If you look at the reviews / tests, the negative aspect emerges again and again that the game has poor balance AND the level of difficulty is too erratic at the same time. Getting to grips with this problem means eliminating the biggest negative points and convincing more buyers for the future of the game, which in turn allows the game to grow more.
That means: If you currently need the superhero skills for the sometimes unfair level of difficulty, it does not mean that the “OP” skills are well designed.
When it comes to “OP” opponents, I think of chirons with bombs or acid that smash your entire team from a safe distance, so that you already lost in the first round because you didn’t even see him. This also has nothing to do with tactics. And I know: there are already some posts in other threads.
Exactly, because they are the two sides of the same coin.
Like here:
The alpha striking allowed by the extreme mobility makes taking care of Chirons trivial. So does the electrical reinforcement, btw. Of course, if you don’t alpha strike, or use electric reinforcement you can easily get whacked out of nowhere. But when the devs look at how the players are doing, the latter fact gets obscured by the former: it seems like the players are not doing too badly.
And even now when they are aware of the problems with the Chirons, it is very different addressing from within the current system, with its OP combos, where nerfing Chirons would make them even easier to deal with, or to do so taking the OP combos out first.
For example, without extreme mobility making Chirons prepare for a turn before firing could be a viable solution. However, as things stand now, doing so would mean that the Chiron could only do damage on a very situational basis, if at all.
Extreme mobility is available almost from the start (in any case, before bombard/acid Chirons make their appearance) - it’s basically high speed + dash.
ER is available as soon as you get a level 7 tech. That can also happen before you actually meet any bombard/acid Chirons, in any case early mid game.
Whenever someone makes a statement like “If you think xyz skill is OP then don’t use it” or “I’m forcing myself to only use xyz skill once per turn and that seems to be working out fine” that is pretty much the strongest evidence out there that that those skills are broken in the first place.
A game being in balance shouldn’t require the player to hold back on using the tools which are made available to them within that game. Balance should be inherent to the game itself.
But if the skills work when you don’t spam them, that means that the problem is in the spamming, not in the skill itself. It means that if the game only allowed one use of the skill per soldier there wouldn’t be a problem with it.
However, as someone who actually plays this way let me make it very clear that though avoiding skill spamming solves a lot of balance issues, it doesn’t solve all of them. Because, despite appearances, the balance problems are not (only) at the skill level.
For example, the more I think of it, the more it seems to me like there should be a penalty to accuracy for shooting with SR or heavy weapons after moving, and that something has to be done to limit accuracy of HWs (maybe make it somehow contingent on strength?)
Why am I basically only seeing complaints about player OP from the same voices over and over, but hardly a peep about enemy OP? I’m sorry, but I don’t understand why there is an issue whether a player wishes to use the mechanics of the game as they choose or don’t use them. Not every player of the game is the same. If it’s in the game and one thinks it makes it so easy, no one is forcing them to use it. If another player feels they need to opt in to survive, what’s the harm?
EDIT: in the game of chess, the rook, bishop and queen are OP. Why not change the game so there is only 1 of the previous two and no queen at all?
It would be OP if the other player didn’t have a queen, rook, or bishop.
Please, don’t take it the wrong way, but instead of angrily writing posts repeating over and over again the same thing, try to understand what other posters are actually saying.
If you’re saying this about me, then you need to look in other threads. I’ve also said that the enemy is OP plenty of times.
It is up to everyone how they choose to play a game, but when players are choosing to throttle themselves that is a huge sign that a game isn’t balanced correctly. If a game is well balanced in the first instance, then players don’t need to do that.
Chess is a good example of a balanced game. Both sides have exactly the same tools available to them. If players were to start saying that the only way to make their AI opponent challenging to play against was to not use the white queen then it would be a sign that their AI opponent wasn’t programmed well enough in the first instance.
If the analogy were a driving game, and the player’s car could travel 50 mph faster than the AIs every time they were in 6th gear it wouldn’t make that game balanced just because some players were choosing to never go past 5th.
Not aimed at anyone. But it does appear that there is a choir of a couple that are singing the same chorus over and over. While those of a different take are being told they are singing the wrong song. If some players sees a need of sniper/rage to survive, where is the chorus about removing this need? Instead the chorus is remove this tool. If a player sees things as OP, no one is forcing them to use it. Just because it’s in the game and can be used by others, doesn’t mean others can choose not to use it. But apparently, since it’s available, the game is unbalanced. I’m not seeing the argument that acid raining from heaven be removed. That’s when I need sniper/rage, not to take out a queen in a citadel.
I can sing and dance and juggle knives, so the need and the tools are removed. How does it fit the discussion?
I wish I could play the game I expected, without having to imagine the boundaries and limitations and challenge myself because game can’t. It’s not different to saying: “If you think enemies are too weak, pretend they one-shot you”.
Yes. Just because you can restrict yourself to not use some tools doesn’t make game any more balanced. You’re balancing the game because… wait for it… game is unbalanced.
In my view, the game has massive problems on both sides of the coin. The skills and especially their combinations create an OP like increase in the characteristics of their soldiers for the players and on the other hand there is also an OP like increase in the characteristics of the opponent. One is needed to counter the other, at least for a large part of the players. Adjusting just one side of the coin, which has already happened so far, see Dash and Stealth, can be very counterproductive because it causes more difficulties for a large number of players and they simply lose the fun of the game.
In my opinion, the developers should, especially after they have just nerfed a ‘tool’ for the players (stealth), now also look at the other side and start to tackle the problem cases (e.g. Chirons, acid …). Mainly because at the same time that they have made a nerf for the players (stealth) they even buff the opponent (acid).
For me personally, both sides are not yet that problematic, I can restrict myself to get a challenge, but on the other hand I have also no massive problems with the opponents. But regardless of that, the entire system also feels very unbalanced to me.
My point (and according to some, it’s either wrong or I misunderstood this thread) is this tread is not about balancing the need one finds for the use of rage burst by a sniper/heavy, but is a calll to nerf the skill. And as I have said before, there are other more demanding needs of rage burst in the current build other than taking out a Scylla in one turn.
As long the game throws so many players in situations where they exactly need this “Enemy Removal Tool” there is no priority to nerf it, just read the forum or this thread. And as i try to describe above, rageburst is not really the biggest OP problem on players side, it seems to be the ovious one, but in my opinion by far not the ‘best’. Mainly often too much overkill and too inflexible.
Where will you stop the playerside nerfs and when you beginn to nerf the opposite?
Both together?
I am unsure whether this will work and the more casual gamers will also support it. Most of them could only see the nerfs on their side. I think PP needs all the players left, it feels like a hard time for tough decisions. But I am unsure of what the right way would be to solve this.
Of course, both sides have to be adjusted, but will the casual gamer really be so enthusiastic about doing a scylla in the Citadel in the first round with RB sniper rifle? After all, the casual player knows that it is a tactic / strategy game. There are games where superheroes are normal, but they are completely different genres.
And of course there are other OP skills (as was excellently contributed here), but I picked out this skill because …
You win from a safe distance, so don’t rescue anything!
This combo is absolutely easy to generate. You don’t need units of factions. With the training facility, a soldier can easily be brought to the necessary level. You don’t necessarily need the best sniper rifle. And so on …
You can also use this skill as an example for “OP”. We have to start with something.
I really don’t know what other players feel, but I for myself was for shure a bit enthusiastic as I do this for my first time. It just felt great to punishing back to the enemy who put me under so much pressure before. After that it already was pretty useful in many sitiations but for shure also a bit … lame?
Edit:
Why not start to nerf the enemies that bother so many players? I’m just thinking …
