, see above, I’m mostly with you 
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:
- Exploiting Skill combos to win the mission on Turn 1 or 2.
- Crippling the other side in 1 turn so that it cannot strike back effectively.
- Inflicting so much damage on the enemy that it has no long-term chance of survival in the mission.
- 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.
- Get rid of Acid Chirons on all but the highest difficulty settings, and nerf acid damage to Health, but increase it against armour.
- 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.
- Sirens should only be able to MC with LoS.
- 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 
) - 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
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.
2 Likes
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.
PS
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. 
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