Thoughts on LW2, good, bad, and some ideas

Post Reply
Icreatedthisforyou
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 4:42 pm

Thoughts on LW2, good, bad, and some ideas

Post by Icreatedthisforyou »

After playing through I decided to give some feed back, the good, the bad, and then attempt some constructive suggestions to the criticism.

I think LW2 is an extremely solid foundation at this point, conceptually I think Pavonis hit it out of the park in maintaining the spirit of xcom2, while introducing a significant number of new mechanics and generally improving upon xcom2. However I feel like there is still room to go (and Pavonis definitely know this, unfortunately it seems like the community often times over looks this. LW2 is still new people remember the late stages of LW1 and forget that there were growing pains with LW1 if you compare early versions to later versions).

Things I like
  • I enjoy that the strategic layer has a lot of overall strategy to it. I enjoy that how I play the strategic layer impacts how easy/hard missions are at given times, and lets me shift around priorities. I enjoy that there are still multiple ways to play the game based on what you go for first.
  • I enjoy that the RNG of the airgameis out. On some levels I miss it, but realistically it won't be missed that much by me.
  • I enjoy the length of LW2 it is a little shorter than LW1, but I think the rough amount of missions is pretty solid.
  • I enjoy the AI of Advent, they tend to do much more productive things compared to the EU/EW/LW AI so there is far less cheese on that end.
  • I enjoy that overwatch camping isn't pushed into the forefront of every mission. I like that you can stealth several missions and use different squad sizes. Sure in LW1 you could play more aggressively but that often times means sacrificing the health and success of your campaign, so it wasn't really an option. It is kind of like having a giant frosted chocolate cake with ice cream in front of you, and some one telling you that you could have peanut butter cookies instead if you want. Sure you could have peanut butter cookies...but you and everyone else is having chocolate cake and ice cream. It was an option, an option you like and enjoy, but compared to other options it just isn't a good one.
  • I enjoy the feel of the game. I feel like LW2 captured the essence of xcom2 and made it better.
Things I don't like These actually tend to be minor things relatively speaking. They stem from things that I like. Further down there are a list of suggestions that I think would help.
  • First and foremost and arguably the most important thing that needs addressing. CLUNKY STRATEGIC LAYER I LOVE the strategic layer, it maybe my favorite thing about LW2, but there is so much clunk that shouldn't be there that it makes it annoying. Specific complaints, come from the AWC, the GTS, Haven management, and squad set up.
  • Mission diversity. I feel like the balance is out of whack, early on stealthing missions is just way better than fighting aliens. Early on all missions feel like they are timed. The end result is that you NEED to play a specific way in order to be successful in the campaign. This is just as problematic as the overwatch crawl being so prevalent in LW1.
  • Balance of classes. Part of this is due to mission diversity, but a large part of this is that some classes are really REALLY brokenly strong (gunners, gunners, gunners, and grenadiers) and some of that power needs to be shifted around a bit to other classes or just around within the class.
Suggestions: I hate criticism without any suggestions, it is too easy to complain and be critical and not really consider why things are how they are and what would need to change to make it better. So here are some thoughts, I am more interested in them sparking ideas of both Pavonis as well as the community rather than actually having anything done about them (except the strategic layer stuff).

Clunky strategic layer This to me is the highest priority of things to be addressed, more than balance, more than levels, more than game play, reducing the clunk. It is unfun stuff to think about and fix but all the little things add up, waste time and contribute to decreased satisfaction in the game. By fixing the clunk and not having those little annoyances in the background it would help ease criticism of other aspects of the game.
  • AWC/GTS: When a soldier finishes have the option to go to the respective building. Currently it gives you the option to "view soldier" this is worthless no one cares. Currently it gives the option to "carry on" this is worthless no one cares about the map. It NEEDS a button to take you straight to the AWC/GTS there are ZERO instances where a soldier finishes in either of these and you don't immediately want to go to them and see if you are putting a soldier in them.
  • AWC : When you are selecting a soldier to train for the AWC you should have arrows that let you toggle to the next/previous soldier available so you don't have to back out, click a new soldier, see what they have, back out, click a new soldier, see what they have, back out, click a new soldier, see what they have, back out, clic...you see the point, that was probably really annoying to read, everyone also knows it is annoying to do in game, it is like the whine of a tube TV, it isn't a big deal but that whine really gets annoying after awhile, like in class when the teacher won't turn it off and you just lose your ability to concentrate.
  • GTS: Training rookies should give you a list of your rookies with their stats. You shouldn't need to go out of the GTS, over to the armory, over to your soldiers list, figure out which rookies you want for what class, then go back to the GTS and remember their names. They are rookies no one remembers their names.
  • Squad set up (for missions): Give us a strip ALL weapons option, that would strip all non-saved weapons currently available of their upgrades. This would make building squads way easier and less of a headache as you often times want to shift things around depending on the soldier and the mission, in particular early when you don't have enough mods to go around.
  • Squad set up(for missions): The filter resetting is annoying and goes to the most worthless filter first, at minimum it should not reset for ever.single.soldier.you.place.in.the.squad. Filter priority: AVAILABLE FIRST...followed by anything else. Ideally you could pick the filter order (available first, class second, rank third or available, rank, class). If I clicked available to get all my available soldiers to the top, select a soldier, and go to grab my second solder WHY DID THE FILTER RESET.
  • Squad set up: (for missions) scumbag ESC key. You just spent 10 minutes setting up your squad...It would be a shame if something happened to it! In particular when you get to go through and set the filter for every.single.soldier.you.add.to.the.squad. Oh you want to change someone? Let me just reset that filter again. Reducing repetitive motions is one of the best ways to improve satisfaction.
  • Haven management: Give us little arrows to flip between the regions.
I am sure there are more that I am missing, but these are the big ones off the top of my head. They seem small but they add up REALLY quickly. Most are things that would be pretty easy to implement, and EVERYONE would love you for them (take me to the AWC/GTS, arrows for selecting the AWC soldier, rookie stats, filter in squad building not resetting).


On to the less important things, thoughts and suggestions on class balance.

Class balance Two classes specifically are problematic, gunner and grenadier.
  • Gunner has the best control, the highest damage, and the most versatility. They are hands down broken. That you can have a gunner control multiple people, or destroy cover consistently, or ensure a high damage hit on a target, or just blow up a priority target, or deal high damage to multiple targets at long range AND have all those options available in the SAME build is a problem. That power should be spread out to other classes, shifted around in the perk tree so you DON'T have all those options available on a single soldier, or they need more inherent weaknesses (bigger hit to mobility, or not being able to move and fire, or reloading ends turn).
  • Grenadiers: My specific beef with Grenadiers is that they very quickly become better technicals, only with more explosives, more versatility, and more consistency. The simplest solution would be to let technicals have different payloads in their rockets. After you get access to a special grenade (gas, acid, incendiary), you should have the option to swap from regular rockets to rockets with a specific payload, or the option to use the flame thrower as an acid sprayer. The technical would still be limited in the number of rockets it has, and the range of the flame thrower, but it would increase the utility of them a bit later on.
  • Sharpshooter: Bring back the strike rifle. This would give shooting sharpshooters the ability to do things early in missions, while not really kicking out holo sharpshooters, and just like in LW1 sacrificing power and range for mobility.
Ranger: My biggest issue with rangers is that gunners exist, I could bring a ranger...or I could bring a gunner that does the same damage or more damage than a ranger and has a bunch of utility options! I feel like rangers should have a couple more special shots at the cost of some of the passive ones. I feel like if the strike rifle was introduced they should have perks that affect it as well. Currently rangers have a lot of boring passives (do x gain 10 aim and 10 crit, do y gain 10 aim and 10 crit, do z gain 10 aim and 10 crit). The simplicity is good but they need more options in the utility department and the uniqueness department. Here are a couple examples of perks.
  • Punch through: Take three shots in rapid succession at the same target, the first shot deals minimal damage but shreds 2 armor, the second two shots act like regular shots. All three shots have a chance to miss, requires three ammo and both actions. Something that focuses on the ranger taking accurate shots (unlike the gunner that just throws bullets at a target until it is a pile of meat), while also giving the ranger some utility.
  • Spray and pray: Blindly fire your gun at all enemies in a general direction (roughly 120 degree) then hunker. Uses 2 ammo, has a 25/33/50% chance to hit each unit within the cone (25% against full cover, 33% against half cover, 50% against no cover), ignores suppression, flashbang, and doesn't trigger covering fire overwatch, can hit friendly targets. Basically give rangers some uniqueness and some scrappy abilities that promote being up in front and in the think of things, along with their trusty sawn off.
If I had my way I would rework the entirety of the Ranger tree it is just kinda bleh. The first rank pushes them in specific lines. If the strike rifle was brought back then it would be something along the lines of: Rank 1 would be strike rifle, walk fire, and gunfreak. Strike rifle allows you to equip the strike rifle, walk fire is walk fire, and gunfreak gives the ranger a free pistol to carry. The rest of the strike rifle line would focus on general shots, you could go that build with an assault rifle by taking walk fire still, the walk fire line would then be the OW build, and the gunfreak line would be a bunch of scrappier abilities that basically lets the ranger throw bullets down range. The free pistol means you don't spend a slot bringing a pistol and since they are going to be in closer scrappy positions you can make use of the pistol perks (aka bring back the gunslinger but in the ranger class). This would give the Ranger three unique builds, you could allow them increase their utility, and you give a compatriot to the technical in a short-mid range scrapper) which is kinda lacking.


Mission Diversity I think fixing mission diversity, or really just balancing out the frequency of certain missions would help a lot. It would allow players that want to stealth play more of those, it would allow players that want to take their time play more of those.

Timers: I don't have a super big issue with timers, except for the HARD timers where you lose your squad if they don't hit the evac point in time. In some cases the maps you get for these are ENORMOUS and require multiple turns of dashing. I agree with the idea that not all missions should be winnable, but losing a mission due to an inability to run in a straight line is just poor game mechanic design. There are a couple easy fixes to these missions, to turn them into soft timers. Before unwinnable missions you had the option to go back and abort, with these missions you basically are hoping you can maybe reach the evac point. This seems like a good tension building mission idea...but unfortunately it causes the wrong kind of suspense, it is a question of whether you just got fucked by a map and a timer, it isn't the xcom kind of suspense you get every time an enemy shoots at one of your soldiers. It is RNG but a fuck you RNG rather than a "That's xcom baby!!" kind of RNG.
  • Heavy reinforcementsHave advent drop in every single turn starting on turn 11. This would effectively mean you have +8 new advent on turn 13 and that number will increase rapidly the longer you hang out. This is easy to implement and fixes the issues with the hard timers.
  • Call for a new evac zoneRemove the hard timer and if you can't make it to the evac zone, you can call for one that takes "X" turns to arrive (while they shake interceptors), and you deal with reinforcements that drop in every other or ever 3 turns. Slightly more complex to add, still addresses the issue and still punishes the player for not keeping to the timer.
  • Otherwise I think timers are fine they push for difference in play.
Balancing timed missions vs non-timed missions: Right now this balance is out of whack I JL mentioned adding an untimed smash and grab mission, I think this is an excellent first step, I think there are a few other solid possibilities that could also go towards addressing some other balance issues, through unique non-timed missions:
  • Ambush the Advent scouting party: Give us some more haven action! A Advent scouting party was located near a haven there isn't time to call for reinforcements you have teh option of ignoring them (increases advent strength in the region by 1) or making them...disappear (sweet sweet corpses). Haven advisor + resistance members. Not a timed mission, basically a rendevous mission only without the faceless(es). Benefits of this: More action for haven advisors (frequently sharp shooters early) which would help with the experience they can earn, more action for haven personnel (level ups), more corpses (in particular early on). They are still tricky and risky missions you can lose resistance members but I think it would be a solid addition as well as a break in the monotony that happens both early (chain running stealth missions), and later (chain running large squad beat em up missions).
  • Distract the advent: Kind of like smash and grab JL mentioned except totally different. Once a month YOU can initiate a mission in a region of your choice. The reward of the mission is to draw advents attention to that region from adjacent regions (thus making things like liberation in those adjacent regions easier). You get dropped off in a city and you need to hold out for ~12 turns before you are picked up in the same spot. Advent saw you arrive and they know pretty much where you are and they are coming to get you! You could add appeal to the mission and uniqueness by adding small bonus objectives around the city that you could collect, maybe an item in a box, maybe little intel or supply on a computer terminal, maybe a prisoner you could help escape, you don't know what is out there or where they are, you would have to risk venturing out to find out. Advent strength for the mission would be based on Advent presence in the region. It is timed but no movement is really necessary. Requires at least 4 soldiers. I like this mission idea because it is completely different compared to almost any other type of mission and it helps give you a little more direct control over the enemies forces and it has several different ways that you could play it.
  • Random idea that popped into my head but I have not really thought about: Plant a spy/bait/false information. Exactly what it sounds like but I have put no thought into how to do it.
Avenger assault I have a beef with the Avenger being hunted by a UFO, flying around in circles, getting caught then you lose the campaign because no one was available to defend it. Yes there are options (just don't use 10 guys for a month), because lets face it THAT IS TOTALLY FUN!!! (/s) I feel like there should be three options:
  • Evade: Same as it currently is, you escape? Great! you get caught? Better fight or you lose the campaign.
  • Fight: Screw flying around, we can take it, same as the current fight when you get caught, you get to use any soldiers you have on the Avenger and if you don't have enough for a full squad resistance personnel fill in the rest.
  • FLEE...for help: Rather than flying in circles when you have no soldiers, Bradford does the smart thing, he flies to the biggest group of soldiers so someone can defend the Avenger. You choose which mission to interrupt (cancels the mission) you get to use that squad AS IS to defend the Avenger. The set up is slightly different your squad doesn't start at the Avenger. The Avenger has a door with health (like the defend the relay missions). You need to stop Advent from breaking through the door AND then occupying the space behind the door for 1 full turn. So it is a soft timer, they can get inside they just can't stay inside.
End result of losing any of these three fights is the campaign is over BUT they were actual fights for your campaign.


I feel like balance in the late game (defense stacking on enemies) has the same flaws it had in LW1, but it is kind of tricky to balance that out as your soldiers ramp up in strength, there isn't a great answer to this. MAYBE things like have more shield bearer style units, or a unit that actually heals enemies, or more mind merge like abilities, or just bumping up the armor on even standard units to make them slightly tougher to get through, a unit that gives nearby units armor (dampening like field), or an advent unit that starts pushing through some of the officer abilities (like a leader using the ability that reduces explosive damage taken by a squad for a turn upon activation). In particular making use of officer perks on advent leaders I think could be enough to up the difficulty in a lot of situation that you wouldn't need to up the RNG to make the game harder.



Sorry that was so long. Just some thoughts I have after playing.

TL;DR Pavonis I think you hit it out of the park with LW2. That doesn't mean it is perfect, nothing is perfect, I mean heck even now you are tweaking LW1 still. There is always more that can be done, and I know you know this, but don't let the criticism that has popped up frequently get you down. LW2 is awesome and I know you will continue to make it better. Here is some external feedback regarding LW2. Either way I know full well I will continue playing this for a long time. (PS fix the clunky Avenger strategic layer stuff, like AWC/GTS/Squad set up for missions). You guys did awesome.
User avatar
johnnylump
Site Admin
Posts: 1262
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 4:12 am

Re: Thoughts on LW2, good, bad, and some ideas

Post by johnnylump »

Thank you for the thoughtful and detailed post. This kind of feedback really helps.
User avatar
Valaska
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:45 am

Re: Thoughts on LW2, good, bad, and some ideas

Post by Valaska »

Wait, you feel Gunners do more damage than Rangers?

If my shinobi isn't playing the front lines then my rangers are doing ALL of the damage and work. They have a much higher to hit and just... Yeah, those passives you say are boring makes them outright the perfect workhorse. They're one of the few classes that can actually manage to hit Elite Officers.
dstar3k
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 4:11 am

Re: Thoughts on LW2, good, bad, and some ideas

Post by dstar3k »

Valaska wrote:Wait, you feel Gunners do more damage than Rangers?

If my shinobi isn't playing the front lines then my rangers are doing ALL of the damage and work. They have a much higher to hit and just... Yeah, those passives you say are boring makes them outright the perfect workhorse. They're one of the few classes that can actually manage to hit Elite Officers.
Not to mention, my understanding is that a Gunner has a bigger hit to infiltration time than say an Assault -- although I don't know if that's actually true, I've just seen claims that Gunners and Grenadiers are a big hit.
User avatar
Arcalane
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:42 pm

Re: Thoughts on LW2, good, bad, and some ideas

Post by Arcalane »

Valaska wrote:Wait, you feel Gunners do more damage than Rangers?
Per hit, it is a simple fact that Gunners do more damage than Rangers. Period. Cannons do more damage per shot than sniper rifles.

Yeah, take a moment to let that sink in. If you let a gunner set up properly (which is the same for basically any class) then they're gonna wreck anything you point them at.

~~
dstar3k wrote:Not to mention, my understanding is that a Gunner has a bigger hit to infiltration time than say an Assault -- although I don't know if that's actually true, I've just seen claims that Gunners and Grenadiers are a big hit.
Compared to a rifle, cannons are pretty unstealthy, yes. Grenadiers also have a significant multiplier. They both apply their penalties in different ways though, so it's hard to say how they compare exactly.
Icreatedthisforyou
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Thoughts on LW2, good, bad, and some ideas

Post by Icreatedthisforyou »

Valaska wrote:Wait, you feel Gunners do more damage than Rangers?

If my shinobi isn't playing the front lines then my rangers are doing ALL of the damage and work. They have a much higher to hit and just... Yeah, those passives you say are boring makes them outright the perfect workhorse. They're one of the few classes that can actually manage to hit Elite Officers.
Absolutely. Gunners will take as many if not more shots than rangers in a given mission. Each shot will on average do the same or more damage than the Rangers.

Hell a gunner that does nothing but saturation fire will compete with a ranger in damage. Heck a gunner that ONLY saturation fires once, will potentially do the most damage in any mission, it is the best concealment opener in the game.

They have enough abilities that you can ensure they are going to take 2 or more shots per turn. Add in the utility they bring and the only upside to a Ranger is slightly less infiltration time.
User avatar
Valaska
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:45 am

Re: Thoughts on LW2, good, bad, and some ideas

Post by Valaska »

Icreatedthisforyou wrote:
Valaska wrote:Wait, you feel Gunners do more damage than Rangers?

If my shinobi isn't playing the front lines then my rangers are doing ALL of the damage and work. They have a much higher to hit and just... Yeah, those passives you say are boring makes them outright the perfect workhorse. They're one of the few classes that can actually manage to hit Elite Officers.
Absolutely. Gunners will take as many if not more shots than rangers in a given mission. Each shot will on average do the same or more damage than the Rangers.

Hell a gunner that does nothing but saturation fire will compete with a ranger in damage. Heck a gunner that ONLY saturation fires once, will potentially do the most damage in any mission, it is the best concealment opener in the game.

They have enough abilities that you can ensure they are going to take 2 or more shots per turn. Add in the utility they bring and the only upside to a Ranger is slightly less infiltration time.
I dunno man, having a soldier that can fire, do rapid fire, then get commanded and do rapid fire again is 5 shots on one target with consistently increasing accuracy for each shot. A ranger is going to more reliably hit their target and paired with holo targeters, just... Do so much hurt. My gunner has pretty decent high aim but yeah never comes anywhere close to the hurt my ranger does.

They both have coil too, but she just has so much more accuracy than him even though they are similar.
Icreatedthisforyou
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Thoughts on LW2, good, bad, and some ideas

Post by Icreatedthisforyou »

Valaska wrote:
Icreatedthisforyou wrote:
Valaska wrote:Wait, you feel Gunners do more damage than Rangers?

If my shinobi isn't playing the front lines then my rangers are doing ALL of the damage and work. They have a much higher to hit and just... Yeah, those passives you say are boring makes them outright the perfect workhorse. They're one of the few classes that can actually manage to hit Elite Officers.
Absolutely. Gunners will take as many if not more shots than rangers in a given mission. Each shot will on average do the same or more damage than the Rangers.

Hell a gunner that does nothing but saturation fire will compete with a ranger in damage. Heck a gunner that ONLY saturation fires once, will potentially do the most damage in any mission, it is the best concealment opener in the game.

They have enough abilities that you can ensure they are going to take 2 or more shots per turn. Add in the utility they bring and the only upside to a Ranger is slightly less infiltration time.
I dunno man, having a soldier that can fire, do rapid fire, then get commanded and do rapid fire again is 5 shots on one target with consistently increasing accuracy for each shot. A ranger is going to more reliably hit their target and paired with holo targeters, just... Do so much hurt. My gunner has pretty decent high aim but yeah never comes anywhere close to the hurt my ranger does.

They both have coil too, but she just has so much more accuracy than him even though they are similar.

A single saturation fire from conceal can be +5 flank shots alone.

Kill zone can consistently be 5-8 shots in a turn.

Heck with a auto loader and a command you could easily pull +10-15 shots essentially on your turn between a saturation fire and a well placed kill zone for an incoming pod. With each shot dealing as much or more damage than the Rangers shots.


It would take 4 turns an auto loader and 3 commands to even match the gunner on that.

A gunner can cyclic fire command chain shot for 5 shots.

A gunner could area suppress for five shots.


A gunner can kill zone for up to 8 shots (I think I forget).

A gunner can demolition, command cyclic fire a target in full cover.

The ceiling of what a ranger can do with command is the floor for what a gunner can do with command.


I don't want to sound like a dick and I hate pissing in matches but the ranger is so heavily or classed. I have never thought "man I wish this gunner was a ranger" but there are plenty of times I wished my ranger was a gunner. I love rangers, infantry were my favorite class in LW, and I respect the reliable clean up a ranger brings to the table. But right now if I have to choose between bringing a gunner or a ranger, I will always bring the gunner EVEN if it means I won't hit 100% on infiltration.


Joinrbs, had the same comments after his L/I campaign, rangers just don't have the damage, it took getting run and gun from the AWC for a ranger to really start being worth noting.
cerebrawl
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:41 am

Re: Thoughts on LW2, good, bad, and some ideas

Post by cerebrawl »

Icreatedthisforyou wrote:Joinrbs, had the same comments after his L/I campaign, rangers just don't have the damage, it took getting run and gun from the AWC for a ranger to really start being worth noting.
My favorite perk to get for the Ranger from AWC is implacable. Shoot, move, shoot. But run and gun -> both barrels is neat. :)

But in the end, I feel like the problem isn't with the Gunner, it's with the Ranger. Of note is that their crappiest rank when it comes to perk choices is staff sergeant. Put some real meat there and it would go a long way. Maybe a choice between a mobility perk, damage boost, or area attack. IE: something like implacable, lethal or iron curtain, except I'd rather they were new unique perks. For example the mobility perk could be a cooldown based free move action, damage perk could be 2 points of passive armor pierce, and the area attack could be a standard shot on all targets in a circular aoe, maybe with walk fire mechanics(+30 to hit, half damage, -30 crit).

Another one that would be nice is if they could get something like Ready for Anything. If they end turn by using a standard "light em up" shot they go into overwatch.
User avatar
Postmaster
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:36 pm

Re: Thoughts on LW2, good, bad, and some ideas

Post by Postmaster »

This is some good feedback, I just want to say +1 to the clunky strategic layer, take heed JL. This man hit everything on the head and I like his suggestions to address some of the excessive clicking present in the strategic layer.

Other similar feedback from my personal experiences:

I agree that timers are overall fine and a good addition to the game. I just wanted to add my 2 cents in a similar vein to timers you described in mission diversity. I had a trap mission that was a Lib 3 kill the VIP. On second turn EVERY civilian started becoming a faceless and wrecked my concealment. I only had 3 soldiers so fighting wasn’t an option. Although this was a totally awesome experience of “OH SHIT” I did feel like it was an automatic squadwipe (it was) because getting to the evac zone against them and the regular aliens on the map was just impossible (I tried). Specifically for missions that have an evac zone set for you (pre-evac), I think the player should get the ability to set a second one if everything goes to hell like in this case. Give the player an option to turn around and nope right out of the mission if it is a suicide mission. I think this could be balanced by making it so you can’t call an evac at all for the first 2-3 turns of a pre-evac mission, and then if you do call one in, it takes several turns extra to get there. This would give the player at least an option to save their soldiers in trap missions while still making it fun by having to “hold out” until escape (and presumably failing the mission). The long evac wait timer would prevent it from being abused as an easy way out on non-trap missions.

LW2 is awesome.
Icreatedthisforyou
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Thoughts on LW2, good, bad, and some ideas

Post by Icreatedthisforyou »

cerebrawl wrote:
Icreatedthisforyou wrote:Joinrbs, had the same comments after his L/I campaign, rangers just don't have the damage, it took getting run and gun from the AWC for a ranger to really start being worth noting.
My favorite perk to get for the Ranger from AWC is implacable. Shoot, move, shoot. But run and gun -> both barrels is neat. :)

But in the end, I feel like the problem isn't with the Gunner, it's with the Ranger. Of note is that their crappiest rank when it comes to perk choices is staff sergeant. Put some real meat there and it would go a long way. Maybe a choice between a mobility perk, damage boost, or area attack. IE: something like implacable, lethal or iron curtain, except I'd rather they were new unique perks. For example the mobility perk could be a cooldown based free move action, damage perk could be 2 points of passive armor pierce, and the area attack could be a standard shot on all targets in a circular aoe, maybe with walk fire mechanics(+30 to hit, half damage, -30 crit).

Another one that would be nice is if they could get something like Ready for Anything. If they end turn by using a standard "light em up" shot they go into overwatch.

I think it is a combination of two things, the gunner and its overloaded kit AND the ranger and its underloaded kit. The ranger is good at doing a moderate amount of reliable damage, the guy I was arguing with isn't wrong that they have enough aim to reliably damage pretty much anyone. I do think ranger could use some assistance (and yes my suggestions with ranger were extreme and contain a lot of irrational exuberance about off the wall ideas, although I really like the gunfreak idea, heck give the ranger 2 secondaries, a free pistol and the sawn off, because who didn't like the gunslinger build).

Rangers are okay early on but they lose ground later when they still only get their pair of shots (3 with rapid fire) and other classes get so much more, it would involve AWC investment but I think that would be worth it on the Ranger that is in position to use the pistol AND has the aim to use it.
cerebrawl
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:41 am

Re: Thoughts on LW2, good, bad, and some ideas

Post by cerebrawl »

Icreatedthisforyou wrote:
cerebrawl wrote:Rangers are okay early on but they lose ground later when they still only get their pair of shots (3 with rapid fire) and other classes get so much more, it would involve AWC investment but I think that would be worth it on the Ranger that is in position to use the pistol AND has the aim to use it.
Or 4 with one on your turn, and 3 reaction shots with rapid reaction.

Gunner isn't the only beastly class though. Reaper shinobi, serial sharpshooter, grenadier, electric assault... and various AWC enabled monstrosities(for example a combo any class can get: center mass, hunter's instinct, faceoff. It makes for a very effective opener, especially if you can see multiple large pods).
Icreatedthisforyou
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Thoughts on LW2, good, bad, and some ideas

Post by Icreatedthisforyou »

johnnylump wrote:Thank you for the thoughtful and detailed post. This kind of feedback really helps.

Thank you for the hundreds of hours of enjoyment you and the rest of the LW/Pavonis have provided me (and will continue to provide in the future)!
Hazard
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 5:42 pm

Re: Thoughts on LW2, good, bad, and some ideas

Post by Hazard »

cerebrawl wrote: Or 4 with one on your turn, and 3 reaction shots with rapid reaction.

Gunner isn't the only beastly class though. Reaper shinobi, serial sharpshooter, grenadier, electric assault... and various AWC enabled monstrosities(for example a combo any class can get: center mass, hunter's instinct, faceoff. It makes for a very effective opener, especially if you can see multiple large pods).
Overwatch Ranger is IMHO currently the best build for the class. It's not thoroughly reliable for obvious reasons and enemies with Lightning Reflexes or very high innate defense (Tactical Sense should burn in hell) can put a quick stop to it, but I feel it's still better than the alternatives for dishing out raw damage. Also helps if you happen to get Lethal from AWC. :P

One thing I'd like to see changed on the Ranger tree is Kill Zone. The fact that it requires both actions to use goes directly against the core idea/ability of the Ranger class, that you can shoot first and then do whatever you see fit with the second action. Rupture could also potentially be replaced, if only to differentiate the class a bit more from Gunners.
Post Reply