Are you guys ever going to fix overwatch?

I would be good with OW even just with my soldiers shooting simultanously. Lean out animation lag is pain on the top, but for me the agony lies in my soldiers waiting for their turn to shot (aaand the door bug, which is another level of agony).

3 Likes

I have issue with this, do they shoot

a) In order you give them overwatch orderž
b) In order enemy gets into cone

I am sure I ve seen several times enemies passing through the cone without reaction, and I mean in more recent games.

This is critical ingame issue that is not a bug, but needs to be fixed. Agressive game play is good, but after several mutations, only super-squads can handle while rookies, no matter the equipment and semi-trained soldiers cant do it even with good strategy and aggressive stance.

I can also testify to this.

Not saying what is right solution, but shooters freeze in place to recive Return Fire instead of moving back into cover while shot back at.

2 very different solutions.

2 Likes

True. I definitely do try to do that. But every now and then… overwatch becomes handy. A soldier who isn’t able to catch up and help finish off the target that surprised me before running out of AP, so instead I set up a thin overwatch cone in front of the soldier who’s likely to be attacked, since he CAN see him. Saved!.. or a mindfragger comes out of no where, eats the shot, and the arthron walks up and attacks me anyways. Never know.

Boy! I totally agree. This is one of the most annoying things in the game. I set up OW by three or 4 guys and none of them react when the enemy just walks right up to them and hits them. Very very frustrating to say the least. I so long for over watch like Xcom. I don’t have to set it up and I can over watch all as well. They hit anything from any direction. I really wish they would FIX THIS!!!

1 Like

Exactly! They get tons of armor and the Pure have those shields, you have to over watch those heavy armored until they drop the shields or the Arthron runs and expose their middles. Unless you can flank them, which is not possible when they come in from across the field. It just needs to be fixed to something workable. They enemy seems to have their OW down real good.

1 Like

Honestly I don’t mind the overwatch cones, it gives the player a meaningful choice about which targets matter the most to him. I just wish they’d fire when there’s at least a 50 percent chance of each bullet hitting.

2 Likes

Finally created some time to play this again over the weekend, and I see what you mean about the Heavy Cone.

I’ve reported it back to the devs, so we’ll see what happens. From experience, I’ll need to keep bugging them about it until they get tired of me going on about it and shunt it to the top of their (very long) list of things to do :wink:

6 Likes

Thanks.
And how the list became so long?

From the other thread to keep it in this place:

Firaxis changed from simultaneous OW to sequential because the users complained a lot about wasted shots.
I don’t know if this is the reason why SG does the same, but from my experience with the two Firaxis XComs I would not like to have simultaneous OWs in PP.

So here we are, two opinions and I still believe it is intended how it actually is designed and not a bug at all.

Not reacting on door openings … I have to test it, because, to be honest, I haven’t had any problems that you describe so far, so I don’t know.

4 Likes

You can believe whatever you want, but you compare completly two different mechanics (cone and all-aware). Sure it was wasted in XCOM because you couldn’t designate an Overwatch area and the very first sectoid to move was screwed regardless of being not important.

Yet still, let’s look how it is done in XCOM2…

It is sequential, but at least enemies don’t move while your soldies take turns. And that is one of the solutions I am asking for. But fuck, better to have something uterly stupid because someone somewhere else once also did something uterly stupid. :stuck_out_tongue: One could ask, why can’t we have things that are not uterly stupid? :stuck_out_tongue: And so I am asking…

3 Likes

Well, the design could be:

  • sequential but reset the enemy animation / position
  • simultaneous and stop overwatch reaction if enemy is already dead (losing ow or not)
  • simultaneous and waste shots by design (more on this one below)

PP’s OW is different from Firaxcoms because it uses cones. Possibly not all cones overlap at first when the enemy appears. So, the game could complete the OW process for each cone before the enemy enters another cone. When cones do really trigger at the same time, one of the approaches above could suffice. I’m sure we could think of other approaches. To me this is really a bug, because it does not seem intended - the implementation is intended, but this problematic result is not, of course it’s not, it couldn’t be. Since it happens in somewhat rare occasions and is probably not an easy fix, it gets low priority. However, this breaks game immersion and leaves players pissed when it happens. So, if I were in the team, I would argue for a higher priority for it.

About that last point… with firaxcoms, wasted ammo with simultaneous fire was a fact because everyone saw the target at the same time. This is not the case for PP. Since we have cones, I would argue that this would deepen the strategy - you could position your cones in a way that soldier 1 shoots 1st, soldier 2 shoots a bit later but closely even if that means possibly wasting ammo, and soldiers 3 and 4 shoot at the end of the path if the target somehow survives, to guarantee the kill.
With the way PP works now that is impossible, because soldier 1 will shoot, soldier 2 will probably shoot, and soldiers 3 and 4 will shoot the wall.

1 Like

We were replying at the same time and made similar points :slight_smile:

1 Like

If one sets up their OW cones so that they don’t all overlay each other, one can achieve sequential OW shots (as long as the target is still traveling through the cone).

2 Likes

I don’t find it stupid when it is limited by the technique and reasons they chosed for their design: Simulate a battle where anything is constantly in move, that is also the reason why we got the idle animations.

I have no problem with it and I find it not “stupid” at all and I can use it as it is designed.

Finally I would not like to have even more power on the player side that maybe ends in a very powerful OW creeping chore.

But again, this only my opinion, so I would say we can agree to disagree? :slight_smile:

My main point is, it is not so clear that this “must” to be changed …
Edit … or even “fixed” :stuck_out_tongue:

3 Likes

Yeah but you can just as much end up in the problem we are describing here, that’s what I meant. It is intended to work this way, but it doesn’t, not always. The best mission to test this is the pirate king.

Simulate battle by making enemy real-time but soldiers turn-based, and soldiers not shooting when they see enemy but shooting the wall after they don’t as a representation of a dynamic combat… :crazy_face:

I am sorry, but this is so uterly stupid explanation I don’t even know how to respond to. :stuck_out_tongue: Keep the design shitty, so players couldn’t do what should be possible to do… just so they can learn the quirks and tricks to execute it anyway, by using another bad design quirks to their advantage. :crazy_face:

1 Like

OK, fine, it is all utterly stupid and has to be fixed … I’m not here to change your opinion.

But with your explanations full of “utterly stupid” you will also not change mine, I guess we not get any step ahead.

1 Like

At least I have tried. :stuck_out_tongue:

  • You told me this is because players didn’t want to waste shots and that’s why we have it like in XCOM2,
  • I told you that we don’t have it like XCOM2 and I would love to have it exactly like in XCOM2,
  • So you said you don’t want it like in XCOM2 because players would be even more OP.

I don’t feel like opinion change was on a table anyway. :joy:

Edit: I just don’t think anything we talk about here matters anyway, and I could try to to convince you to my point of view, and maybe I would even succed. And what then? :stuck_out_tongue: Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to be rude :slight_smile: And if I am not polite, it is because even if I could convince all of us, nothing will change anyway. :stuck_out_tongue: This is us talking to us. And you won’t be able to convince me that someone out there cares so it is worth it, because I need a first hand proof for that. I didn’t get any since… forever actually.