Oh, there are always ways to hard counter it: snipers, bombardment, stealth, flanking, arthron slow movement with deployed shield (just a feature idea, equivalent of a “minesweeper” for OW cones :P), smoke/fog.
And also OW is rarely abusable. I mean, it could be abusable, but there are shitload of other soldier mechanics and skill combinations that actualy outshine most of OW abusement with a little to no effort (dash/vanish/warcry/unleash whatever you have/something else because there are dozens of other ways to deal with a bunkered nuissance). And there are but few moments where OW could be used instead and it is unreliable (while all other tools are not only reliable but also guaranteed).
So my next quiestion would be does PP has a system that the dev team could utilize to achieve that. Setting %hit prox is easier in system like FiraXCOM, where %hit is calculated. AI must somehow calculate whom they can shoot - could this system be used for proxing overwatch? Wouldn’t it create new problems (“Why didn’t my soldier take the shot when they have LoS with the enemy!”) Not questions I have, nor expect from yourself, answer to.
I dont know. I think it does, there are abilities that require LoS to an enemy, so there must be a way to know if an enemy is in line of sight. right?
LoS is actually fairly easy to get in a game engine. That is the most basic requirement to need to implement to simulate a bullet. You need to know if something is in the way of the bullet. LoS. LoS is integrated in many mechanics of PP, so it is fair to assume it exists.
I do not agree that every game mechanic should be predictable. Combat is not predictable, so I am fine with game mechanics that introduce that friction, even if it feels artificial. You should never be 100% confident that you know what the outcome will be. I mean, where’s the fun in that?
OW is not luck based in PP. If you are careful with the size and placement of your cones, it is effective. If you’re tired of shooting into cover, then make sure that your cone edges don’t overlap cover. The system operates on straight-line LOS, so if your guy gets his turn while that straight line is through cover, you’re going to be shooting the box in front of you. (My big gripe here is the hitboxes surrounding terrain features being too large.)
Doors are a separate issue, IMO. The auto-closing doors drive me nuts.
No one knows. Someone should talk to devs about it. I guess it has to be, because right now it works in such way isn’t it? I mean, OW is not triggered by a toe, but at least some part of model (maybe just a center of mass point?) has to be visible before execution, right?
You mean, like the very same questions they ask right now? Because OP created this topic because his soldiers decided not to shot when they have LoS with the enemy.
I did not mean every game mechanic should be deterministic or fully predictable. But the player needs to know at least how it may work.
The player does not know if the enemy would be hit when it shoots. But knows how likely it would be. How risky it is, enought to be able to tell if it is a good choice or not.
With the OW, the player does not only not know if the bullet will hit, the player does not know if the bullet will go to a wall or to the enemy, the player does not even know if the bullet will be fired.
There is a difference between the outcome of an action being determined, to it being somewhat predictable, to it being cross your finguers and dance. In a strategy game, the later is a terrible mechanic. And it is how OW works most of the time.
Also agree, but the falling worms triggering OW and the soldier firing to the sky because of it is another, and OW firing too son or too late directly to the cover another. They all add up.
I want a OW mechanic reliable enought to know when I should or could use it. Not to the point I would know I will stop the enemy, but at least to the point I know the enemy will be fired upon before Im killed.
I think I get what you mean, but isn’t the PP built upon as predictable foundations as possible? The whole point of ballistic targeting system, no “chance” skills, even damage is range-less (flat number per bullet) makes the game as predictable as it can be. OW is just but one feature that isn’t for a technical reasons related to sequential animations.
I don’t have issue with my soldier shooting a wall or not shooting at all. I have issue with my soldier not shooting enemy when he had a chance to, but is artificialy forced to delay his action till, more often than not, it is too late and enemy is already behind cover.
True. But it happened to me last week when I have started new playthrough and I can’t express how WTF I was. I think I may be to reproduce it and record during the NJ introduction mission if you care to take a look what I am about.
It happens, and it is a related problem. The OW triggers on movement, and does not consider very well LoS, so is easy to shot at the cover instead to the enemy before the enemy actually goes into sight. Another for example, when the artilley shots a worm or a worm falls from a building in front of an OW soldier. The fall will trigger the OW, and the soldier will shot it into the air.
The door issue is also related with this. Opening a door, does not count as soldier movement, so does not trigger OW, so you can open door and fire ignoring overwatch. (Lets not even talk about the auto-close…).
The latter happens because of the turn mechanic, as the soldiers take turn and the enemy moves in between. The enemy will not trigger all OW, but only the ones that the turn system allows before the enemy goes out of the zone, or melees you.
Yes, I know. I just mean my main issue is one that is result of sequential actions (enemy disappearing behind cover before some of my soldiers had chance to shot). I wouldn’t need to care about shooting the cover at all if every shot made was at the target before it reach the cover.
I agree, I think all the problems come from the turn system, the shot delay and the LoS issues.
Reducing time of fire, doing a better LoS fire, and playing with the slow-mo. Would improve if not solve all the issues. What you propose is just all the soldiers firing at once, which would be the most direct way to remove most of the problems, but maybe potentially add some inconvenients too.
I think your solution is worth enough to at least be explored, and the devs should at least take the current OW and say: “Sooo it has issues. Let’s try to solve them or at least alleviate the problems as much as possible”.
Not necessarily at once, but yes. They may take turns if it more convenient from technical point of view (or player point of view affraid of wasting shots for “overkills”). I am equally fine with slowing down OW target to minimum without freezing him in place and keeping sequential shooting (this would made fine simulation of target being shot simultanously, but without altering the logic of actions and animations).
Hmm. nothing I am aware of. If I would have to guess, I would say the cone range should depend on stats in such case. But I don’t think stats matter, at least didn’t found any difference between soldies reaction when I actually digged deeper into mechanic that bugged me.
That’s the thing, though — I don’t feel like I need to cross my fingers. I know how PP OW operates, so I arrange my squad and cones accordingly. For example, I will not have an OW cone overlap a ledge if I know a small enemy may jump/fall off if it (I love lighting up the big guys in midair, though). As another example, if I fear being charged by a melee enemy, I will place a heavy/shotgunner to cover the approach to the likely target of the charge. Hell, sometimes I’ll place a soldier as bait to draw enemy into my kill zone. I occasionally lose an arm doing this, but usually I do not. (This is how I deal with Myrmidons).
I hear your frustration, and I’m sure we can agree on changes to improve OW function. The argument that I’m making is that I don’t find the current mechanism to be awful at all. In general, I find it satisfying, and just in need of QoL improvements.
Those are fair points. Ask yourself, though, whether the game would become an OW snooze-fest under your ideal mechanic. If SG made OW more effective, the pandas would rarely ever lay a single claw on me. I don’t want that.
The bug that makes me really pull my hair out is the f-ed up LOS with soldiers at corners. Sometimes, an enemy that clearly should be visible is not visible by the soldier. That’s the kind of unpredictability that I can’t stand.
The perception effects the length of the cone so a soldier with Strongman (-15 perception) will have a much lower OW range than a soldier with Farsighted and sniper armor with perception buffs.
Not sure, but afaik, perception is also important to trigger overwatch, a Triton with high stealth value can walk in a long ranged set OW but it will not trigger because this soldier is not able to “spot” this triton on its own.
I’m not aware that other stats are involved for OW.
You can end most battles within few first turns (not so rare to do it even on a first turn), by using overpowered combos. Why do you think the game would turn into snooze-fest?
It would be effective, true, yet still inefficient. OW is still both positional and situational. Combo-skills are so much easier to execute, under almost any circumstances. I don’t see how getting OW working as, I think should work from the very beggining, could outmatch skills. Even eight soldiers on OW is… what? Same as 8, non targeted shots in a center of mass. I think even as a newbie, after mid game you are fully aware what 8 soldiers could actually do instead.
Well, I don’t make full use of the skills because I want a richer tactical experience. Also, you can’t always use direct fire, even with skills. For example, Tritons are quite adept at making good use of cover — you often don’t have a clear shot at them, and don’t want to send snipers into stealth mode by failing to disable the torso. In such cases, OW is a better option. With Myrmidons, it’s often the only option, so it’s crucial to use it well.
Reading the posts here, I get the strong sense that I play the game differently than many. I don’t clear missions super quickly, and I make extensive use of tactical fire and movement. From my perspective, PP gives an excellent tactical experience. Most of my issues with the game are with the strategic layer.
That is how I would like to play the game as well, but lack of predictability drives me crazy.
I just don’t understand your point of view. You self-restrict yourself to not use OP skills and yet you argue that having something effecive would make game snooze-fest. The game is already full of things that are way more effective, efficient and effortless. Even if devs would agree on making the OW as I belive they should, you could still play without abusing it, isn’t it?
Because OP created this topic because his soldiers decided not to shot when they have LoS with the enemy. 
I think I may be to reproduce it and record during the NJ introduction mission if you care to take a look what I am about. 