i’m not saying anything like that. So you have nothing to reject and say somehting is untrue and unfair.
You probably refere here to amount of players finishing the game on some difficulty. If so then you are lying about stats. Game being for casuals or for hardcores have (mostly) nothing to do with percent of players finishing it.
Sure, I was just answering your question 
.
The point is that this is not possible anymore. It has not been true for a long time, and the context of the dicussion is that the game is too casual now. So even if the claim is true, it was an attempt to use a no longuer true statement to make a claim about the game now. So it is e very unhelpful claim in the context of this dicussion.
And still if required a lot of meta and it doesn’t work on all maps… Well, the statement was made in a post where the claim no meta is required and the person who made the claim said he did not have meta knowledge of the game and was not a hardcore player, is to me kind of dishonest.
Regardless I am happy to edit the comment and admit that at one point was not imposible.
Im not lying at all about stats, I stated very clearly that I refferred to the players that beat the game in legend. Now 0.4% of the players in steam. And the context was clearly about the claim of beating the game in leggend with a lot of self restrictions being very easy.
" Game being for casuals or for hardcores have (mostly) nothing to do with percent of players finishing it."
It has. Again in the context of the claim beating the game in leggend with a lot of self restrictions being very easy, referring again and again as a proving point of the game being for casuals; and of your claim all non hard core players being casuals. It totally has.
So I stand by my words. And stand by my original point you were making a black and white fallacy and an unfair statement.
They’re trying to find some perfect balance for all players but I don’t think they’re in good place to do that. Balance for hard-core players should be done mainly by people playing the game all the time (I assume devs are not in that group because they’re coding the thing - and coding is not playing).
On the other hand devs are as well not in best place to do balance for casual players, because devs know too much about the game. Example - overwatch icon. They didn’t care it was not visible because they knew it was there. But casual players don’t have that knowlege. Devs know all mechanics so it’s often hard to put themselves in new player shoes I think.
I don’t know how player council works in reality but the core problem is that they trying to find one solution that fits all players. You need to use playerbase to find right balance and stop making the same changes for all players across all difficulties.
My goodness, I told you again and again that I’m talking about how things were after EGS release, not how they are now.
And at the time it was something you run into, simply by spending skill points on stats and skills, not elaborate planning on how to take advantage of the meta. It wasn’t opt in, it was opt out: you had to think, what do I do to avoid having Terminators?
So it was at the time, for very veteran players and the claim no longuer holds, so it is pointless to make any statement about the game now, nor has anything to do with the game being casual. Which is the important point and as I said, the context of the conversation.
Yeah, I think they are in a very tough place there, tbh, because the playerbase is really diverse. I think the solution is ultimately something like Second Wave options, that allow turning on/off certain small elements that have a huge impact. Like, for example, gaining WP from kills. I made a thread about that a while back, if you are interested
I dont know what to tell you…
This is the only video I found. A video with a player with quite a lot of meta, cleaning the map in one turn but not the first turn, using not only one operative with combinations of abilities that no longuer exist.
I have also found this:
This is an OP and very specific old combination with may allow you to clear some maps with one unit, but hardly in a single turn. As I did not find a single example of it.
Both these cases seem like only posible with specific game decissions that require extensive luck or extensive knowledge of the game to be accesed.
I am not claiming it was imposible to clean a map in one turn with one operative, but seems to me far from the claim that could be generalized to the general state of the game, all situations, easily accesible to new players even at the time, and only available in rare ocasions to very experienced players or something even remotely relevant to current state of the game.
Also I did not find any example of it being currently possible. Meybe you can point me to any counter example.
Do you have idea that something like 40% of players in the stats haven’t started the game? And game can be casual even if you finish it on other difficulties without any restrictions. That was just one example. And you realise that even if game is for casual doesn’t require them to finish the game to prove that statement? Game can be for casuals and can be boring at some point, so people will not finish it. So percent of completed campaigns doesn’t matter here. I hope now you understand your point better. 
So you misinterpret stats and give false statements.
That is irrelevant. The claim would be still true as I presented it.
Also the actual number of users which did not start the game, would be 21.3%. As 78.7% of the players have at least one achievement. 21.3% is not 40%.
You can say that discounting the players who did not start the game (no idea why anyone would want them to try the game I guess); you would only be excludding 78% of the “real” players labeling them as casuals. Do you want a game that only appeals to 20% of its players? That hardly is convenient is it?
Now you can also say that your number would be accurate if you say 40% having got no more than the most common 8 achievements. But that is not what you said, your statement is false. Why would you present false stats that can be easily disproved to justify a false accusation is beyond me.
You accused me me lying when I presented accurate stats, followed by presenting easily dekunkable false stats… still have no Idea why.
It does matter because you were the one who divided the game on two groups: casuals and hardcores, presenting Legend as very easy difficulty, so all hardcore players being under your assumptions in the group of the people that finished the game on legend is more than a fair assessment of what you imply.
And a white and black fallacy is still a fallacy and an ivalid way to argue.
If you will loose all soldiers in a first few missions it will be game over. Loosing one or two per mission will be a very painful experience. Sure, experienced player most likely will endure and recover, but casual on the other hand will most likely quit. I just doubt early game could be fun for casual player and it may turn into nightmare very easily. 
Apart from game design, there are illogical and frustrating situations and large part of casuals will rebound.
I would say, not only casuals. Most players would actually quit. I would, and I consider myself an experienced player with 130h on the game. But I guess I would be a casual player under his assuptions, since I dont see myself going above veteran anytime soon, so there is that.
There is a dangerous worm crawlling here. As many people here are in the buble of PP enaged users in the forum and are mostly all very experienced in the game. In many cases people here is not willing to consider that the ammount of players who finished the game, but did not on legend are actually 10 times the number of players that actually finished the game on legend, probably because many think legend is too difficult for their taste (I am in that group).
To me the game in on the hard side of strategy games, I love it, but I admit that I struggle a lot with it sometimes. But looking at these forums, it seems that this group, who are likely most of the active players does not exist and their views are constantly ignored and talked down. When not plainly attacked and labelled as casual players who do not want to think and have no place here.
I certainly feel like that sometimes reading these forums. And I am an engaged user and an active player. To have this kind of elitist group thinking is very harmful. This way of thinking is actually vanishing people from the community and the game. Many may think that is ok and would make the game better. But it is not and it hurts PP.
Engine is right, its game progression, Panda evolution and mission repetition (some balancing and bugs) that need rework.
Its great archievement “its not yet another Xcom copy” - has its own story, universe etc.
It also has element of 4X4 Civ like games, and there I would like more freedom and less fixation to defend heavens - destroy nests / citadels etc.
Just like in old UFO (in that sense) Pandas could have many different missions and do various things beside terror missions - heaven defences.
My main problems are fast paced development early with late on waiting for something to be resarched or diplomacy level reached.
Why not having more proactive diplomacy to boost ranks with factions?
Why not having more freedom to explore then constant fly-back to defend?
Surely, you can let Pandas destroy factions, but you loose too much (resources, prestige with fractions, recruit and raid point)
Mid to end game is half boredom of repetition, half madness with total faction war.
Instead I propose small regional wars.
Also defending the Earth everywhere and fixing X bases is too much. Freedom to build bases, and not so many active Panda bases is right approach.
A lot can be done in this engine, but impression is developers push it this way, like they dont have player and testing team input.
Real team does not ignore its players recommendations. In team selected players test game to reveal bugs and needed fixes.
I am constantly arguing for that inclusion. And myself posted a couple of suggestion on that direction on the feedback tool. But I don’t think will happen anytime soon.
https://forums.snapshotgames.com/t/dynamic-conflict-between-factions/
Going back to the original point of the forum.
Why do you think gear tactics is doing far worse than Phoenix Point, and Battletech is doing on the other hand, much better?
Yes, I am also there, defending the whole Earth and missions all over are simply overstreching and require so many teams and development that they eventually exhaust the player.
Like in CIv, picking part of map (Earth) that could be ENLARGED and then POIs and missions radomized, with FREEDOM to build bases, would best solution.
Also from Civ6 one could pick very nice EVOLUTION towards players action: If one shoots with sniper a lot he would get proficient and more skilled, game would be more natural. All soldiers start generic and flat YOU specialize them. This is like fixed RPG that requires lot of missions (hours)
but my 1.5 years or so impression is that developers are either blind and deaf, or never test the game Its @JulianG good name that is hurt the most, as his name was major attraction point. Overall design and engine are great, something went wrong in campaign design and Panda evolution choice.
First of all, they do not reflect promise of adoptive tactics and organs at all.
So, rework how games roll, engine and backstory and anims are MAGNIFICENT as well as enemy (and faction units) designs.
No level of injected DLC can solve the players experience in this matters.
That Im not sure is actually true. Granted @JulianG receved a blow with the epic deal. (which makes hard even trying to asses how well is doing PP in terms of players). But the game has been so far succesful.
SG claimed to have a 191% return on investment soon after release without considering steam sales. There is a dedicated fan base, even if the game is also heavily critisized, but I doubt most people even disliking the game does not apreciate the scope and ambition of the design. Even if for many the game was frustrating and has many problems too. But is hard to deny the creativity, scope, effort and ambition of PP.
PP may be a bad game for many, but it is objectively not a lazy, explotative, overmonitized or uninteresting one. I dont think Kojima was hit by the mixed reviews and hate of Death Stranding, and I think @JulianG will also not be hurt by PP. Instead as the game seem to have been profitable is a chance to improve and become even more recognized.
I completely disagree, all the main problems seem to be of balance. Balance can be fixed, and has improved already. Maybe it will not solve all the problems, but I see no reason to say many of them cannot be solved.
But the game is profitable on hope and promise that wasn’t delivered. That’s why declining player-base is very bad. If they want to stay profitable they need to stop any development. Otherwise they will be throwing good money after bad leading to a situation where “profitable” state will be not any more. They didn’t convince people to buy the game after “promise / hope” phase. And it seems that they don’t want to invest in new promotion so its probably some learning phase now for some devs for some next project and Phoenix Point is not any important goal in their minds any more.
If I promise you some excellent product, and you give me money, and I give you some shit later then Yes I’m profitable. But so what? Reputation is not based on promise gimmicky selling but real product you deliver.
But is it? How bad is the player decline? It went from 5k players after release to an average of 500 in the following months. With a nice increase with the new DLC.
Yes, the number of players was never great, but it did not have any sharp decline (like gear tactics which is doing insanely bad on steam) but a soft continuous one that is more than expected for any game without mods, and yes it shows that a small amount of players were not happy at release, so the initial typical month of a flat line in steam was not there. But on the other hand, even XCOM or civilization VI had a supersharp decline of players at release, like most of the player base only played those games for one day, much more sharp than any decline PP had ever.
Games such as gear tactics or chimera squad have a strong start, keep the players for a month, and then the player count goes to almost zero. Other games keep doing well for a long time, but those are always superpopular games, games with mods, or games receiving a lot of updates or with online components.
You also need to consider that the peak player numbers was never high ever in PP and there is no way of knowing the Epic player stats.
Here is an example of the 4.5 month evolution of some games (rough) after release, I used the variable 4-5 months to not include major expansions and avoid ending in an uncharacteristic peaks.
So… most game lose 90% of their player base on the first 6 months. including PP, but where do you see that PP has done very well at release and then everybody stopped playing, or that it has a worse player decline than most titles? Because it does not feel like it to me. What it has was a very bad start in steam (probably because the epic deal). And we don’t have any way of knowing how the epic evolution was. So any claim in that regard is completely unsupported. and certainly the new players in steam did not dislike the game more than they disliked any successful strategy game.
You also claim the game was profitable on hope and promise that wasn’t delivered. Excluding the epic exclusive, I don’t think that was the case at all. I have not seen any claim of the game being not at all what was promised outside some unsupported claims, and some comment on water missions (I think the goal was not even reached on Kickstarter). Which I think the game does not need.
The game may not have fulfilled the expectations of many, and the epic exclusive certainly made many angry. But how much much of the game content which was promised has not been delivered?
So what I am missing here?. We seem like one of the few fan communities that hate the game they are fans of, quite unfairly If you ask me.
Also the game had less than 700K for development. Which is around ten times less the resources a game such as XCOM has. do you really think PP under delivered? Because I don’t think so.
It has many balance problems, yes. But claiming backers have been scammed is in my opinion ridiculous in terms of the delivered game content.