That’s the thing, though: OW is a mechanic that I have to use as-is. It’s easy to avoid overusing skills, but OW is a binary choice: either you use it or you don’t. I enjoy setting up OW creatively, and I don’t want to give that up.
1 Like
But… you will still be able to play more-less the very same way. Just don’t overlap OW cones and use them creatively same as you would normally do.
But I don’t think self-restricted gameplay should affect somehow general game design. This is not a sandbox game afterall.
1 Like
Agree.
It wouldnt so I dont see any issue.
That is the thing of balance. Balance does not just require to remove all OP abilities. But also to make the less useful abilities more useful. To make more playstyles equally viable.
OW, or anything that is not first-striking, is underbalanced. Yet, some first strike abilities and combos are OP. SG is only addresing for the most part the second part, while acking that the have bigger problems on the first. Both things need addresing.
I don’t think opposing to all changes that favor the player is a good aproach. Or even that that “making the game less challenging” is even a valid counter for any change, without context.
Making the game less challenging is not something bad by definition. It is only if the game gets unbalanced and you are making some abilities or tactics too powerful compared to others, or if the game is too easy across the board. I think both claims are false with regard to OW. Thus, in my opinion making OW better does improve balance and does not remove the challenge.
1 Like
I could live with non-sequential, I guess, but I suspect that you would discover things that you don’t like about it if we actually got it. I’d be happy with just slowing the speed of enemy during OW a bit and reducing the lag between soldiers triggering, which sounds like it would work for you as well. I just don’t have the same depth of feeling on the issue, as the existing system works fine for me.
7 Likes
I actually think most of us would settle for that. Thought I would also want to revision to the door OW, and the falling worms triggering OW. Just a better LoS implementation for OW, I guess.
5 Likes
I would be totaly fine with this and actually this is my prefered way considering it should be, unless there are some devious quirks we don’t know about, quite painless and I hope effortless for devs (less reasons to not do it).
7 Likes
This is quite good idea. It could save Ow problems.
Let’s see how sg will react this great solution.
2 Likes
Someone posted way up in the thread that speeding up or shortiening the “Take aim” animation would solve alot of the issues.
I’d go even further and make it so that a soldier that is overwatching already have their weapon raised and pointed in the center of the cones direction, they would then only need to change their aim horizontaly and would shoot much faster than currently.
I believe this is why overwatch misses because the enemy is allowed to move at the same time a “prepared shot” isn’t actually prepared and is taken from a “weapons down” position… Hope I’m making sense.
3 Likes
Yes you are making sense!
Something that has to taken into account when considering such a change:
“Already have their weapon raised” when OW could be a problem with cover because from high cover, the soldier steps out one tile to the side in the open to shoot. I guess such a position is not what people want to have during the enemy turn.
So I think such a change is unfortunately not as easy as you might think.
4 Likes
Well that’s a thing then. If you do Overwatch you will hang out from cover and peak above cover, that’s how you overwatch…
Unless it’s like a stealth thing where you listen for steps/doors and step out and fire when the door opens, but this isn’t that kind of a game.
Sure, in reality, unfortunately it is just not implemented this way.
Operatives in PP don’t hug cover and also don’t lean out or peek above. Shooting from behind high cover like walls or big rocks is simplified by take a step one tile to the side to shoot and they do this also when overwatch triggers (that’s why OW from high cover takes even longer than from open space or low cover). Otherwise they would not be able to shoot or overwatch in the direction behind the big obtsacle, the downside of realistic ballistics.
1 Like
I know, but speeding up that animation for overwatch by 50-75% would mean a lot to fix the OP issue
1 Like
“Downing weapon at overwatch” is purely a visual issue. Adding an “overwatch” posture would mean creating extra animations for ALL weapons / soldier models. Wouldn’t you agree that it’s a (relative) waste of time and effort? The OW lag is so that soldiers don’t fire as soon as the tiniest tip of a tentacle is visible. By how much to “lag” is a balancing issue.
“Not your cup of tea” is just an expression - means not something you like.
That’s not correct. The animation introduces significant lag time. If you don’t believe me, try overwatching a gap with a soldier who needs to step out. Your enemy will cross the gap before you get a single shot off.
1 Like
I have opinion similar to jrhebert. I don’t see an issue with the overwatch. I can use it effectively most of the time.
But speeding up animation for overwatching unit could help along with slowing down unit that triggets overwatch shot. This would probably make most of complainers happy.
5 Likes
The animation is already there.
Just play the weapon ready animation and stay there. Then play the weapon aim/fire animation.
Then take it down again.