Technically, DDA is working (just needs a balance). When, and if, one saves and reloads it doesn’t change the DDA. It’s the outcome of a mission that is used. Whether one saves/loads from the geoscape or in the mission, it makes no difference (other than one’s game play).
That’s doesn’t change anything as “redoing” the fight and getting better outcome is what pushes difficulty up.
With any given save system you can still allow for ‘save on exit’.
It should not make a difference! If I want to save and load 300 times a mission that’s my call… I like to test out different approaches and ideas I do not like being penalized for doing so, that is my gripe! For example X-COM has found the perfect balance here, so it x-com can do it so can they, it really is a bad…bad thing! I hate it!
It is not about saving and loading. It is about how perfect your outcome was. If none of your soldier get hurt then either mission was too easy, or your tactic was perfect. I suppose in either case game should adjust difficulty, to give some challenge to the player.
Just allow some of your soldiers to take damage and game will not punish you.
No one is stopping you. It also doesn’t matter how many times you save and reload. It has nothing to do with it. It’s about mission outcome. If you are completing every mission with zero casualties/injuries, the game assumes it’s not providing enough challenge.
Actually. XCOM uses a dynamic difficulty system too. If you successfully land enough shots in a row, the game will make it so the next shot is always a miss (the opposite is also true).
That said, we’re already looking at a change that completely changes the way dynamic difficulty works while at the same time changing the way that the Pandorans evolve.
2 Likes
Thanks for clearing that up! I thought every time I saved it increased the difficulty… I get the idea of what your saying, but while that sounds nice it is not exactly correct (about the challenge) it can be fun and challenging to work out the best way to deal with the situation without losing anyone, that is my goal. It is a big deal so it is really important to get it right. I am glad to hear things are being worked on with this as I would truly like to not have to lose a man and complete the game without the AI going into psycho killer mode…
1 Like
It’s still possible to keep the DDA manageable, as long as one takes injuries during tough missions - no need for casualties. Though the latter should have a larger impact. I’m an extremely cautious player and try to keep my units out of direct harm. No dashing across maps, no melee attacks, hunker down and let the enemy come to me, using long range artillery and snipers when possible. I still get injuries, but avoid casualties. Prior to the Leviathan patch, this drove the DDA, into a frenzy. It’s much more manageable now.
Which is why some of us keep calling for the DDA to be suspended on Easy Mode.
1 Like
I’m just curious if DDA is currently tied to Pandoran “evolution”. They have at least toned down DDA quite a bit on Rookie mode.
They may have done. I don’t play on Rookie, and I’m currently taking a break from the game until they fix some things.
Doesn’t address Spag’s issue though - some people clearly want to play a ‘perfect’ game with infinite restarts and no casualties. If the DDA is based on casualties/injuries, that means that Spag’s preferred method of play will always result in the difficulty going up after every mission.
Now, the devs may decide that that’s Spag’s lookout and the game was not designed to be played that way - and that’s their prerogative. But from what I’ve read on these forums, he’s not the only one who likes to play that way.
Ultimately, it’s no skin off my nose - Spag’s modus operandi is anathema to me and entirely the opposite of the way I like to play these games (for me the challenge is in taking casualties as they come and managing my losses against near-impossible odds). But as I’ve said many times before, it’s not just about what I want, it’s about what’s good for the community.
As I said (from someone currently playing the game at Rookie & Veteran) one can keep DDA in check without taking casualties. One however needs to accept injuries to do so.
From my understanding DDA is just increasing number of enemies per mission.
Evolution on the other hand is kind of research for aliens and it isn’t tied to individual player performance on the battles. Of course some player actions increase evolution points available to the aliens, but it is not tied to balance of kill/lost ratio.
That said DDA will probably take into account what evolution level aliens have when deploying units on next battle, but it doesn’t infulence it in other way.
In my playthroughs since Leviathan I have noticed the Pandorans will show up with less armor and less powerful weapons after I take repeated losses (injuries). When I complete several “perfect” missions, they come back with more armor and more powerful weapons. I do agree that the number of enemies is also in play with DDA.
And that , in my opinion, is how it should be.
This is, after all, a game about surviving a post-apocalypse against insurmountable odds - and the idea that you could/should be able to do that without suffering a scratch is imho faintly ludicrous.
However, I accept that for this game to grow, Snapshot has to cater for the type of player who sees taking casualties whilst fighting a war as something that shouldn’t be allowed to happen.
Loosing soldier is very painful. Soldiers cost too much in the beginning; veteran soldier is very powerful and you can’t quickly replace him; sometimes you can’t find right class for hire; game has hard time limits, so you don’t have enough time to train soldiers to replace one.
So, save and load is all we need
1 Like
That’s fine for you, and I don’t deny you your right to do that. In fact, I keep calling for Snapshot to adjust the way the DDA works so that you don’t get punished for it (or at the very least, suspend the DDA completely on Easy mode).
I and others, on the other hand, prefer the challenge of trying to survive without altering the result every time it goes against us. It means you have to pick your battles very carefully, and be ready to pull out at a moment’s notice when it looks like the mission is getting too hairy. But for me, it creates a much greater sense of suspense and danger when I know that I can’t just do over if I get it wrong.
Both are equally legitimate ways to enjoy what is, after all, only a game - and the system should be designed to give both styles of play equal weight and merit, rather than punishing your stye in favour of mine, as it does at the moment.
1 Like
EXACTLY why I play to NOT loose them… But the flames I get over it is amazing!
Now that’s a steep statement, but who of those who complain about the level of difficulty really play on EASY?
I’m probably going to get trolled for this, but if you’re not playing on Easy - or rather if you’re choosing to play as a Hero or a Legend - then you shouldn’t be whingeing about difficulty, because they’re supposed to be difficult. Hell, Legend is supposed to be damn near impossible - it’s called ‘Insane’ in Mass Effect if I remember rightly 
However, if you want a game experience that lets you cruise through it without losing any Squaddies and doesn’t ramp up the difficulty curve every time you ace a mission, Easy Difficulty should be designed to give you that experience.
4 Likes