Using an example to show an argument doesn’t make sense is not misrepresenting an argument.
Just because certain builds may exist in the game, doesn’t mean it’s possible for a player to identify them in any but the most extreme circumstances.
It’s impossible to specify what such a build is, as shown by the fact he tried to get me to find evidence to support his own argument by pointing to a thread. Here’s the cliff notes - the devs acknowledge there are powerful builds, but they didn’t say what they are.
So now the player is supposed to guess what the devs think are unintended? That’s impossible.
It should be on the devs to define what is and isn’t an exploit by fixing the game. But it took 6 months just to get the acid damage values correct, so I don’t hold out much hope.
Well you just can’t win with some people. I’ve more than detailed what I meant. If that still = not responding to your post / providing an argument then no worries you win.
Hey guys. To mock your whole discussion. Game WILL BE REBALANCED in one of the next updates. So no point to argue if something should be done or not. It is already in progress.
In progress does not mean it can’t still be discussed. As we have seen in the past some of the balancing acts brought on by the updates, unbalanced things. So it’s okay (in my book) to keep the devs informed on what their fans think can be done in the in-progress balancing. Even if the die were cast, that doesn’t mean the mold can’t be broken and recast.
I think, if you DON’T use terminators, the you playing game wrong. If devs can’t balance game to disable terminators then it’s game’s problem, not my play style.
You are correct in that they clearly break the game and are therefore a problem that the devs have now recognised and are working to fix.
But because they clearly break the game, many of us feel that using them is an exploit and therefore opt not to use them. That’s our prerogative, and it doesn’t mean that we are “playing the game wrong”, it simply means that we have opted not to use the ‘win game’ cheat code that is embedded in the design (to use my Age of Empires analogy, we have opted not to create the Death avatar and rampage around the map with him).
But people like you (I assume - don’t flame me if I’m wrong) and others I’ve read on the forums clearly like playing with TBs and would be unhappy if you lost them. So the devs also need to recognise that in any fix they introduce.
Which is why I constantly argue for Options. That way, we’re both happy.
I don’t like terminators, that wipe out pandas in one turn. But more I don’t like pandas, that wipe out my squad in one turn if I don’t wipe out them in my first turn So I forced to use terminators.
One of the best example : Synedrion mission at 50 standing, fighting pirate’s base. I complete it without terminators few months ago and it was interesting and hard enough. Then devs buff human enemies and they just overwhelmed my squad in next games. I spent many hours trying to win that mission, but fail. After that I make melee terminator and complete mission in two turns and five minutes.
This game don’t have any powerfull new technologies to withstand growing power of pandas and the only way to win against them is terminators. But, as I sad, I don’t like to win every time in one turn, neither to lose missions in few turns…
Suggestion: just wait for them at the entrance and turn that corridor into a killing field.
I was just discussing this mission with another player a couple of days ago and he was complaining about how stupidly easy it was.
I’m sure though that depending on when (later in game = tougher enemies) you do the mission and how (going after the enemies nstead of waiting for them) it can be much more difficult.
My point is that the gaming experience varies a lot among the players, and what I have learned is that when I make assumptions about other player’s experience of the game based on on my own, I’m often proven wrong.
Not really, no. It depends on the player. Many players can beat the game on Legend without using TBs, and find it easy enough.
simple as that, snipers way behind and assault + heavies next to the entrance, after killing most of them, panic and dashing to wipe out the rest of them, squad working as a team, you can’t even lose HP
In a nutshell, there’s my argument for balancing the game so that you don’t need TBs
And there in a nutshell is my argument for giving players the Option to use/not use TB Skill re-use at the start of a new game.
One player’s ‘impossible’ is another player’s ‘boringly easy’. It depends on how you play the game. But if you build and balance the game to please only one side, you run the risk of alienating the other.
So give them the choice to tailor its difficulty for themselves and everyone’s happy.
I agree. I played this mission several times and was recently ambushed by about 8 heavies with tough armour. I was caught off guard perceiving it as an easy missions. I’d spread my soldiers too far apart over the map.
I consequently resorted to using guerrilla tactics: Hit an run to hide to behind cover, shoot at arms and weapons, don’t let them get close to me and try to break their moral. I was pleasantly surprised how brutal it became, knowing that if one of the heavy machine guns got close to me, it will lose perhaps 3 soldiers.
This illustrated how flexible the game is in employing different tactics. However, if I’d had a Terminator it would have been incredibly easy. But they are psychologically nice to have when traps happen. Some Anu base defence missions have demonstrated this to me. But perhaps ignoring them forces one to become a better player.
This will likely be the case in every game. So what? Once you hand out sweets to the crybabies, they’ll get used to it. Then when the dad and mom take away the sweets or reduce the doses, their reason is NOT to take something away from the kids, but for their own good! The problem is that the crybabys will always cry for now (see the absolutely necessary dash nerf), even if they later see a NEED. It’s about making the game BETTER, because it’s damned a tactical game and not an experimental training simulator.
Yes, that’s my point. And a few months ago I also thought that the only way to deal with this is by giving each kind of player a different toolkit (so options, like you say) - in no small part because there was no acknowledgement of this problem on the part of the devs.
Now I think that the option should be there for those players who enjoy Terminator Builds, but for the benefit of those players who find the game too difficult it’s better to address the issue by making the game more forgiving, rather than offering different toolkits.
What many (most?) players want is a reasonable challenge for their level of ability. Diverse toolkits make that tuning very difficult. For example, say, based on your experience, that you consider 4 Rallies per turn will provide a reasonable challenge for a Rookie player. However, everyone plays the game differently, so some players will not even realize the usefulness of Rally, others will quickly figure out that they get 2 turns for every turn of the enemy. The first will perhaps get an unreasonable challenge, the second no challenge at all.
What should happen instead is that Rookie should be getting less enemies, and for them to be less dangerous, to get more resources of all kinds, to have recruits with better stats… So that if the player runs out of APs before he can knock out that enemy, there are no punishing consequences, rather than a theoretical option to cast more Rallies.
I can’t remember whether it was you or Wormerine who posted a very interesting video about the consequences of devs listening to feedback on player forums like this. In most cases, it turns out that only paying attention to the hardcore that wants to make the game tougher invariably results in killing the game stone dead, as the majority of the audience is not hardcore. But not paying attention to those who find the game too easy can also kill a game, because the hardcore usually have a point.
So I think the devs would be well advised to find a way of pleasing both if they can.
But a key part of this game is playing around with chaining skills. Getting that right also makes the game significantly easier, and some people really like it, while others find that it makes the game ludicrously easy - to the point of breaking it with TBs.
So part of that Rookie experience should be having a reasonable number of Rallies/RCs [insert favourite OP skill here] to experiment with. Then, if the player finds that too easy and wants a better challenge next time round, give him or her a Second Wave Option to decide how many times (s)he can re-use a skill in a turn. By that point, (s)he is making an informed choice and is more likely to keep coming back to the game if (s)he can tweak it to suit his or her own personal playing style than if (s)he cannot.
There are always same enemies. And the later you come - the easier this mission.
Without lvl 7 soldiers I don’t know, how you can easily beat 4 rushing heavies, covered by few snipers. With couple assaults. And you must to kill all heavies in one turn and hide soldiers back. And even without one hand or minigun, that heavies can throw grenades. At about 20 tiles range…
So I forced to use terminators.