I wonder why there is no topic about that or at least I can’t find one (if you can then we will continue to discuss there). But don’t you think that evolved Machine Gun from Arthrons is too powerful? 50 damage per bullet, 3 shred and 16 range.
50 damage per bullet is higher than any automatic weapon in the game. It overcomes heavy armors with some dedication of Arthrons and it almost completely negates protection of medium and light armors.
In my opinion it is too much for a primary and abundant unit like Arthron (even as an evolved version). Arthrons are fast and they use only 2 AP and one hand to use such powerful gun. So it means that if they will take good position then can burst 2 times with really powerful weapon on quite decent range. That is something what should be reconsidered. My proposition would be decreasing damage to 40 points. Or maybe 45 if shred value could be lowered.
Shred value can make medium armors obsolete with 2 bursts, and it rips through heavy armor then. With low accuracy it could be quite fine value, but Arthrons can come close and their accuracy is quite decent. If Arthron proficiency should stay at it’s current value I think that shred should be lowered to value of 2.
Range is too good because of only slightly smaller than on any assault rifle, but greater than on any heavy gun (not counting Grenade Launcher) or shotgun. But if damage nerf could be implemented then range could stay.
I have long said that all the ‘evolved’ aliens in the game are overpowered.
If you know you are facing a (big) handful of Crabbies, each doling out 300HP/shot, it incentivises players to alpha-strike - it’s what most players on this forum are complaining about when they say the Pandas are ‘too powerful’.
Yes, that would bring the combat design much more towards “exchange of blows”, which in my opinion would give the game significantly more excitement and drama.
I think that players by ‘Pandas are too powerful’ mostly mean their numbers, and less likely single abilities or attacks (lets forget about explosive Chiron for a moment ).
Sure Devs should nerf everything. But we may discuss the details.
Not if you read through the various discussions on the subject. For many players it’s a twofold thing:
the Pandas are (or in the case of Acid, were) doling out far too much damage, so you felt you had to kill them the minute you saw them, before they killed you - and I’ve lost track of the number of times I read: ‘actually, I think Arthrons are more dangerous than Sirens because…’ in the various debates about Sirens.
As well as being 1-shot killers there used to be far too many of them. 2-5 one-shot killers you can handle - especially if they come at you piecemeal - 15-20 is a whole different ball game.
Now actually, weapons being one-shot killers - or at least one-shot disablers - is probably more realistic than not; but it doesn’t make for good and interesting gameplay within the parameters set out by PP.
Personally, I think Panda evolution should concentrate much more on countering our Squaddies’ damage-dealing ability than on dealing massive amounts of damage to the Squaddies in return. If we suddenly found out that our Snipers couldn’t get a shot in edgeways, or our Grenadiers weren’t penetrating the Crabbies’ blast shields, or the Pandas had evolved a way of detecting our Stealthed Infiltrators, that would be a much more interesting tactical conundrum than ‘how do I one-shot him before he one-shots me first?’
).
