Legacy of the Ancients weapons are too OP

Phoenix Point Game Feedback
62

I find the hard tier system very boring, definitely one of the weakest aspects of X-Com. When a weapon is just better than its predecessor, it’s a no brainer to use it.

Like in Apocalypse, where once you got the bio pistol you used just that, and as soon as your researched new toxin ammo, you switched to that.

In PX higher tier weapons open new tactical possibilities, but the lower tier counterparts still make sense. e.g. It’s nice to have piercing power of a Piranha, but Bulldog can shred 8 armor per burst…

63

I did not say that older x-coms done it better. It’s good to get some tactical weapons BUT you use them at tactical positions. You still use your main weapons most of the times.

I don’t understand why you are against to get some tier system when you got those tactical new ones too… I don’t say that erase this system and give me tiers… I just want tiers addition to this one. Why? Sometimes people invent better things then old ones… We don’t use bows and arrows anymore because assault rifles are more better… This does not stop anyone to get more tactical things too.

I am not against your game aspects as I like them too but I want more tiers for the ones we have, especially main weapon and armors. But you are just against tier system.

Finding a biological weapon against biological enemies is very logical and it was right way at x-com 3… but implementations could have some balancing issues. Bad balancing does not make a logical solution “bad” suddenly. If I were in a world with mutated creatures, the first idea will have a biological solution. So PX should have some kind of research line for that sooner or later…

I say, have piranha but give me piranha 2.0, have your bulldog but give me bulldog 2.0… and if I got them, you can choose to not use them too…

Anyway… as short, I can understand why you are against it, I won’t. It’s your taste… we have probably very different brain chemistry as we mostly do not want similar things…

64

The question is: Is there a reason to get something better for the game as it actually is?
My personal opinion is: Not really.
And just to have something like a tiered system because “it just should be like that” isn’t really well founded either.

In general I am rather undecided. One has its advantages and disadvanteges as well as the other. But everything should definitely have a solid reason why this should be useful for the player.

My opinion on a tiered system for PP in particular:
Just getting something better probably only ends up in the fact that the opponents then have to get stronger for balancing reasons and then the whole thing should also be well timed (that’s basically the Firaxis system). Then you can omit such a tiered system if nothing changes in the circumstances anyway, except that you have to produce more, ‘harvest’ more resources, need more time. Especially if you want to have it implemented afterwards.
That is why I am rather against introducing something like this in general for PP. At individual points, such as the MGs, more could certainly be done, but as a general system I don’t think that’s necessary.

1 Like
65

Because if you add an improved version of something you make the previous version obsolete. And like @MadSkunky says, if you add improved versions you need to justify their existence.

You can’t have tiers and not have them at the same time - a game where you can have your Piranha 2.0, but I can just as well keep playing with my Piranha 1.0.

I completely agree - my point is that it was badly implemented because it was implemented via the hard tier system, where the new thing is a straight improvement over the old. If this bio gun actually had some real disadvantages (for example, some enemies had physical shields to stop the pellets, or were robotic) it would have been fine, but then it wouldn’t be a (hard) tier system.

1 Like
66

You do not think things as concept but single elements. My english could fail to explain this kind of idea so I am not sure I can explain myself enough.

You want to have piranha and bulldog as they gives you different type of approaches, as technical elements and you want to have those. You don’t want to lose them when more powerful things came. But you think them as individuals… this is where problem is. I see them as “concepts”. So piranha is a rifle with AP for you, but for me it’s a rifle in “AR with AP” category, concept. So as the game gives me higher tier “AR with AP” and does not make me lose this with other higher tiers weapons, I am totally fine and there is totally no point to be against that.

Piranha: AR with AP
Bulldog: AR with Shred

Piranha 2.0: AR with AP +10 dmg
Bulldog 2.0 : AR with Shred +10 dmg

So, can you tell me what will you lose with this logic? I don’t take your “AR with Shred” mechanic with piranha 2… You lose your weapon, not the tactical option, not the concept… if you are so badly in love with those weapons, this is totally personal feelings…

You all talk about how the faction reputation system is bad because you can easily get friends with everyone. Imagine you just want be with only ally with Synd… by by all the techs from all 2… yeah you can raid maybe 30 times to get their researches… I don’t want play 30+ research stealing missions. I should able to go on from a tech level with my own additions… You got synd lasers? Let me make better ones with my own tech and tiers so I can play my game with one ally…

Could I explain the difference between concept and weapon itself?

I am creator of the X-Division mod for Xenonauts… that mod took about 3+ years to finish… It has 1000+ researches… yeah with 3 zero… with 5 tiers of ballistic-laser-explosive and bionic tech trees including special ones like EMP… You can play it for months as the game always throws you different things… enemies, researches, items, weapons, armors… you need to capture aliens, ufos, special parts from alien bases… You got all the tactical concepts that the game engine allows you to use but same time it has tiers because the aliens improves themselves more and more… People need to code and use 3. party programs to able to see research tree as all the tree charts fails to explain the paths. :slight_smile:

Second, this is not Jagged Alliances, this is X-Com type game. Like at a Diablo type game, nobody blames a dev because they put a second sword which is better then other sword, but get angry when a sword can beat all the spear and axes… here at a X-com type game, there should be tiers of concepts and non should beat another clearly as we got at LotA now. This is what I try to explain.

Game is not prepared to have a more powerful weapons as it needs balancing everywhere… This is not the problem as if tier system comes, all the game should be balanced same time anyway…

1 Like
67

So the only reason to get a tier system in PP for you is:

?

Sorry, but that is not enough for me, it is simply not necessary.

We have different options, many options to use the given weapons in different ways, almost any of them more side- than up-grades. Even the ‘tier 0.5’ PP weapons are already somewhat useful when you have access to the faction weapons. We have way more options than FXCom ever had (probably except LW) without having the problem that a whole generation of weapons are completely obsolete when you have access to the new generation (the big downside of a tier system, and I really don’t like what Firaxis has done in XCOM2 by simply buy a complete series of weapons and switch them automatically to the newest for all your soldiers, just to simplify this process).

Again, where is the upside of a tiered system, when you then have to fight harder enemies, because they have to be tougher, because you got more powerful weapons? A tiered system has for me no real upsides compared to a more side grading system, because more powerful weapons have no real upside beside the thing “it should be like that”.

1 Like
68

You hijacked my topic , lol

I have to mute you, guys

Email notifications are very distracting

69

Don’t worry, you are expressing yourself very well and I think I understand what you mean.

That I have to get the Piranha 2.0 because it’s an upgrade over Piranha 1.0.

I don’t get any satisfaction from having to get a new weapon that works just like the previous one but does more damage, and I hate that by implication enemies will now need to have +10 armor to justify its existence :slightly_smiling_face:

I really, absolutely, completely hate this in RPGs where upon gaining a level, I have to find new equipment of a higher level that works exactly like before but does more damage.

As you said earlier, it’s a brain chemistry thing - some people experience a release of endorphins from opening a chest with the LVL5 Axe, and others find it boring.

70

Nop, you did not get it. Probably I failed… anyway…

Yep, we want totally different games… as I said, you want Jagged Alliance inside X-Com, or just in future. So there is no logic to discuss things with each other as we want different things as “game concept”.

Sry :slight_smile:

71

Oh, I think I get it, you explained it good enough and here is your point and also my point:

That’s how you explain why tiers in Xenonauts are necessary.
Do we have the same in PP?
Yes, our enemies also improving more and more, but our weapons can handle them throughout the whole game without having tiers (mostly).

Further you wrote:

And here we are back to @etermes OP (sorry for hijacking :wink: ).
These tiers you want to have are IMO currently simply not necessary as the ancient weapons are simply not necessary and that’s all I said.

For what will you have a Piranha 2.0 with +10 damage?
What you will most likely get for it are enemies with +10 armor or +40 HP.
And then you need a bunch of time and resources to research and build these upgrades. Something that this game definitely doesn’t need in its current state in my opinion.

Funfact, you can play FXCom2 on Legendary Ironman without upgrading all your weapons through the whole game because even there the most ‘power’ of your soldiers comes from the skills. The upgrading is mostly there to bind resources and time of the player. The tiers there are slightly balanced by tougher enemies but not really necessary. :stuck_out_tongue:

Edit:
BTW, Jagged Alliance is a bad example because there you highly need and get better weapons through the whole game that make the old ones obsolete. As a game design that is not really different to a x-com like tier system with the exception that you not research and build them by yourself but find or buy them after some time.

72

It’s about what you expect from the game. I like to improve everything I have. Soldiers, gears, weapons, aircrafts… This is what I like and evwrt xcom game had it before this, so its not strange that to expect those from this game too.

You can do things in a game without everything the game throws you. It’s up to your challenge or how you get fun from it. Maybe at xcom 2 you can finish the game with same weapons but it would bore me to hell.

At jagged allience, you fight against humans with clothes, so I every gun is lethal so you can kill someone with anything.with some others easier of course.

You, voland and me are 3 different players who likes different genres. We start to discuss what we like rather then the game itself. So as I said there is no point of discuss this. Everybody wants what they like and against what does not like. We should not be so selfish. Snapshot will do their own game as a result.

I got modding card in my hand, so I don’t fear so much what the game will become. I am happy as I got more game aspects so I can edit them as I please. I will add tiers too when I can do that. I will mod many things. I don’t care lota weapons, because I will edit them as I please. I am sad because their types are not enough. I would like to have a MG. I will make the shardgun to a assault rifle for example.

We hope to get nice things for now.

1 Like
73

OK, I’m fine with that, with one exception:

I never said that I don’t like tier systems. In fact I like them, when they are necessary and good integrated like in the old x-coms or Xenonauts and I like them not so much when they are not really necessary and it seems to me they are only in the game because “it should be like that” as they are in FiraXComs.

I only said that in my opinion it is not necessary for PP and because we have a good alternative with the current more side grading concept. And I’m also afraid that such a change would result in a lot more adjustments, such as balancing, resource and time management. Too much for something that, well, is not really necessary.

Edit:

Ehh … no?
The enemies got helmets, body and leg armor and the starting weapons are very fast pretty weak against almost anything you meet.
At least in JA2, I forgot too much about JA1 :rofl:

74

But when it’s cheap, and easy to obtain early on it can kind of take more from the game than add to it I feel.

So, how early are you getting them? I’m usually a fair bit into the game before I find and secure the necessary sites.

75

I believe with concentrated effort I could do it before the end of the first month (a little bit of exploiting). On average though it’d be around the first week of February. I want to be clear that the timing of acquiring these weapons or the power of them isn’t as important to me as the quantity and ease of supplying said quantity. Can build a large amount of Arch Labs all at once to supply all the resources needed within a week or less I’m sure.

76

Yeah the Archaeology Labs driving production doesn’t make sense to me. I feel more like they should be thresholds on what you can research and deploy at the sites to improve production.

So first off I think of this as a parallel Research tree. Second it would need to add constraints on the processing facilities that constrain how many sources can flow at one time. So if you have the Lapidary, and the Crystal mine, you can process one crystal per tick (let’s call it 1 unit). If you get a second Crystal mine you need to upgrade the Lapidary to process the extra volume.

Here’s how I’m thinking it could work:

1st Lab (all unlocked at once):

  • Build Probes
  • Find and Capture Ancient Sites
  • Processors Capacity = 1
  • Extraction Output = 1

2nd Lab:

  • Processing Upgrade: Capacity + 1
  • Extraction Upgrade: Output + 1
  • Probe Discount 1

3rd Lab:

  • Processing Upgrade: Capacity + 2
  • Extraction Upgrade: Output + 2
  • Build Hoplites (Max 2)
  • Probe Discount 2

4th Lab:

  • Processing Upgrade: Capacity x 2
  • Extraction Upgrade: Output x 2
  • Build Cyclops (Max 1)
  • Probe Discount 3

Upgraded facilities should have additional, destructable, models representing upgrades that have been built at the site. If the upgrade is destroyed, it needs to be re-built.

2 Likes
77

Oh really? How is it Boring doing a grind to get New Tech, that helps your soldiers be BA Barakas like? :fist_right:t4: :rofl: :fist_left:
I find it challenging, to be sure. But hardly boring figuring how best to use my equivalent of a .22 caliber vs .30-06 caliber equipped enemies.

79

Was going to mention X-Division as example of well done tiers but wasn’t aware that creator is here :smiley:

Imho pros of tier system outweigh cons, but they require a certain structure from the game itself. In Xenonauts or open-XCom, devs can build strategic layer around waves. You get a wave and game gets harder but punching through this wave you get to unlock next set of toys. Now these toys help you to not drown and as you get more and more of them you start to push back, till next wave arrives. Xenonauts have a simple rule, if you can’t punch through a wave then you need to learn to play better, as simple as that. The fact that you can lose soldiers and keep playing, makes it tad easier as equipment and research are more important than individual soldiers.
The other benefit is that tiers make you feel as achieving something and progressing though the game.
The main con that they make older weapons obsolete - what is the issue with this? Do you develop some sort of emotional attachment to the first assault rifle your soldier got?
And JA2 absolutely has a tier system, new weapons do make older weapons obsolete just not in a simplistic way of how it’s done in X-Com, there are more intricacies to it. As you get further into game you need more and more specialized weapons and you eager to see new arrivals in online shop. In JA2 you rarely use the same weapon for more than few missions, al the way till you get to the last tier around the end game.

1 Like
80

I agree, I also like a tiered system, and it’s not incompatible with a sidegrades system. You can have both.

Tiers introduce not only achievement feeling but also an ongoing objective. Firaxcom 2 did it poorly in the sense of buying a one-time upgrade to all weapons. I see the system as good when you cannot upgrade all your soldiers and where before the upgrade you were having a really hard time, now with at least one or two upgraded weapons you have a chance - and by the time you upgrade everyone you should already be facing newer challenges and wanting a new upgrade.

When you pair this up with a variety of sidegrade options, it also makes a lot more sense with your soldiers personal perks. Let’s make an example: at the beginning of the game I had an assault soldier that I wanted to hit things and thus gave him a laser AR. Later enemies started getting armored and now I want a piercing AR, which now I can because he got better accuracy through other means (perks, armor bonuses, etc). That’s doable in PP. Now if I have a soldier that didn’t have a way to up his accuracy enough (let’s say don’t have a perk), I’m stuck with only bad choices (laser that can’t hit armored or piercing that can’t hit at all from medium range) for his MAIN CLASS WEAPON.

If we had upgrades for both laser and piercing, I could go for a stronger laser that would be able to do some damage and not feel worthless. They would still have their trade-off of higher damage against armor vs higher accuracy.

This of course is what makes AR’s so worse than other weapons in PP, because enemies become bullet sponges with also a lot of armor and the only AR upgrade is for the piercing one. The same happens with the sniper rifles, but in this case the SYN one is unarguably the best, and you get an end-game upgrade that’s also unarguably the best (until DLC2), so that’s not an issue.

2 Likes
81

Honestly, what you describe is a balancing issue of the current ARs and tiered up versions would not help you in the long run.
Why?
Because when you get better weapons then the enemies has also to get better armor and HP to balance this new stuff. Actually all the weapons are balanced with the most buffs you can get. And with them any AR is capable of dealing a bunch of damage throughout the whole game. You want an accurate laser AR that deals a lot of damage for the end game and have not the right personal perks? Go Infiltrator, take the Daimos and you get 60 x 6 damage for 2 AP, more damage as you can deal with a Pythagoras on the minor enemies with not too much armor. (In fact, when I have a Sniper/Infiltrator with AR perk then I use the AR ‘side weapon’ more than the SR)

And now guess what happens if we got even better 2nd or 3rd tier laser ARs … at the end nothing except that you have to spend even more resources to buy these upgrades and all the old get even more useless as they actually are for you.

Edit:
The only solution for the actual balancing dilemma not only for ARs that I can think of is to reduce all the damage buffs from skills dramatically, especially the +100% from Sneak Attack, and buff the base damage of all weapons. This way you can balance all weapons way better than actually, where you always have to look how they perform with the most buffs you can get from skills.

Edit 2:
Then we can maybe talk about tiers and their counterparts for the enemies. :wink:

3 Likes
82

Is there any method to getting a LVL 6 recruit? The highest I’ve ever seen is 4, obviously before 1.7.2 apparently broke haven recruits.