The way it currently works is +10 skillpoints for each successful mission, and only 20 skillpoints on level up with the intention of reigning in training facilities.
However, I feel as if this makes training new soldiers an enormous burden, and losing an experienced soldier is a heart-attack inducing event now (i.e. consider losing a soldier who has +200 skillpoints from being on 20 missions).
I don’t know what system is a way forward, but I think this implementation is a step backward even though it “solves” training facilities.
To be honest, I and I think most people do some sort of save scumming regarding actually losing soldiers…
I can suggest a fix though (perhaps for a mod?)
Make killed soldiers refund a portion of their skill points into the general pool.
This to represent the lessons learned of actually having a fight where losses have been incurred.
I personally like different starting options at the campaign start. This could be one.
And remember there’s still the loss of a soldier, and a net loss of points. It just is less devastating as it is now.
With such a solution people might actually stop save scumming.
Why some players want to stop other players to play a game the way they like?
Your solution willl never bring me to a point where i will stop that because it doesn’t touch the point why i’m saving and reloading or restarting missions. The point for me is that I mostly want to found a somewhat ‘good solution’ for almost any mission. Injuries are no problem for me, losing one of my leading soldiers of curse is even when there was any form of compensation. I like my soldiers and i hate to lose any of them. Anyway, the final goal for me is to do as many missions or missionparts without reloading or restarting. But i think i will never go the Ironman way, all tries in the past with Xcom, FXCom or what ever were to frustrating for me and i allways went back to save my games manually. A game without any form of controlled savepoints is a nogo for me these days.
So I get punished for ‘good results’ in the current mission with more dufficult missions afterwards? Fine, let’s get there and find a way to win this without to much ‘pain’ (loosing soldiers), because i’m pretty shure in PP there is almost allways a way.
For me ‘savescumming’ is a tool for any game to find exactly this way and have fun to play it. If things go too crazy I also have no problem to play at least on the easiest difficulty and if that also not works then there is something wrong with the game or i’m just to stupid to understand it (what is also pretty possible) > game over.
Breathe deeply. You are not being attacked.
Of course, you can savescum as much as your heart’s delight. Nobody will force you to an ironman run.
The point is not that people need to stop savescumming. The point is, that some people don’t really want to do it, but feel the need to because the loss of one death is too great.
Look at the OP: the complaint is that occasionally losing a soldier would be ok, if not for the massive amount of investment lost. That’s not your criterium, so as you’d always savescum around deaths this topic doesn’t really concern you either way.
The whole point of this thread is to make more playing styles interesting, not to make playing styles impossible.
All fine here, i don’t feel attacked, it was more a statement against this one point “people might actually stop save scumming”.
The solution is also ok for me, but I’m somewhat aware that things are not going too far in one of these directions and ended by something that could kill the game not only for me but also a possibly really high number of players.
Don’t get me wrong, I respect every player and specially I respect the opinions of the ironman players because they often have a better knowledge of the games and their systems as the big mass of more casual players. But sometimes, only sometimes, they have wishes that go a bit to far …
To add to this. Currently, the loss of the soldier is pretty flat thing:
there is nothing like small chance of him/her being revived at the end of the mission so death is always final
one solution to death is fly somewhere to buy new rookie
second solution is grab a rookie (maybe he trained a bit) from the base and make/spend some equipment on him
third is grab someone who is experience and has equipment and just chilling at base
neither solution is “fun” or gives an opportunity to do some interesting choices, it’s just a chore and setback resource wise. As resource can be always obtained this doesn’t add any fun factor either.
you lose someone when mission is challenging enough or because of the bullshit that game occasionally throws at you
because of DDA the game becomes easier when you acquire losses
So what is the point for me as player to not replay mission and remove losses? Besides feeling “hardcore” or “I should play how it’s meant to be played”. I play games to have fun, not to waste time on menial task so I can have some fun later.
To don’t waste time to replay the mission? And DDA should make it easier on you later.
Nevertheless. Are you asking if there should be a reward for losing units in strategy game? You don’t see anything interesting in losing unit and need to replace it? I wonder how do you play other strategy games. For example did you reload a save if you have lost 5% of units in Total/Supreme Commander? Do you restart mission in Starcraft when one of your Siege Tanks or Carriers from main striking force got destroyed? Ok, maybe units there were not so personal and trained (well in supreme commander they got better with experience gained), but still PP is strategy not an RPG.
It’s not a waste of time to replay a challenging mission. It is a waste of time to look for simpler missions so you can faster train your rookies. Don’t forget then when they don’t have skill they are near useless and you have to setup a stage for them to score multiple kills.
Well, maybe look at how it’s handled in old x-com and Xenonauts? There is no problem in hiring and using rookies, it’s painless and simple, doesn’t change your occupation completely. You are punished by loosing soldier as top guy is about 25% better than a rookie but you don’t have to have those 25% to beat the game.
5% of units in Supreme Commander is not comparable to your top soldiers. Loosing that unit doesn’t mean that now I have to grind to get back into the game.
I’m not asking if one should be rewarded, I’m saying you should be punished but not in a fun degrading way. Right now it just sucks, without any redeeming quality.
Except that you get snails, who move at 40% of the speed of the guy you just buried, can’t hit the broad side of a barn and will get mind controlled by a goldfish at first opportunity.
In PP a rookie with mutations (and now bionics) and the skill points pool is not relatively worse than a rookie with 3rd tier weapons in any of those games, and much better if the player invested in training facilities and recruited him before the vacancy opened up (which is kind of silly not to do, anyway you look at it).
Firaxis XCom is probably a better example of good loss mitigation, because you could acquire experienced soldiers by other means.
Though my favorite was how in EW you could make a critically wounded soldier into a cyborg, instead of waiting for a month to recuperate.
I would suggest the Devs adding additional (2 or 3) turn before the soldier goes to their perma-death (permanent death) once they fully crippled/immobilize. The unit could be revive from other soldier using medkit, an individual new perk system or any reasonable way to revive for the sake of balance and minimize savescum.
I don’t like the new system because it kind of forces you to play A LOT more mission in a single playthrough than before. Also the higher the difficulty the harder it will be to get enough lategame soldiers.
before patch:
Level 7 has 300 skillpoints
now:
Level 7 has 120, + 10times the number of successful missions done which means 18 missions done to be on par
soldiers from training facilities:
now estimating that a lategame/OP soldier needs at least 230 skillpoints for most skill/trait/stat-combinations this means that all new level 7 soldiers via training facilities still need to do some 11+ missions to be where you want them to be.
This means to get your 2nd-4th squad near your A Team you must do A LOT more missions.
PS: a fully maxed soldiers needs 742 skillpoints (dualclass, all skills, all rng traits, all stats) so a manually leveled toon will
PPS: Starting a new campaign on rookie and keeping track of soldier Xp trying to ge a grasp of how many missions you need to get to level 7 from just playing missions
You did not just take Supreme Commander as an example for losing units did you?
Either you have no idea about the core concept of that game or you do know yourself that this example is so far beyond reasonable it’s almost funny again.
Maybe that is it actually, it was an ironic comment?
Don’t take people with low TUs like a noob. Have training facilities. Is it difficult for you to understand 25% difference which I wrote about in the post?
What kind of comparison is that? Seriously, what are you talking about?
It’s not a good example, its a very bad example as XCom is even more mind bend on not loosing soldiers.
as it should be
