I try to understand this conclusion. Changing a few parameters is like an hour of work in not less than that. Huge change for many players means long time to implement? How? Why? What? It may be huge change, but we got DLC with new augmentations replacing standard armors. Was it a problem to any of the players? I donât think so. Except devs should implement it in the way where you receive not augmented soldiers in recruitment (or just like now you have the information about augmentations).
I think that PratBitt suggestion is good. Let the players adapt. They wonât abandon game because one of the skills was changed.
Because it was adding something new, not changing something currently existing. It will be a different story if now they replace the melee bionic torso with something else.
Well, that reasoning works both ways, unfortunately .
Ok, let me put it another way: will changing Rally change anything much? Not really. However, tackle both Rally and Rapid Clearance in the same pass, now thatâs something.
1.my original plan for that training would be: popup telling the player about the existence and option of training officers, and then having it be a mere button with a cost and time investment attached. but more stuff has to be attached to the promotion to be worth it, that is the first complication. if its just training merely slotting a trooper in the manned station should be enough, but in that case a promotion to an officer would be moot.
2. permanent.
3. you can go âall chiefs no indiansâ if you want to in my current suggestion. note that is has nothing to do with @MichaelIgnotus rally suggestion. it has to do with the XP flood of the alpha team, and the fact that you can train troops to a higher level faster then actually get them through fighting by stacking training centers.
4. this is a matter of preference really, I prefer the time needed for training from rookie to the cap to be roughly the same all the time, and higher levels require more XP, so the TC manned by a high level trainer should have a higher XP/day rate.
@PradBitt: that, is actually a very good ideaâŚits even easier then applying turn limits.
Voland, what youâre talking about itâs not implementation cost. Itâs more of a risk (since itâs a nerf it will not be taken kindly by some part of the audience, like for example change to a dash skill). However itâs manageable (like donât change skills all the time, or if you nerf something, buff something else, etc.) and unavoidable (if you want to improve, you must change, therefore take some risk).
Anyway the most important part here is the question: Is Rally the troops actually perceived to be OP by the designers? Did they acknowledge that?
If not yet, maybe more energy should be spent on presenting OP cases and answering questions like âHow OP do you feel itâs?â. âWould using it only once (per turn in total), only twice,âŚ, be better?â
Yep, thatâs my point. Rally is one of many skills that need to be toned down. Actually, so many that it canât be done in one pass either. Thus my thinking that it might be tackled with Rapid Clearance, as both skills are about AP refunds.
To the first question, I would say who knows, and to the second, no.
That is exactly the point.
Snapshot (until now) lacked the courage to consistently follow an identity and a direction. The game is very complex (and itâs wonderful). This complexity is the perfect framework for tactics, which works pretty well until mid-game. From then on there was no courage to do it consistently. Or they just thought: âto sell a lotâ it is necessary to have superhero skills, because the kids want exactly that. Well, thatâs why the direction is diffuse.
Many successful products have shown courage and consequent decisions that some did not like, but overall made the product a masterpiece. You have to be able to change to get to the next level.
The real question is:
Did the majority of PP players just buy the game because of their superhero skills?
If so, then there is no longer any need for discussions here.
One thing should not be forgotten: Those players who show their concern that certain skills are weakened, justify it because otherwise they cannot win the game (sometimes even at higher levels of difficulty). What is the right way now? Above certain soldier level, we give the player overpowering abilities, calm this players, but make the game asymmetrical. Or do we combat the root of the problem, which also involves changes? For example I think: Snapshot should think about banishing certain mutations, especially chirons, completely from âeasyâ.
I personally hoped that our Council could help with that. Courage to change.
No offense against you or anyone. You and many others are committed to the game out of love, knowing that it is broken in terms of balance. Iâm here for the same reason.
There is only one danger with âsmall stepsâ.
There is a âpoint of no returnâ that PP will reach pretty soon with bigger balance decisions (IMO until the next DLC, then is all done). Why? Because more and more tactics fans are turning away from PP. Those who are still there or are waiting for a balance miracle just hold on to the potential. On the other hand, the players who have difficulty in beating the game âget usedâ to the cheat skills. Over time, the resistance to remove the cheats only increases until the whole project PP ends in a cheat disaster.
Also in other forums and YouTube videos there are many long and analytically described cheat methods (the word OP is an understatement) that have been around for a long time. What happens against it? The fact that a new word had to be created for âalpha strikeâ shows how broken the whole thing is. So little steps and play down? To make the devs aware of this massive problem, the truth must also be spoken out loud
And so that this is not misunderstood: These tactics fans do not want to make the game harder for their hardcore experience, but only fair (without cheating) at all levels of difficulty. You can see that from the fact that not one of them cried that acid and siren were weakened in the last patch.
You are quite right Walan - but it became very clear to me when the whole âalpha strikeâ thing blew up on Yokesâ thread that the devs were not truly aware of the nature of the problem.
Without breaking any confidences, they are now very aware and are looking into it. So letâs see what transpires from there.
As you say, if it doesnât ultimately get fixed, a large portion of PPâs core audience are going to walk away and leave it to the alpha-gamers, which would be a great shame. Iâm hoping that we can ultimately find a solution that satisfies all sides, but it will take time.
(BB5 with broken skills came out in September)
They had almost a year to understand and believe that âsuper duper skillsâ break the âentire gameâ.
Although, maybe itâs âIâm on the forumâ stupid and do not understand how to play correctly âŚ
Hey mate, Iâm with you.
As I said in my reply to Walan above - and in earlier posts - Iâm flabbergasted that the devs did not seem to believe that FTStriking was a problem until we raised it in the Community Council.
But they are now looking into it, and hopefully we will get some sort of resolution - even if it may not be the one that many of us want.
And that kind of thing is precisely the reason why I thought the CC was a good idea and argued for it against Spiteâs objections. Stuff gets lost in all the sound and fury of forums like this, whereas the CC can literally stick it under the devsâ noses and say: âPay attention: this is important.â
The problem is: it seems to be a design decision, a kind of ârewardâ.
Players who have reached level 7 should feel ârewardedâ and finally use the âallowedâ cheat skills. It is apparently that what a tactics fan wishes to finally smash the enemys with âFTSâ without making a big deal of thought, to make themselves invulnerable (electrical reinforcement), to shoot bosses from the initial position with multishots (sniper rage burst) or to start the AP generator (our favorite Rally the Troops).
What balance? There is no balance, unless you as the player artificially create some by voluntarily limiting your powers.
Iâve been saying that the Squaddies were OP since at least BB3 or 4 - long before anyone else seemed to acknowledge that fact. And until now, I seem to have been crying into the wind.
All I can tell you is that they have started looking into it now that we have brought it to their attention.
Make of that what you will.
BUT - and this is a big but - that statement seems to have been made in the mistaken belief that these powers only allowed to you alpha-strike particular enemies one at a time, rather than Terminate an entire map.
Now it has been made very clear to the devs that unlimited skills = Terminator Builds and all that they entail.
We shall see whether that information alters the direction that PP is currently taking. If it doesnât, I suspect Iâm out, until some modder comes along and does what many of us are crying out for Snapshot to do.
Sad thing is, as Iâve said many times before and shall continue to say: Itâs not that difficult to satisfy both sides! Simply give me the option to limit Skill Spamming and give Spag the option to Skill Spam to his heartâs content - and balance the Pandas for the former ('cos who cares what they can do in the latter, since most of them are dead on Turn 1 anyway).
Changing a few parameters is like an hour of work in not less than that. Huge change for many players means long time to implement? How? Why? What? It may be huge change, but we got DLC with new augmentations replacing standard armors. Was it a problem to any of the players? I donât think so. Except devs should implement it in the way where you receive not augmented soldiers in recruitment (or just like now you have the information about augmentations).
Let the players adapt. They wonât abandon game because one of the skills was changed.