Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post Reply
Goumindong
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:04 pm

Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by Goumindong »

Just about to wrap up a commander regular game (Legendary is beatable, but not fun, iron man off for testing and error correcting purposes) and i thought it would be worthwhile to put some comments down on design and balance.

How the game went: I got an early(ish) base assault due to proper mission management and snowballed with EXO suits(which i rushed, rendering corpses to buying alloys to be able to complete the research) and purchased scientists. I did roughly zero autopsies (besides trooper and officer and a brief foray into psionics because i knew i was ahead and wanted to try them out) until coil guns had been completed. This was because i knew that the costs and values associated with their research was not worthwhile. The core cost for researching the items made any PG project a necessary planed portion of the run.

I ran two 0% supply raids, 1 0% troop column, and 2 100% troop columns. I ran zero 100% supply raids. I liberated three regions(so far, i suppose i could go and try to liberate more). I found one landed UFO's(but killed the mission by liberating the region before i could attempt). I purchased alloys and elerium from the black market and well as (roughly) every elerium core i could find.

Advanced Coils were completed on August 30th. I was able to remove a significant amount of Dark Events until i just stopped bothering to prevent the mission. HQ assaults were done with 8 men at 100%. I deliberately let a number of supply raids and troop columns finish.

It is currently the end of September and i am simply waiting for the shadow chamber to finish so that i can do the research (which will take a few days only) and then run through the end of the golden path line. I've got a full squad of MSGT shitkickers all kitted out in EXO/predator. The shadow chamber was delayed over a month due to lack of elerium cores. Similarly i almost certainly will not achieve plasma weapons nor second tier armor for similar lack of cores. I have not yet encountered the majority of the endgame enemies and don't expect to given how fast i have progressed.

I ran no significant gameplay effecting mods nor any second wave options

Proving Grounds Projects Completed:
  • *Alloy Plating
    *Basic Suppressors
    *Battlescanners
    *Hazmat Vests
    *Incendiary Grenades
    *Mechanized Warfare
    *Skulljack
    *Skullmining
    *Tactical Vest
    *Talon Rounds
    *Venom Rounds
New Combat Tactics Completed
  • *Tactical Infiltration: actually sat and simply trained an officer instead of going on missions to achieve this
    *Vulture: I was supply rich and also really needed some elerium core drops(i did not get any except set cores from mission rewards)
    *Vengeance: I was supply rich
    *Integrated Warfare: I was supply rich
Officer Rank Reached: Lt Colonel. Training Colonel atm... but its only really because i want the bonus infiltration times so i can go on more missions.

Squad Composition: One Heavy Squad, Multiple stealth squads. Heavy squad split sometimes for 5 man missions
Core Heavy Squad:
  • *Grenader(Support): Officer [officer training forced him to go on many fewer missions than i would have wanted]
    *Specialist(Medic): Kept wound times down plus spot healing.
    *Specialist(Hacker): Dealt with robots + perma-aid protocol for pointman
    *Spark: Came lateish. Pointman. Focused on armor. Got him at same point as mag weapons
    *Gunner: AoE lockdown (Hail of Bullets+demolition)
    *Gunner: AoE lockdown (Hail of Bullets+ [should have been demolition])
    *Sharpshooter(Death From above, precision shot, double tap): Primary kill
    *Technical(tank focused)
    *Technical(Tank Focused)
    *Assault(For when things really needed to die)
Main squad originally had two assaults but one died and i had no replacement. Technicals rotated in and out frequently due to wounds.

Core Stealth Squad:
  • *Shinobi
    *Whatever else was necessary/wanted to get leveled up
Specific Thoughts: For the most part i found the game working quite well. I like the infiltration mechanicHere i will go over some of the things in the game that i found wonky/not working as intended. This will start with the most visible aspects of the strategic layer (things you can buy and research) end with some of the less visible.(things you can do with missions)

Guerilla Tactics School: Overall i felt that the GTS has several effects on the game. Some of which i thought were negative and some of which were positive. In general I thought the goal was to increase strategic diversity and it failed in that goal.
  • *Soldier Promotion encourages planning and specialization: This reduces replay value because once you find the squad you like you're encouraged to replicate it next time: not sure how exactly to fix this but random promotion and then maybe a different primary purpose of the GTS might work
    *Prices of immediate upgrades were too high: Most of them are simply not worth it when you would want them, besides the larger unit infiltration. Early on, when you really might use some of them the prices are comparable to important upgrades(like a scientist or AWC) or more. Later on those upgrades are not valuable compared to equipment
    *Officers took too long to train: In long war 1 this seems OK. But in Long War 2, between infiltration and wounds, i really want to borrow the training mechanics from the psi lab for officers and for the AWC. My officer consistently lagged behind the team and simply didn't go on a number of missions because they were training. The officer should always be able to go with their squad(if they're not wounded)
Part of me feels like choosing classes is the right choice because choosing class's encourages people to have a strategy and use the GTS to achieve it. But at the same time part of me feels like constraints are the thing that drive the tactical aspect of the strategy game. More constraints allow the game to feel more difficult without simply adding more enemies. And that allows a more diverse set of play styles into the game.

I feel like the GTS was attempting to add strategic depth and instead simply made it easier to collapse to a dominant strategy. What might be a better option would be nixing promotions entirely and just having the GTS be officer training.

Advanced Warfare Center: this seemed to me much better than the GTS in terms of enjoyment because it allowed every soldier to be unique even when I trained the same(normal) skills. It felt to me like the goal was make soldiers more unique and so generate more attachment and strategic diversity and it succeeded.
  • *Similar to officers I really want the ability to continue training in the AWC. The inability to train and fight at the same time makes it a lot harder to attain skills on important soldiers. This makes it harder to enjoy the soldiers that get cool skills.
    *i didn't get any use out of the full retraining: for similar reasons to above there just isn't a point where you can reasonably drop an important soldier (even if retraining would be valuable). Playing roulette with AWC abilities could be valuable (if you could see them all) but ultimately you suffer the same training problems.
    *i really liked how you couldn't gain the scientists research bonus when they were employed at the AWC... I did not like having to micromanage that but understand that there may be limitations involved.
Overall the AWC achieved its intended goal though maybe not as efficiently as it could have. I could have had many more unique soldiers (or chosen between soldiers with better/more fun AWC combinations) if I was able to train more people before it was clear who I had to put on my A team.

Proving Grounds: OK so here are some big issues. The GTS was disappointing but the proving grounds hurt. Everything about it was disappointing. I felt like the goal was to allow players to pick unique items that a few soldiers could use but I felt instead that it enforced a strategy on the entire playthrough.
  • *prices are too similar: more or less the "cost" of a project is "one corpse and one core". And there are only so many cores floating around unless you're 0%ing a bunch of supply raids.
    *the high initial cost and then low reproduction cost meant that specialization was mandatory. The fact that many of the items were only minor upgrades does not help this.
    *many of the items produced are just not valuable. Neither unique nor important enough to warrant being projects. This gets is separate section though
    *weapon mod upgrade projects are just terrible: suppressors are minorly useful but you need the project most for items that you do not acquire enough of... Which means you can't run the project.
Overall I want to see PG projects and individual purchase swapped in marginal value. Once you complete the research you should be able to purchase the individual items at 2x to 5x their current cost. And then doing the PG project would make them infinite/basic (like smokes). The project cost would be quite high compared to what it is now but still only cost one core. This way you can reasonably buy one or two of the speciality items but equipping everyone would be quite hard unless you wanted to dump into the project. That or when you did the autopsy you would get a prototype round (with no way of increasing the number) and then doing the PG would make them unlimited.

This would encourage diversification with only minor forays into the things you wanted to ensure everyone had access to. That is, you can kit your primary squad with unique items and then kit your secondary squad with a standard set. Alternately you could move back to the "each project produces one and only one item" and not allow any instant building. Alternately (if simply given to you) you would have lots of one off items to play around with, and would use them because they were free.

Similar projects could be added for weapons (one tier removed... So once you had laser and mag you could upgrade everyone to laser with a highish cost pg project and a core) and armor.

Weapon mod projects should make that level basic upgrades and allow you to buy the next level at an inflated cost. You can gate behind higher quality corpses if you're concerned about too many weapon mods but I don't believe that will be an issue since there is still an elerium core cost and elerium cores are super important. But realistically these are just here at the moment to bait you into wasting cores. It's difficult to get enough loot drops to achieve the top end upgrades of the more broadly applicable items let alone have 3 cores necessary per upgrade to do so. If these are intended to be "general stat up" items available for resources then they failed miserably at achieving it.

Expressed in each individual item type (exception of vests) is potentially a product of the way that PG projects are designed in general. I do not feel like i got to play with any of the cool toys that i saw in the PG. There simply were not enough elerium cores in order to run the PG's let alone buy the items (the better of which now cost cores)

Ammo: I always thought that the point of ammo was to let individual soldiers specialize in killing certain types of enemies or applying certain effects, giving each soldier an ideal target. A small constraint which can produce tactical options. And/or provide a unique options for aim based classes.
  • *AP rounds are too strong or all the others are too weak. The vast majority of high value targets have some amount of armor and so minor +damage to specific enemies is very weak in comparison. It also comes far too early for its value.
    *Ammo should not cost weight. It already has the cost of taking up the slot of a generally more useful item. More importantly ammo without weight opens up taking it on soldiers who value their mobility. This in and of itself makes some of the weaker ammo more likely to be used(given prices are fixed)
    *ammo is focused too much on doing damage, because of this there are clearly superior options
    *redscreen rounds are a great idea (as would be fear rounds for -will) but only high weapon damage units can really afford to use ammo(due to the value of other items from their specialization) and so the classes which might like this are constrained
Overall I want ammo that is less damage focused and more unique effect focus. In order to create diversity prices need to be apropriate balanced. AP ammo could be dropped entirely. More potent ammo like viper or incendiary could be very expensive(even requiring cores) to mitigate their power.

Thinks like reducing enemy will or dodge or mobility seem high on the list of "cool options". Stun rounds (stun 1) could be fun. Shredder and redscreen are good examples of ammo types that make sense under this rubric. However, having weaker ammo like this might require a dedicated ammo slot, as otherwise there will be very little incentive to take it over something more powerful like a flashbang.

Otherwise the answer seems to be "Shooters get ammo and only get the best general ammo" which seems counter to the design ideal. And once that happens ammo has to be incredibly powerful to compete with other "1 core" projects or even basic constructed items like smoke grenades.

Almost more importantly i felt like i didn't get to "play" with any of the unique ammo. While this is no big deal for ammo since so much of it was boring its more important for other things like

Grenades: Grenade items are very disappointing. Not only is there little reason to produce many of the grenade types but there wasn't much of a point to put them on anyone but a grenadier. And then, on top of this. The cost and value associated with the varying grenades made them not worthwhile to produce.

Vests and Plating: I really liked vests and plating. They felt unique and valuable. I put different ones on different soldiers and felt like they did interesting things for each soldier. I also felt like they were individually strong enough that i might drop other free items (grenades/etc) in order to put some of the stronger vests on what otherwise might have been utility soldiers. They effectively replaced free items (medkits on gunners to make them immune to poison) and let me take tactical actions i would not have otherwise.

Psionics: Took too long to get going. Overall not that expensive but the training times still felt high. They did not feel like prestige or premium classes that you had to really work to achieve. But more like something you had to babysit and then you still might not use. The reduction in training time in 1.2 might help but i am still feeling like it won't be enough
  • *Psion XP progression makes it possible to cheese promotions by running 0 xp missions (once they have done one mission and gained XP)
    *Psion promotions requiring training negate the value in going on missions while training. You lose training time infiltrating and also don't get a bonus promotion. This encourages cheesing promotions
    *Psion equipment is super expensive compared to comparable equipment for non-psions with generally lesser effect
    *Psion training time requires that any AWC abilities desired are even harder to attain
The main issue i have i suppose is that i do not understand when to build psions. If you attempt it early then you have some psions but they're super weak, and you don't have the other equipment necessary in order to complete the game well. If you attempt it late they never train up in time. I am thinking of maybe rushing it in my next game... but that can actually be hard because you're at the mercy of when you can acquire sectoid corpses... which kind of forces you to go on that first 0% supply raid that pops up.

I don't have any clue how anyone is supposed to afford the psi upgrades when they cost elerium cores. Well besides abuse troop columns and supply raids

Rebel Organization and mission choice: I didn't find this very interesting at all. There are some quirks you can use to know when you can set certain things certain ways. But in general you need so much intel in order to find certain missions that you're going to want hard intel generation everywhere until you switch to "don't bug me mode" and run 4/4/4 while you liberate an other region. I also found it way too risky in order to do anything but have soldier advisors unless you had liberated a region(at which point intel only helped you prevent invasions so you might as well just go full supply with an engineer)

More interesting was choosing which missions to go on, which missions to intentionally scrub, and so on and so forth. This mainly revolved around supply raids and troop columns... but those didn't seem very well implemented in general. Additionally the mechanics of when to go on a mission and when to scrub a mission aren't that well understood.
  • *Intelligence generation is way too important: Ironically making it more potent may fix this
    *Soldiers way too good as advisors: Maybe scientists/engineers should not go on retals if they're in the haven?
    *Troop columns and supply raids are heavily incentivized to run at 0%
I feel like i want to flip the infiltration structure for troop columns and supply raids and then hide the majority of them from the player. While manipulating enemy force strength is a valuable mechanic its way too powerful in terms of overall flow of the game.

An alternate structure i had worked as follows
  • Troop columns and supply raids work backwards on infiltration. Because advent has some idea that xcom is around they bring in fewer supplies and troops. If you attempt to go right there and bust in, advent will figure it out and disperse before you can hit them, negating the ability to do the mission if not infiltrated to 50%. Generally these missions are easy to detect and so will have reasonable timers on them. At 50% infiltration these missions would be very light, and have minimal supplies. At 200% they would be swarming.

    This has an advantageous effect of letting the player determine their risk level and also making harder supply raids more viable later in the game once players unlock the "big squad size infiltration" upgrades. If players want to run 4 men on a 200% they probably can. But they won't be able to run 10 men on a 200% (the equivalent of a 0% today) because they simply don't have enough time to infiltrate. I suspect that most players will run around 100% infiltration.

    This however breaks the strategic purpose of raids. So it might make sense that missions done under some set % cause the aliens to repeat the mission. This would work thematically because at low% they didn't lose many resources they can just try again. The repeat mission would be hard to prevent/detect (I.E. extremely hard to prevent).

    This gives players three options: "Smash and Grab but don't prevent the strategic objective" and "infiltrate for a moderate risk/time and negate the strategic objective" and "infiltrate for a long time for high risk and negate the strategic objective"

    I think that these three options really enhance the ability of players to play the game, smooths out the resource generation, lets resource generation from these missions scale with the game time, and also fits within the rubric of the game.

    The big downside is that you would have to explain the mechanic to players (and they already don't read the documentation; so uhhh good luck with that :P)
Class Balance: Overall i thought classes were pretty well balanced both within and without. That classes had their own specific purpose and worked pretty well within their role. Well minus gunners and rangers
  • *Assaults: Scale amazingly, valuable all the time for all trees
    *Grenadier: Scale well, valuable all the time. Both trees are quite nice
    *Gunner: OP - Not only is it some of the best area lockdown but its also a great high damage unit
    *Ranger: UP - Its a gunner without area suppression and less damage
    *Sharpshooter: The ability to set up position that will not be respected with respect to flanks(and also DFA) is amazing
    *Shinobi: Runs all the stealth missions
    *Specialist: Great utility, kills drones dead, prevents ally deaths
    *Technical: Early game carry. Still valuable lategame with strong tanking options
Rangers are well, kind of weak. Their primary advantage requires them to not move. And this means that their damage is very low compared to other classes who can do things when they move or make it so that you don't have to move. Neither do they scale particularly well. Most importantly they don't do the thing they really need to do better than gunners. Gunners get the "cool abilities" that it would seem like rangers ought to get and so do as much or more single target damage. And so rangers languish in my havens while gunners go do all the missions and win everything.

They're actually not bad as haven advisors. Because you have so few options available and because the missions aren't so difficulty that sitting and trading isn't a fine thing to have happen. But in the end rangers end up feeling neither unique or valuable. Ideally i would like to see them built around "Run and Gun" which is yes, quite amazingly powerful. But either rangers need to get chain shot and cyclic fire and deadeye or they need to do something unique.

Aliens: This is going to be short. I generally like the alien design but would like to to be a bit more unique. The fact that viper snipers can move and then shoot annoys me. Units which have specific advantage should have specific exploitable penalties(yes i know viper snipers have lower aim as you get close... but they can just run away and shoot you)

Features: i really want to ability to pick up alien corpses and evac with them. I only need one corpse for an autopsoy i want to be able to go and kill one and evac with it.
Jacke
Posts: 623
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:10 am

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by Jacke »

I like the idea about the GTS Officer and AWC training being interruptible and allowing the soldier to go on a mission and later return to finish it without any loss of progress, like the Psi Lab training is done. I just discovered Lib 3 (Neutralize ADVENT VIP) with nearly 9 days remaining, but the squad leader was training 2Lt in the GTS. Decided to risk delaying launching for 3.5 days so he could finish. I don't know if this could be done by LW2. I couldn't find a mod that does it.
chrisb
Pavonis Dev
Posts: 364
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:43 pm

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by chrisb »

Love the idea of being able to pick up alien corpses and evac with them. Would need certain limits to prevent being too exploitable. Most no corpse missions have the timer + RNFs that would prevent you from just scouring the map for everything you killed.

I also like the idea of not losing all the training from the officer/awc perk training. There's no reason why an officer should 'forget' their training just because the went on a mission or had to fill in for a haven advisor.
Goumindong
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:04 pm

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by Goumindong »

chrisb wrote:Love the idea of being able to pick up alien corpses and evac with them. Would need certain limits to prevent being too exploitable. Most no corpse missions have the timer + RNFs that would prevent you from just scouring the map for everything you killed.

I also like the idea of not losing all the training from the officer/awc perk training. There's no reason why an officer should 'forget' their training just because the went on a mission or had to fill in for a haven advisor.
All evac missions already have infinite RNFs anyway.

You would have to pick up the body so you would be limited by the number of soldiers you brought and would be prevented from firing while lugging the thing around.

Edit: its a technical challenge if anything
Jacke
Posts: 623
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:10 am

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by Jacke »

Goumindong wrote:All evac missions already have infinite RNFs anyway.

You would have to pick up the body so you would be limited by the number of soldiers you brought and would be prevented from firing while lugging the thing around.

Edit: its a technical challenge if anything
I use the mod Evacute Corpses, because XCOM can haul out their own wounded and dead, why not ADVENT's. I edit its config to prevent soldiers from carrying the heavier aliens like Mutons and Andromedons. It can be risky doing XCOM Bodysnatchers, but I usually only haul in corpses near the evac. The first enemy reinforcements are good for that; get the whole squad on overwatch and half or more of them will be dead or badly wounded. Finish them off, pick up the corpses, then the evac is a short stroll away. :)
justdont
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 2:36 pm

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by justdont »

After reading the post, I can't help thinking that most of strategic layer issues aren't actually issues - they're created by the fact that at the moment it's possible and extremely profitable (as in, increasing your chances to win campaign) to rush the main techs, train soldiers, and do golden path missions.

Well, I think that instead of, for example, balancing PG projects so that they would line up nicely with tech rushing - it should not be possible at all to rush through the game. It's a goddamned Long War, not Rush War. It would be nice if campaign length would be more predictable (currently it's possible to both lose very quickly to doom counter, or stall doom counter so heavily that you'll easily have over 12 months for a campaign even on Legendary), and it would be nice if all rushing strategies were severely nerfed without any mercy.

Primarily, this includes nerfing "cheesy" loot missions, but also other ways of snowballing supplies (extreme supply gains through liberated regions, for example). Maybe some more measures will be needed, but at the moment XCOM having too much easy cash is definitely the worst offender - if supplies were much harder to come by, rushing weapon/armor techs would be much less efficient, as they're gated by supplies quite a lot.
User avatar
3tamatulg
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 1:56 am

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by 3tamatulg »

Goumindong wrote:*weapon mod upgrade projects are just terrible: suppressors are minorly useful but you need the project most for items that you do not acquire enough of... Which means you can't run the project.
Was about to create an entire thread for this but I'll just post here - I totally agree. They need to be massively cheapened in some way. You find so many lying around and you only need certain mods for certain weapons.

To get something worthwhile like Elite Suppressors you need to invest:

- 3 elite suppressors
- 3 advanced suppressors
- 3 suppressors
- 3 elerium cores
- 90 supplies
- cost per item you want to manufacture

This is prohibitive, and by the time you can afford it you don't need them any more. That and by definition if you can afford it, you have 6 advanced/elite mods of that type, further reducing the benefit you gain.

My suggestion would be that you completely scrap these projects, if you make them too cheap they'll quickly become imbalanced.

What I would instead suggest is that there is a project which is repeatable (if possible) which takes in a Suppressor and spits out a single Advanced Suppressor at the cost of maybe a couple of alloys, and the same for Advanced to Elite with a bit more of a cost. It would give the Proving Grounds something to do during all that idle time it ends up having while you're choked for cores.
Goumindong
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:04 pm

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by Goumindong »

3tamatulg wrote: What I would instead suggest is that there is a project which is repeatable (if possible) which takes in a Suppressor and spits out a single Advanced Suppressor at the cost of maybe a couple of alloys, and the same for Advanced to Elite with a bit more of a cost. It would give the Proving Grounds something to do during all that idle time it ends up having while you're choked for cores.
I really like this. It would also clean up the cluttered upgrade UI
Saph7
Long War 2 Crew
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 4:00 pm

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by Saph7 »

Goumindong wrote:Overall I want to see PG projects and individual purchase swapped in marginal value. Once you complete the research you should be able to purchase the individual items at 2x to 5x their current cost. And then doing the PG project would make them infinite/basic (like smokes). The project cost would be quite high compared to what it is now but still only cost one core. This way you can reasonably buy one or two of the speciality items but equipping everyone would be quite hard unless you wanted to dump into the project.
I'd love this. As it is it's really hard to justify any of the weapon upgrade mods aside from Suppressors and Expanded Mags (and maybe not even those). At the moment the inability to effectively mass-produce weapon upgrades is yet another factor pushing you into having one A-team with Advanced/Elite everything and a bunch of stealth squads with no combat gear at all. It's also just so boring swapping mods around, it would be great to be able to just slap Advanced X mods on absolutely everything and forget about it.
Goumindong wrote:Rangers are well, kind of weak. Their primary advantage requires them to not move. And this means that their damage is very low compared to other classes who can do things when they move or make it so that you don't have to move. Neither do they scale particularly well. Most importantly they don't do the thing they really need to do better than gunners. Gunners get the "cool abilities" that it would seem like rangers ought to get and so do as much or more single target damage. And so rangers languish in my havens while gunners go do all the missions and win everything.
I sometimes think I'm the only one who kind of likes rangers (I hear JoINRbs complain about them all the time on his stream). I think they get a bad rep partly because they're really bad in the early game, when you're racing timers with ballistic weapons. Once you have Laser Rifles they get a big jump in effectiveness – yes, every class benefits from that, but Rangers use them better than anyone else. They're also much better once you start doing troop columns/supply raids, where stand-and-shoot becomes effective. Watching my AP/Laser Ranger kill two Drones in one turn, then do it again on the next mission, did a lot towards warming me up to the class.
Goumindong
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:04 pm

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by Goumindong »

I mean, no rangers are still pretty bad. Even as weapons are upgraded. They get some OK abilities and kind of have some interesting utility but...

So the big thing about sharpshooters is that DFA allows you to fire and then steady. Which gives a significant amount of aim and critical chance. Rangers can do this as well, but rangers have a problem in that, because they don't have squadsight they aren't guaranteed* a good shot on a target the next round. A sharpshooter can hit anything from safety and then also stack height advantage and then also not have to worry about having good cover.

Rangers can't do that, and so, even if they want to shoot+steady (as opposed to shooting twice which is probably better). They've got a significant detriment compared to their larger gunned option. Then we start adding the bonus damage and crit and aim abilities that sharpshooters get and its not a contest. Whereas the aim and crit bonuses Rangers get require missing or inefficient targeting**

If we are talking about a shot trading situation and need a front then you would generally rather have gunners. They get grazing fire earlier. They get area suppression. They get a higher damage weapon with more ammo and guaranteed damage options. They get the ability to destroy cover. So that is barely matters who is shooting at the target.

There are interesting things they can do (shoot+steady and shoot+hunker) but they largely turn the unit into a weaker version of a better one when doing so. (Hunkering also tends to push enemies to shoot other targets)***

As a defensive/front line unit shinobis and tacticals are better. With long wolf, tactical sense, and hard target a shinobi will have 70 defense in cover and boatloads of dodge. Hunkered (I.E. If only visible target) they will have over 100 defense and upwards of 100 dodge. Technicals can spawn their own smoke and/or shred enemy armor while being that front line.

Their only truely unique and separate value is in overwatch. Which takes a very long time to get good, doesn't scale that well, and still doesn't get so much better than specialists or gunners that it's worth training them.

When it comes down to it Rangers are "an extra gun, but only sometimes" and that doesn't cut it when you have a 6-10 man squad

*well not to the extent that sharpshooters are

**using the "high damage unit" to kill low HP enemies.

***though ironically Rangers do start being hilarious when you have a full squad or a close(and no time limit and they all have mindshields and hazmat/medkkts) because they all can shoot+hunker giving everyone ridiculous survivability while still shooting.
Saph7
Long War 2 Crew
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 4:00 pm

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by Saph7 »

Goumindong wrote:So the big thing about sharpshooters is that DFA allows you to fire and then steady. Which gives a significant amount of aim and critical chance. Rangers can do this as well, but rangers have a problem in that, because they don't have squadsight they aren't guaranteed* a good shot on a target the next round. A sharpshooter can hit anything from safety and then also stack height advantage and then also not have to worry about having good cover.
DFA sharpshooters require you to kill the target to get any benefit and need a high ground perch. That's often going to be the case, but not always. If it was, I'd be bringing 4 sharpshooters to every mission. I get that you hate rangers, but given that I've actually seen them work (and work consistently, over many many missions), then I know that they're not as bad as you're saying.
aedn
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 2:12 am

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layerha

Post by aedn »

Goumindong wrote:I mean, no rangers are still pretty bad. Even as weapons are upgraded. They get some OK abilities and kind of have some interesting utility but...

So the big thing about sharpshooters is that DFA allows you to fire and then steady. Which gives a significant amount of aim and critical chance. Rangers can do this as well, but rangers have a problem in that, because they don't have squadsight they aren't guaranteed* a good shot on a target the next round. A sharpshooter can hit anything from safety and then also stack height advantage and then also not have to worry about having good cover.

Rangers can't do that, and so, even if they want to shoot+steady (as opposed to shooting twice which is probably better). They've got a significant detriment compared to their larger gunned option. Then we start adding the bonus damage and crit and aim abilities that sharpshooters get and its not a contest. Whereas the aim and crit bonuses Rangers get require missing or inefficient targeting**
rangers are not nearly as bad as you state. They are a volume fire class that is able to stay mobile, and work as an alternative to sharpshooters, who have to remain stationary to do damage,excluding snap shooters, which are situational.

A critical build ranger has more crit then sharpshooters, can still take defensive perks to minimize risk and is able to make a total of three attacks per turn with rapid fire, all with a much higher chance to crit enemies under a wider range of conditions, or move and take two attacks.An overwatch build can make up to four attacks per turn, sacrificing crit to boost reaction fire.

They are on an equal level with sharpshooters at the moment, providing a different play style for those that like them. Both gunners and assaults are superior to rangers and sharpshooters in terms of raw damage output.
Goumindong
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:04 pm

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by Goumindong »

Saph7 wrote:
Goumindong wrote:So the big thing about sharpshooters is that DFA allows you to fire and then steady. Which gives a significant amount of aim and critical chance. Rangers can do this as well, but rangers have a problem in that, because they don't have squadsight they aren't guaranteed* a good shot on a target the next round. A sharpshooter can hit anything from safety and then also stack height advantage and then also not have to worry about having good cover.
DFA sharpshooters require you to kill the target to get any benefit and need a high ground perch. That's often going to be the case, but not always. If it was, I'd be bringing 4 sharpshooters to every mission. I get that you hate rangers, but given that I've actually seen them work (and work consistently, over many many missions), then I know that they're not as bad as you're saying.
DFA sharpshooter will be rocking roughly 100%* crit before precision shot(and then you can precise on higher dodge targets) against targets in cover. Killing things isn't an issue for sharpshooters. That doesn't mean you bring only sharpshooters but it does mean that when you want something to die and have plenty of time to trade fire you bring sharpshooters. Rangers will not be able to consistently exploit high ground bonuses.

Any class can be mobile and shoot. The only thing Rangers do particularly well is OW and it takes them so long to get there and it's still very "eh" once you do compared to other classes.

*highest I've seen was 145% against a berserker. And yes I one shot it with precision shot. This is far more than Rangers can achieve (55 vs targets in cover.. 80 if they steady)
Jadiel
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:28 am

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by Jadiel »

Goumindong wrote:DFA sharpshooter will be rocking roughly 100%* crit before precision shot(and then you can precise on higher dodge targets) against targets in cover. Killing things isn't an issue for sharpshooters. That doesn't mean you bring only sharpshooters but it does mean that when you want something to die and have plenty of time to trade fire you bring sharpshooters. Rangers will not be able to consistently exploit high ground bonuses.

Any class can be mobile and shoot. The only thing Rangers do particularly well is OW and it takes them so long to get there and it's still very "eh" once you do compared to other classes.

*highest I've seen was 145% against a berserker. And yes I one shot it with precision shot. This is far more than Rangers can achieve (55 vs targets in cover.. 80 if they steady)
Excess crit doesn't reduce dodge I don't think (which is a shame as I think it probably should). So use Precision Shot on targets where you need the extra 33%, not which have high dodge.

How do you get 145% against a berzerker (which I'm pretty sure is unflankable). I'm not doubting you, but I can't think what combination of factors makes that possible. Nevermind, see below. Why Holo it though? I can't see you need aim to hit a berzerker with a DfA sniper...

Plasma sniper: 20%
Elite Stock: 25%
Deadshot: 10%
Talon rounds: 10%
Aggression: 30%
Precision Shot: 30%
Mk3 Holotargeter: 20%
Total: 145%
(I guess you could have Executioner or Steady Hands from the AWC as well)
ETA: There's also the possiblity of a laser sight if you forgo a scope for another 15%
Goumindong
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:04 pm

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by Goumindong »

Nope:

Coil:
dead shot: 10
Aggression: 30
Elite laser: 15
Elite stock 25
Talon: 10
Depth perception: 25
Precision: 30

Negative dodge is positive crit. And Rangers cannot exploit depth perception like sharpshooters can

Edit: you use precision shot on high dodge targets because high dodge targets negate your depth perception negative dodge modifier to crit. (Also high HP targets for the bonus damage of course)
DerAva
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:46 am

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by DerAva »

Does Depth Perception actually reduce enemy dodge below 0?
Jadiel
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:28 am

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by Jadiel »

Goumindong wrote:Nope:

Coil:
dead shot: 10
Aggression: 30
Elite laser: 15
Elite stock 25
Talon: 10
Depth perception: 25
Precision: 30

Negative dodge is positive crit. And Rangers cannot exploit depth perception like sharpshooters can

Edit: you use precision shot on high dodge targets because high dodge targets negate your depth perception negative dodge modifier to crit. (Also high HP targets for the bonus damage of course)
You're missing the 10% crit from your weapon. Does the UI report crit from depth perception? I don't think I've ever seen it, but I'm not sure I've looked either. I'm also pretty sure that you're wrong about crit over 100 reducing dodge. I think it's just wasted. But if you've done tests showing otherwise, I'd be really interested to hear about it.
justdont
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 2:36 pm

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by justdont »

Crits over 100% and dodges over 100% were removed in 1.2. See patch notes. Only negative dodge left around (and it serves as +crit), but otherwise values over 100% have no use and do nothing, for both dodge and crit.
User avatar
johnnylump
Site Admin
Posts: 1262
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 4:12 am

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by johnnylump »

Really appreciate the high-quality feedback we've been getting lately. It helps.
Alketi
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 3:11 pm

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by Alketi »

Jacke wrote:I like the idea about the GTS Officer and AWC training being interruptible and allowing the soldier to go on a mission and later return to finish it without any loss of progress, like the Psi Lab training is done. I just discovered Lib 3 (Neutralize ADVENT VIP) with nearly 9 days remaining, but the squad leader was training 2Lt in the GTS. Decided to risk delaying launching for 3.5 days so he could finish. I don't know if this could be done by LW2. I couldn't find a mod that does it.
I second this. The training times are so punishingly long and the missions are so plentiful, and sometimes, so important, that it'd be invaluable to pause training rather than restart from zero. It also makes sense lore-wise.
seananigans
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:03 pm

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by seananigans »

3tamatulg wrote:
Goumindong wrote:*weapon mod upgrade projects are just terrible: suppressors are minorly useful but you need the project most for items that you do not acquire enough of... Which means you can't run the project.
What I would instead suggest is that there is a project which is repeatable (if possible) which takes in a Suppressor and spits out a single Advanced Suppressor at the cost of maybe a couple of alloys, and the same for Advanced to Elite with a bit more of a cost. It would give the Proving Grounds something to do during all that idle time it ends up having while you're choked for cores.
Seconded, this was going to be similar to my suggestion as well. If XCOM is going to manufacture weapon mods in any capacity -- which it probably should given LW's scale, loot drops was sufficient for vanilla A-team style, but when you run 40-50 troops and upwards of 30-35 of them deployed in some way at one time, you need more -- it would probably be best to do so in an upgrade capacity. Take the common stuff that drops like candy (tier 1 things), and upgrade them in some fashion to a higher tier. Whatever form/cost that takes would be fine, but the current PG system for weapon mods is, as has been mentioned often, highly punitive and rarely worthwhile. An upgrade system would also allow you access to Elite iterations of mods that RNGesus was perhaps being a jerk about and not giving you (found my first elite scope just now in November, come on).
Goumindong
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:04 pm

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by Goumindong »

Jadiel wrote: You're missing the 10% crit from your weapon. Does the UI report crit from depth perception? I don't think I've ever seen it, but I'm not sure I've looked either. I'm also pretty sure that you're wrong about crit over 100 reducing dodge. I think it's just wasted. But if you've done tests showing otherwise, I'd be really interested to hear about it.
No. I mean that

If an enemy has 0 dodge. Depth perception makes that -25 dodge = +25% crit.
If an enemy has 20 dodge. Depth perception makes that -5 dodge = +5% crit

If shooting at enemies who have high dodge, your crit is lower because you're no longer dropping them into the negative with depth perception. If you have low values for other reasons (lack of aggression) you can boost your crit chance back up by using precision shot.
DerAva wrote:Does Depth Perception actually reduce enemy dodge below 0?
As far i can tell yes. On 1.2 i have far less crit against high dodge enemies. (though i don't look specifically)
Last edited by Goumindong on Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sines
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:36 pm

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by Sines »

Personally, I quite like Rangers. They actually kind of replace the Gunslingers from Vanilla, in a way. Lightning Hands, Pistol Shot, Fan-Fire feels a lot like Rangers Regular Shot + Rapid Fire, but with no cooldown. Likewise, I'd often use a Gunslingers volume of fire to deal with a low HP target in cover. If I only needed one to hit, I might get lucky and get it on the first one, but with a possibility of 2 to 5 shots, you'd almost certainly get it eventually. Walk Fire (especially if combined with Locked On or Executioner) makes the Ranger excel at ending Overwatch, or killing weak units, when other units would have a hard time hitting those targets with Tac Sense in High Cover.

You can, of course, also have them finish off two units weakened in an overwatch trap. Or give them Venom Rounds and let them apply some soft CC to two targets.

They might be inferior to gunners, but only after Gunners get Traverse Fire, methinks. And even then, that has more to do with Gunners being rather amazing right now.
RXTXK
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:55 pm

Re: Campaign Feedback: Prices/Abilities/strategic layer

Post by RXTXK »

+1 to liking rangers due to fire three times, I also get a lot of use out of walk fire as a ghetto combat protocol (although it is no hail of bullets)
Post Reply