Are you guys ever going to fix overwatch?

Phoenix Point Game Feedback
41

I know the differences between XCom 2 and PP and that is part of what I said after your response …

(quote with typo … ups :smiley: )

You answered also to this with a weird construct that should explain that it is still stupid. I get from your answer you simply don’t like their approach to simulate an ongoing movement in an TBS game, still it is what they have designed.

Of course it is, you want to have a change and there are some other that don’t want to have a change.
So the only way to have a chance to get this mechanic changed is to change the opinion of the ones that are fine with what is given.

BTW, not that this get lost:

We already discussed this a while ago and if I remember correctly than we ended with a suggestion that would be anything but just a minor change or even fix. The whole animation OW system would have to be overworked and, of course, it would also be true for the enemy OWs. Lots of work for, IMO again, a pretty small change.

Finally, Canny suggestions about OWs: Support — Phoenix Point
The one that fits your problems has 10 votes, so it doesn’t seem to be a mayor problem for the players.
Top one is to give OW more shots dependant on AP left when you trigger OW.

Edit because of another edit:

How should such a first hand proof look for you? Only when they change OW like the way you wish?

Are the completed changes in Canny no valid proof? (Support — Phoenix Point)

Do you want an answer direct from the SG staff? And for what question? That they change OW as you like?

3 Likes
42

Yes, they do a lot of crazy stuff. When it should be triggered? As soon as they enter cone or when they come to middle, or something a bit smarter.

I feel like army of idiot savants I command

43

Yes, because I found your reason at least weird. How taking actions sequentialy is supposed to simulate ongoing movement in combat? If we had simultanous actions we wouldn’t need to simulate anything, so this is circular reasoning, catch 22. We need it to simulate something we wouldn’t need if we didn’t have it.

Edit:

Never said it was major issue for everyone. But just there are other issues with OW doesn’t mean it isn’t a flaw that bugs people. We’re even discussing it right here, not in my topic but from a person that also found it unbearable. There are other topics that gets more recognition, and there is nothing happening with them as well. I am discussing this one because it bothers me, but I don’t find much shit given here at all, about anything.

1 Like
44

Right now? Anything. Could start talking to us. Could start reviewing Canny. Could engage with community. Could even start a topic how to make communication better. Anything. Actually, the list of things they can do is quite long. There just have to be will to do it, and forgive me being sceptical, but until I see anything moving forward with communication with the people who funded the game in a first place, I won’t be convinced they give any shit about anything happening here.

Do you remember acidgate? It was the only thing when we could actually feel like they are somehow engaged on a particular subject. And it blew in our faces. Instead of trying to find a solution with those who found it an issue, they did changes on their side. It didn’t work out and made things worse. Who was apparently responsible for this? Us. I remember UVs response that was very long way of saying “we tried to listen to you and look how it ended”… and so they have created CC so they don’t need deal with community. You are there to test upcoming shit directly. Is it bad? If you’re OK to do it for free, not at all. It is beneficial to have as many QA layers as possible. But the result is, that no one actually gives a shit what is happening below. No one gives a shit about things other find still flawed, because they are already released.

Hear yourself. Is this a bug? Yes? F10. No? Then f. off.

Apparently this forum is officially dead to SG, its just us here talking to each other who refuse to let it go. It served it only purpose long time ago: as one of FIGs promises to have a backers-only forum. Random players from time to time register here to ask a question and look for help and if it wasn’t on us, they would get no answer at all. We’re like overly attached ex-girlfriend who refuse to admit is living in a toxic friendzone. And I am sorry for being harsh, but for me the Community Councillor assurance of SG being in deep love with us comes only from fact he is allowed to cuddle from time to time.

1 Like
45

OW is sequentially because it is animated one after another, this would be no problem when the enemy would not also move while these animations run.
If I’m not wrong than they have explained it that way, that it would be not realistic that an enemy just stopped his movement (in his turn!) because your guys start shooting on them.

I can accept that it is a flaw for some players, when they put an overlapping overwatch but the soldiers just don’t shoot simultaniously because they have to wait for each other.

But again, they have design it this way and they have explained, why they have it done this way.
I accept their explanation and I don’t find it is a flaw or even issue. For me it is an interesting mechanic that I have to get used to, it adds a bit of a challenge to an otherwise pretty boring mechanic like it is in other games.

(Cut it, not necessary to quote all, I got the message)

OK, fair enough and I get that you are pretty upset with the communication from SG side.
They post patchnotes and sometimes help a little when it is needed, at least Valygar does this when he has time for.

But I agree, it could be more an better.

I personally don’t think that this forum is “officially dead” but I guess you will not believe it before someone from SG told you that … probably even that would be not enough for you … I guess :wink:

2 Likes
46

Being honest I can’t remember our previous suggestion, but we know that we want to reach easy suggestions. It just means we have to keep reaching for it :slight_smile:
Some of the last ones I mentioned here don’t seem a lot of work, but that’s for the dev team to decide, they are the ones that know the code. We can say what we don’t like though, and try to provide insights just as a way of helping. They don’t need to implement what we say as solutions, and they most certainly didn’t do that many times in the past (I’m not complaining, just pointing out).

That’s hardly fair. The 80 votes post has a very open title so many people complained about different overwatch problems there. There’s more than one complaint about this specific problem, even with a good number of likes (likes for comments on canny are always low).
Also, the 10 votes topic is somewhat recent, and made when PP’s canny was not getting much attention anymore. Even I was a decent supporter of the tool but don’t look into it anymore as its rhythm seems to have slowed down too much. Too many topics, too few interactions from both other users and staff.

Edit: thanks for replying to my msg. I thought it would get lost in the way :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like
47

This is actually the way to go, describing the issue you have and be prepared to get answers that give some different thoughts on it (for instance that it is done this way just to add a bit of challenge like I did).

The devs have their own vision how it should be and they have also explained it, so it is probably very unlikely that they would change it. EXCEPT you got a bunch of players on your side that agree with you.

I know that canny is not optimal and scattered when it comes to overall themes like OW in general, but it is still something to look at when you think that it is a general issue.

They keep telling us that they are looking to it and topics with many votes have a high probability of being covered by them.

1 Like
48

Well your discussion with @Nattfarinn branched a bit from our discussion, so I answered before only about the OW topic that I was discussing.

If I may, however, enter a bit your discussion about communication, I can give another input that is less emotional as I’m not as deeply bothered with the state of things. I’ve already told @MadSkunky this in a PM, and talked about it a bit in other topics.

My personal IMPRESSION (not even an opinion) is that SG has mostly abandoned PP already. Yes they are doing the DLCs, yes they’re making some improvements, but it’s just too little too late. You can’t compare what has been done up until the Steam release, with what’s been done afterwards. Also, spending too much effort on PP does not seem to make much business sense, unless they wanted to go on the route of very few companies, like what’s been done to No Man’s Sky or some games from huge companies that can back it up. Even the DLC pricing is very low, because they know they can’t charge much for that type of half-hearted effort.

So, I adjusted my hopes for PP. I’ve gotten rid of my hype, backed off from it a little, and don’t have much expectations for the next 2 DLC. I also don’t expect much improvements in the base game, although I know they’ll do some of them, so I think it’s still worth it to debate them here. I don’t think the canny tool will be much important or useful from now on, though.

In the end, I still look forward to the final product, with adjusted expectations. I think I’ll probably like more the base game or with only DLC1 from the first 3, and I hope the other 2 will be better propositions. I hope very much that they won’t go this DLC fest way with the next game.

And… I still want a better overwatch system! :smiley:

3 Likes
49

You keep ignoring proper solutions and post bad ones as proof of it being bigger flaw than original issue. You agree to explain some quirks as “just a simulation”, but you refuse to actually use simulation in a context where it belong.

Solution 1:

  • Soldiers: shot simultanously in slow-mo,
  • Enemy: moves like he is moving right now in slow-mo,
  • Realism: enemy moves, soldiers shot, everything in same pace, nothing to simulate
  • Complexity: may induce changes to architecture, depending how much animations are tied to sequencial actions, but it is up to dev to assess.

Solition 2:

  • Soldiers: shot sequentialy, one after another,
  • Enemy: freezes in a frame of shot fired by first soldier,
  • Realism: enemy moves untill being shot by the first soldier, than sequention starts to simulate enemy being shot by all of soldiers in the same time, enemy doesn’t “stop” during his turn, there is just simulation of him being shot in the very same moment from multiple sources, and resumes movement right after (or does not if he’s already dead),
  • Complexity: almost none, it is the same solution as one used to freeze enemy being shot. Know-how is there, it just have to be applied to Overwatch as well.

Oh, really? Because this is exactly what happens when you get shot from Return Fire (and is another thing that drives me crazy), and this is exactly as unrealistic. You stop, in your own turn, because someone is shooting at you. And it is not there to simulate multiple actions done in the very same time (which would be otherwise done simultanously, like a single Overwatch correctly is), you freeze in place just to allow one guy shot you before you are allowed to start moving again.

My attitude is because forum as a communication channel doesn’t exist and no one in SG gives a shit enough to use it, and you are guessing that because I have such bad attititude I wouldn’t care about it in first place. That is a nice Catch 22 you can use to box anyone upset with current situation.

2 Likes
50

No, I don’t ignore proper solutions nor I post bad ones. I only tried to explain what their vision of OW is, but maybe I’m bad to do so.

In short as I understand it:
It is intended that overlapping OW on one target don’t trigger on the same time.

I accept their explanation and take it as it is.

I would also go with Solution 1 (that is mainly the one I discussed with @sectoid_br a long time ago) because I think it would fit their vision of anything is always in motion. But I doubt they would go this way because it would end in a completely different animation sequence as it is right now.

I don’t like Solution2 because it would be as bad as the current RF is.

If you mean the explanation why OW is how it is right now, then yes

No, I refuse nothing, I’m just fine with the way it is right now inclusive the explanation they gave, but again, maybe I’m bad to explain it so you understand what I mean.

RF, see above, I don’t like how they implement it, but I take it as it is even when it doesn’t look good and have also not a big problem with it. I still would like it if they would change it so it is more like the actual OW behaviour.

2 Likes
51

Mine has no votes - its just listed as major bug :slight_smile:

52

OW is one of the things that frustrate me in the game. Maybe with the aiming from the top of a building…

To be honest I understand why they do it. But it does not work. OW is just too unreliable to be usefull or funny.

I guess we all agree on needing to be improved, or that at least would not hurt. But how?

Im not a fan of any of the solutions. But both have pros and cons.

Both make overwatch reliable and useful.

S1. wasted ammo and AP. The first enemy would trigger all soldiers, makes it less useful, but also more balanced more realistic, and tactic. Speeds up the game.

S2: gives player absolute control. No wasted ammo or AP, consistent with the current aim system (complete freeze), makes the game slower.

I’m surprissed to say that S1 is kind of my choice here. I understand the concern of S2 being OP (but that we cannot know if we dont try), I just think S1 is more interesting.

But these are not the only options we have. It is actually posible to just tune the system and make it better. We could for example reduce the time-to-fire by 50%, that change alone makes OW more reliable, Overlapping overwatch more viable and the OW faster to play. All these would be advantages to me. We could also make the fire action faster, or tune the slow-mo to make it faster ot slower. S3 could be keep the current system and make OW faster to play and allowing enemies to move less.

I think none of the solutions would be perfect. And to know what is best It would be neccesary to see how the changes actually feel and play. And honestly, even if I may like S2 the least. It may be an improvement.

I would chose S3, keep the current system and make it faster and more reliable with a significantly reduced time to fire, and faster fire time, so OW is faster and more reliable, and the enemies move less while overwatch plays.

But I dont think we need to choose. They can test and choose anything in between the propossed solutions because they can test what works best.

The current OW is just not good enough for me. And I dont think SG thinks the system is perfect as it is.

1 Like
54

Ah, how easy one gets almost quoted, but with style :slight_smile:

55

That could/could not work, but if know-how is indeed there, I would be curious to see how it would play out.

The danger I see is, that having enemy moving might result in enemy hiding behind cover by the time we get to shoot, but it also could result in enemy leaving cover before we get to shoot. What I can see happening, is enemy freezing with just his proverbial toe sticking out, and continuing to move only after our death squad emptied their magazines into the air/wall.

I am sure there is a proper solution, but complicated systems, call for complicated solutions. Or perhaps ballistic system, while cool, is just too convoluted for its own good. Maybe line of sight should have been tile based, and ballistic system should have been used purely for chance-to-hit calculations.

1 Like
56

Im sure it can be done. OW should be able to trigger only above a some %hit chance, so you just not fire to a wall, or at least check line of sight. Im sure there is multiple ways to at least improve on it. There are already LOS abilities which work better.

Then animations can be tuned to make it as fast/slow as necessary to make it balanced.

About multiple simultaneous OW? I dont know, but maybe. Total freeze? Also dont know, but I would be willing to try any, they are all interesting ideas.

The enemy moving onto cover and your OW hiting the cover happens already. And OW firing before the enemy is exposed too.

3 Likes
57

Honestly, I really like OW in PP, and I use it effectively quite often. It’s not perfect, but if you are careful with the length and spread of your cones, you can get great results. I’d much rather the arthron take a burst from the Bulldog right in the face with no cover at a more effective range

If you understand that enemy that cross your line of fire will probably get shot by three guys, max, then you won’t be disappointed. Plan accordingly.

7 Likes
58

Here is a problem. “Once you understand the game does not allow for strategies that should be viable, you just don’t use them” does not seem like the definition of good.

Let me explain something about one of my bad OW experiences, one I think every player learns the hard way:

After the initial encounter with an Umbra, I assumed I needed to deal with it in its first turn. So, I set an overwatch trap. The Umbra can incapacitate a soldier in its first turn, and has an long range. So of course I went for it. And I remember thinking: an enemy that requires to use overwatch, that is supercool and requires planning and thinking. I was excited.

The umbra has 500hp and no limbs, so the only way to incapacitate it reliably is to hit 3 overwatch shots… So I planned it, positioned, executed the plan perfectly… and I died. And after 3 times I got it. That is an strategy the game does not allow, and will kill you 50% of the time. And I never cared for the Umbra again.

It is the most obvious and logical tactic in this scenario but no, you need to understand the game wants you to not use it, so I learned to cheese the mechanics instead. Which at the time was abusing the flamethrower and setting on fire the spawn location under the terrain. Easier, more stupid, less fun. But who cares, right?

Now you can say I was playing wrong. But I think I wasn’t. And this is one of the dozens of things every player thinks can do, but can’t. Every player goes through this process of frustration, till learns to work with the limitations the game imposes without telling, or abandons.

But even if he/she does endure, what learns a player after suffering this?, the player learns to not rely on OW, or to not use it. This OW implementation does not give you choices, removes them. It is a bad implementation and frustrates people. Sure you can endure them enough to be able to work with it. But you should not have to, and not everybody will.

That to me is a perfect example of why the OW is just bad in PP. Saying you need to learn how bad it is to not kill yourself while trying to use it is not a good defense for the system.

2 Likes
59

This summarize it well. This is very non-critical thinking. You don’t know why and how things are implemented, have no knowledge if things could or could not be improved, but even if you don’t like it and it doesn’t look good you take it as it is. I don’t.

Keep in mind this is exactly the reason we have had created Community Council in a first place. It should be up to them to test things out before they are released. That is how they wished to avoid next “acidgate”. We know what is the issue, we have the ideas of how to solve it, CC is there to make sure SGs provided solution covers the issue.

That is precisely what I’m trying to say.

And this is precisely what I would wish to avoid. I know how I can force the bad design to my advantage, but I am embarrased that I have to. Instead of focusing on a tactical approach, I am forced to tailor the cones here and there in completely non-intuitive and non-tactical way, to cheat the Overwatch design in hope it will do what it was supposed to do if it wasn’t designed bad.

For me this explanation is more-less: “I like shitty. Git gud.” (no wonder @mcarver2000 finds it appealing, he could add there is a wiki :P)

3 Likes
60

IDK, you guys, I’m telling you I have success with OW. It’s the best OW implementation that I have seen. It’s certainly not perfect, but they never are. The cones are great, IMO, and the shadows that they cast are very helpful. The animation lag can be a drag, but I’ve learned to work around that. You may find that unacceptable, but to me that’s just part of mastering a game.

Maybe it’s because I’ve played a lot of miniature wargames, both historical and otherwise. They all have their quirks, and you have to learn to account for them in the choices that you make. There’s always compromises between playability and realism.

I disagree about PP OW encouraging non-tactical play. It’s not realistic verisimilitude, certainly, but tactical precision leads to positive results. If anything, PP rewards good tactical play more than other games do. Certainly way more than WotC, which I still enjoyed a great deal.

Personally, I’d like an OW system where I can designate a specific target or an area. Perhaps
as separate skills.

5 Likes
61

How did you set up the OW and what happened? Cos in my experience, it is perfectly possible to catch an Umbra with an OW trap and I do it fairly regularly.

1 Like