Nerf everything

This is one of those issues I haven’t personally said much about because the devs have already admitted to at least some of that as a problem and have stated they have things in the works to address it. Yes…often times a game will not match with it’s lore…that doesn’t make it any less of a problem to try and fix though.

I think you know that ain’t gonna happen, unless someone does it in a mod :wink:

There is good reason for it too, not only that it would be unpopular. The freeaim is really the aim mode in PP, because in this game you don’t aim at enemies, you aim at a location. The aiming reticle is not crosshairs, it’s a visual representation of probabilities.

BTW, I’m certain that one of the most common mistakes is to think of the aiming reticle as of optics/crosshairs in an FPS, that is, to assume that the centre of the aiming reticle is where you are really aiming at and that some deviation might take place, the importance of such deviation, depending on the size of the reticle. But this is not so. A shot has the exact same chances of landing anywhere within the circle. What you are actually aiming at is the object that the aiming reticle covers most. Put another way, it’s a graphic representation of to hit chances, with the inside circle being a visual aid to identify what amounts to 50%. It could be represented in a different manner: for example, as two differently shadeded semicircles, or blobs within the main circle representing 5% to hit chances, or concentric circles representing 20% THC, etc.

While we are on it, I think an overall nerf is highly unlikely also (even though I like many of the ideas suggested in this thread, particularly by @conductiv)

Of course, not saying it should remain as it is. But just, in my opinion, i think she should remain Siren. So give her all the crowd control stuff there is. Like spread panic, terrify and root enemy in place, give her mutation that will drain WP of every soldier that has LoS to her every turn, give her aura that will buff WP or just make immune to panic allies around her. But she shouldn’t be psychic damage dealer and if lore say so, I would change lore instead. :slight_smile:

But you can’t do that without of course nerfing and balancing everything else and even her here and there a bit as well.

I think I see where the misunderstanding is…but I could be wrong. In Phoenixpedia (in game) if you look under “Psychic Damage” it says that it’s a damage that typically affects will points instead of health. The only psychic attack that should affect health is mind crush…which is another of those things I forgot to mention, but I won’t touch on it right here…and other than that a “Psychic Damage Dealer” should already be one that drains WP…
Her vivisection, as closely as I can recall, ended with a line something like “Everything about this creature is meant to mentally drain humans.” I’m probably off a little bit, but my point is that her current self is more of a tank that happens to have this annoyance called mind control versus being the (badly) quoted creature.

As it stands, she’s a WP controller. If you’re sensible, you don’t blow all your WP (even if you’re an alpha-striker) unless or until you are sure that a Siren isn’t around or you can deal with her in said strike.

I do think, like BSW, that some players may go blundering into situations where they leave themselves exposed - overextended and with low WP - in a box of rooms or maze of corridors where a Siren lurking round the corner can make mincemeat of your squad’s depleted minds. I wouldn’t nerf her for that, but then neither would I buff her either. She’s dangerous enough - but dealable enough - as she is.

1 Like

Ultimately, it all boils down to what the developers are aiming for (see below from another thread from @helstads_dog).

  • Should the game be a “Superhero First Person Shooter” in time lapse? A short fun in between, to “click through”?

  • Or is it a Tactical Wargame where you have to take advantage of strengths and weaknesses with great freedom of choice (to think, try out and weigh the consequences) and still look cool with FREE AIM?

It has recently been discussed whether the studio has made enough money to continue.
One should also not underestimate the sales day for “steam”, since many only buy on “steam” on principle.
But my feeling tells me that there are “NOT” players who want to “click through” or complain that after 10 hours they still haven’t got a superhero with whom they can finally win it all.

There is no mistake here. It doesn’t matter if free aim is a barrel point of view pointing a location or a soldier targeting an enemy. I could live with a simplification of reality where you either point in a location of center of mass of an enemy or pay the cost of releasing aim from enemy and point gun elsewhere, be it enemy eyebrow or a huge barn on the side not necessary of so called precision aim. It is much better experience than cover that does nothing as you can’t control much of how LoS-break it gives because you can always point location where enemy is still exposed without any cost, without any downsides. There’s a lot of board game approximations in this game, and keeping aiming free of it doesn’t make game any better. This isn’t a FPS game and will never be. Because of keeping it pure of approximations and simplifications, things like shooting from behind cover (where you step aside to take a shot in a face, just because) and overwatch or return fire (where you are in the same time without LoS and somehow aware of everything around) looks so stupid in comparison.

I’d say ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to that.

The reticle system is, in my opinion, one of the best things about this game. I absolutely love it, and automatically default to it unless it clearly doesn’t matter where I hit the target, cos it’s gonna die no matter what. I also think that it’s perfectly clear that the inner circle only has a 50% chance of being ‘on target’, so the golden shot is to get the whole of your target inside the outer circle if you want a guaranteed hit.

The fact that you can adjust your aim so that all of the reticle is covering a Nasty’s body - damn near ensuring 100% accuracy (until your bullet inconveniently flies through that tiny little gap between its arm and its body - or through the tendons of its GL arm - aargh!), is great. I love the decision points this gives me: Do I aim to take out that scary, scary Acid Grenade Launcher, risking the chance that 50% of my bullets will fly off-target and not take it out; or do I shift to a point just off the centre mass, where I have the highest chance of all of my bullets actually hitting the Nasty? And does my sniper aim to put the whole of that RF machine-gun or Siren’s body into his firing reticle, or does he take a risk and aim to shoot off the gunner’s arm - inflicting damage on the gunner as well as neutralising the gun - or the Siren’s head, to take down her MC?

But you quickly learn that there are times when it’s not worth your sniper taking that shot against that tiny nub of a Nasty’s arse sticking out from behind the rock, because it’s more than likely that you’re going to miss.

This happens the other way too. From my experience, I have to disagree with all those who claim that CrabTrons have 100% accuracy and that cover is useless. In my experience, I have had several occasions on each mission where a Triton sniper has shot wide, or a Crabbie’s MG fire has slammed into the rock I’m hiding behind. I don’t rely on it - exposing yourself behind cover is a risk, and I prefer to sit one step back from the cover’s edge, where the Nasties can’t see me, rather than on the edge of a piece of cover inviting them to blow my kneecaps off - but cover is nowhere near as useless as some people claim it to be.

Would I make the targeting reticles wider, even for snipers? Yes. Would I nerf CrabTron accuracy equally? Yes. Reducing everything’s chances of accurately hitting something at range would go a long way towards rebalancing certain aspects of this game - in tandem with nerfing alpha-strike abilties. But for me, free aiming lifts this game head and shoulders above its predecessors and makes it a much better experience.

But stepping out of cover into an RF zone to take a shot is just naff and should be fixed. As is letting the target of a fullisade of bullets return that fire. RF used to - and should - exist as a disincentive to people to run out into the open and 1-shot the Crabbie in front of them, because if they do, they’ll get gunned down by its buddies.

Conversely, I don’t understand why we don’t have a ‘Hunker Down’ option, which should cost an AP, but does something like the Siren’s foetal position after she’s been shot, minimising the amount of your body that sticks out of the cover (and crucially protecting your head).

So there are good sides and bad sides to the PP ballistic system, but on the whole I think it’s great.

1 Like

Well, it is basically a board game with real (though by no means realistic) ballistics, so yes. Also, from that perspective (that it is a boardgame) something that makes the players “pay in game currency” to address an issue with the game mechanics is just gimmicky…

I don’t think this is accurate. Certainly not always, more like sometimes depending on the weapon and accuracy buffs…

In any case it would be interesting to this in a mod, see what happens.

I read this sometimes here around and I want only to respond to the marked one:

This is already the case, RB is one of the few skills you can only use once per turn. I tested it exclusively before I post this because I also wasn’t sure about this (I have some screenies if necessary).

BTT and to the post from @BriteShadowWolf especially:
Nice thoughts, but honestly for me a bit to … much.
Currently I enjoy the game as it is, with my own rules to make it a challenge. Not like @VOLAND or @MichaelIgnotus preventing me to use the skills more than one time per turn but I minimize my squadsize and I like it very much, even after some playthroughs.
I’m not sure what should be the right way and sometimes I think an overhaul like mentioned here is propably to much in the short term. But I also really want to balance the whole thing.

1 Like

Yes, this is correct, and also it can’t be buffed by quickaim anymore (that was nerfed in the first or second patch).

That’s my feeling too. I think the question is how to achieve the best balance with the least possible changes. That and to get there through new content. Just rearranging the same content again and again allienates many players.

1 Like

Never said it’s bad mechanic. :slight_smile: Just said because it is free, you will always target exposed body part of an enemy behind cover and most of the time there is exposed body part. Inner/outer circle isn’t anything new, more-less it is how crosshair spread works in most of FPS games, taking Battlefield series for example. It is just approximation of soldiers/weapon accuracy and bullet spread (+ weapon recoil probably in PP and other “assumed” factors). But PP isn’t realtime but turn based so free aim without any cost is what makes boargame simplifications poorly balanced, like hiding behind cover. There is little point in flanking, you can just move aside a bit (or don’t move at all) because precision targetting is free you can maximize damage done if circle covers target part. Make it non-free action, and you’ll still be able to do that but you’ll have 1 AP less. Risk of hitting pincer in two non-free-aim shots or move circle in free aim and target head. Doing less precision shots in turn may unlock leathal headshots (and other critical spots for pandorans), something absolutely insane in a game where you can do 4 headshots with assault rifle and quick aim, not to mention funny number of headshots with a pistol. Or headshot rageburst (another thing I would nerf by not giving it free aim at all).

Edit: Not trying to convince you or anyone here. I knew it won’t be popular because free aim is core mechanic. :slight_smile: Just explaining why I think it could work and rebalance few things in the meantime. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Ah, my bad. It sounded like you were :smirk:

Personally, I think a simpler solution would be to make the targeting reticles larger, so that the chances of getting a perfect shot with a sniper rifle at something on the other side of the map was significantly reduced.

All part of the ‘nerf everything without completely reprogramming the game’ package :wink:

2 Likes

Yeah, I thought about this as well, but this will only change long range sniping from safe position. Still nice in the end, but doesn’t change much ie. alpha striking. You’ll still be able get close enough and put two sniper shots where hurts the most. :slight_smile: Or four AR and so on.

Agreed. As I said earlier:

As we all keep on saying (you as much as any others), this only works if you rebalance the whole package - Pandas as well as Squaddies.

I have no issues with the free aim system, so I wouldn’t touch that. and to be honest I’m not that impressed by weapon accuracy either.

note that I say weapon accuracy… I often set the armor of my soldiers to a net 0% bonus, and this allows me to see how accurate weapons tend to be. weapons behave differently when you combine them with master marksman, full synedrion sniper kit and the relevant mastery random track skill

The loading screen tip is fairly accurate…if you where fighting unarmed humans in the open. Humans tend to take cover and shield their chest with their weapon…arthrons however, somehow love to waddle in the open, they also have a relatively narrow profile. if you take half the weapons effective range in tiles, it will almost follow the arthrons carapace curve, but they have thin arms and the carapace is not a full circle, so it will not completely fill the aiming rectile. this gives most weapons a fairly reasonable 7-15 tile range for roughly 75% chance to hit (the percentage is based on a exposed arthron, depicts hitting…not hitting a specific part… and is a guess…the actual % might be a little more, most pistols, assault rifles, SMG’s and status weapons have an effective range between 14 and 25 tiles, in effective range the arthron is about the height of the entire circle diameter). synedrion weapons are the exception though, they are far more accurate then the equivalents, but apart from their sniper, you are unlikely to land full salvo headshots from across the map without the assistance of stacking +% accuracy on your armor.

as such, other then maybe hitting synedrion weapons (however, synedrion’s trait seems to be precision, high magazine capacity “base” weapons, special weapons focus on stealth, poison and paralysis…so if nerfing is needed there I would look to damage before reducing their effective range)…I would oppose nerfing weapon accuracy.

pandoran accuracy isn’t that massive either, and cover against attacks that you can take cover from works. (unlike the X-com franchise, low cover can be more effective here then high cover, as the AI will try and get an angle on the high cover tile almost completely bypassing it, while the crouch position from low cover will always reduce the profile, and low cover tends to come in clusters, making it harder for the enemy to get an angle on it…but don’t be surprised if the majority of hits you get there will be headshots) the main problem that I have with panda attacks is that the majority of attacks are melee, grenade or psychic. cover doesn’t really work against that (and the flipping double grenade damage bug can really wreck a trooper). as such if you go nerfing the pandoran attacks…I’d vote for moving their offensive mutations from launchers to gun like weapons.

2 Likes

I agree with this, which has already been discussed here.

Also true, I think especially after Leviathan.

And of these the really “unfair” IMHO are the explosives, especially because of the stupid double damage bug… Though that cuts both ways, as player’s explosives will often do double damage as well.

By the way, is it just me or the third row mounted weapons perk (+20% damage) buffs the damage by way more than that? I have been using it with the fury launcher and it’s just devastating.

1 Like

I don’t know what the exact deal is with explosives, I cannot reliably replicate it on my side…but it is true that I as a player trigger double damage an awful lot (never count on it…but I do notice a damage increase trigger when suddenly the majority of an opponents limbs take over 100 damage). and I do not have to score a direct hit for it either…it can occur both on direct and splash hits.

for the AI I have noticed it can double acid damage, for me as a player I have not noticed it double a status damage yet (but the only status grenades I frequently use are incendiary…and they are capped at 40, so not an entirely fair comparison there)

about the mounted weapon thing…I honestly have no idea.

I am sure it has been said, but it may be lost in all of the discussions back and forth in the various related threads.

A sliding scale of ‘nerfing’ based on the player’s difficulty selection. For nerfs to PP, the largest nerfs go to the hardest level and scale down as they reach the easiest level. The opposite would apply to the enemy nerfs, the lower nerfs apply to the hardest difficulty and the higher slide down to the easiest. Of course this would be unbalanced if one looks at the way game currently is. But if the devs can smooth out the balance one more time and then throw in the sliding scale, perhaps the power players and the casual players can enjoy the game more. I am pretty sure that is what Snapshot thought they were doing with the DDA, but too many aspects were already unbalanced.

Of course, Snapshot, really (and I mean really) needs to give the player the option to change difficulty on the fly. Not necessarily in mid-mission, but at least when in geoscape mode.

Yes, I can confirm. And I don’t think that it is limited to the player and I’m almost sure it can also happen with worms, which by definition shouldn’t be able to score “a direct hit” as they can’t be on the same tile as their victims.