Hopefully with rebinding keys functionality we can all then control the game how we wish.
And I repeat: you don’t have to use it - I didn’t until I found the control key. But don’t deny the extra choice to those of us who do want to use it.
Do you mean there’s another way to change the cone width? Or that it can be played without changing the width? I bet the second case, but then your example show it, once you knew it you couldn’t resist to use it. Same for me despite the control is total boredom, second example proving it can’t be ignored, and it’s effective gameplay fluidity drop down.
No Zzzz, it’s not that it can’t be ignored, it’s that it gave me exactly what I wished for but didn’t know about until I stumbled upon it in some random post. When the OW cone first came out, I could adjust the length, but (like the OP) I didn’t know I could adjust the width, and I wished there was some way that I could adjust the width. Then someone told me how to adjust the width and I was: “Great! That’s exactly how it should work!” and I’ve been happily using it ever since to make sure my dumbass squaddies don’t waste their precious reaction fire on irrelevant targets.
Frankly, it makes the game more fluid for me, because I don’t have to fart around adjusting the angle and length of a fixed cone to avoid that stupid Mindfragger next to the Scylla, when it’s the Scylla I want to react to. All I have to do is pinch my mousepad and the cone narrows to exclude the Fragger and target the Scylla alone.
Just because you find it tedious doesn’t mean other players do. It’s a choice. Choice is good. So why take it away from us?
Argue on gameplay fuildity on base of ignoring a meaningful feature doesn’t make sense. It’s not a choice facepalm, it’s an action and a control.
It’s like the awful free pistol owerwatch, very bad design idea, no decision, just boredom repetition, should not be allowed, and that it can be ignored doesn’t justify the gameplay fluidity drop down.
There is no fluidity dropdown if you simply choose to ignore it. It’s there if you want it - which some of us do - but you don’t have to use it.
But we’re just going to go round in circles with this one, so I am leaving it there.
It’s like ignoring crouching/uncrouching/proning/unproning in JA2, no it’s not an option and ignore it makes no sense. But ok you can’t get it fine, but there’s no opinion it’s a fact, or the feature is pointless but it isn’t.
I second this, don’t take away the option here. I like the overwatch as is. Some of my soldiers do wide, some do narrow… Just depends what and where they are watching.
As for pistol overwatch it’s not exactly an overpowered thing. They are only accurate at certain ranges, and given you have to invest skill points to pick it up, it’s not truly free. If that 0 ap overwatch was tied to the weapon that could be.
It’s so great that my over-watches now hit the enemies I wanted them to hit. I don’t ever want to go back to crossing my fingers.
Yeah, I have to say, I really like that you can narrow and widen the overwatch cone too. I wish you could zoom out a bit more when using it cause it’s a bit of a pain when trying to catch the edge of a building at range sometimes, but I think it’s good versatility to be able to have control over how you’re going to overwatch. Overall though I think it’s one of the good ideas in PP.
Some people [quote=“CardboardMike, post:1, topic:8755”]
Why is the most useful version of overwatch hidden behind an undocumented mechanic
When all your soldiers will shoot at the arthron’s shield, and not the target that approaching later , your opinion will change greatly
Elven Ranger from Warcraft II.
False. Only at the beginning you may want to set wide cones. I mostly use cones which are little wider than the default.
But you know what? I would want this cone to be an arc! When you set it wider then center of the cone has definitely closer range than the edges. That has real drawback. If you don’t want your edged to catch anything too far you shorten the cone, and then your center is too close. Or if you really want to cover that center but also has edges covered you risk that you will shot something that is far away. I vote to change end of a cone into an arc!
Because it doesn’t have to be documented?
Maybe let’s not over-complicate things.
Thanks @Yokes! Yup that’s it been a while is all.
Whoops, so is also in the in-game tutorial… So is documented then? What a shame…
Well the text is, The Overwatch ability allows soldier to guard area during enemy turn.
Most players knowing already overwatch will never see more text.
Much better in game information is the list of commands, you can’t change them but at least get the list. In almost all games, check this list is the best and most readable information on commands available.
A true tutorial learning would have been to require a width change during the tutorial, but they probably thought it would damage too much the tutorial fluidity which is quite good.
I feel like there is some meat on the bone for weapon type having an effect on OW. WP cost could be changed based on type, and even # of OW shots available (discrete shots, not rounds in a burst, I mean). Certain, easier to handle weapons could potentially get 2+ ow shots. Cost for OW could be further increased for heavy/sniper type weapons.
Agree, pretty ingenious system really. Now i am able to keep my guys from friendly firing my other guys during overwatch and to concentrate on certain enemys.
It would be nice if you could set your standard overwatch width tho.
If you don’t want to shoot the corner of a building, don’t include it in the cone.
Underrated comment right here!
I think one of the biggest mistakes is including obstacles in the cone, then your soldiers start shooting as soon as they perceive something in their cone, even if it’s behind a wall.