Vigilance and the Avatar Project

Post Reply
Severian
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:23 pm

Vigilance and the Avatar Project

Post by Severian »

One of the things that seems very mysterious to me in LW2 is the connection between vigilance and the avatar project. Indeed the link between them is something that I would never have got if I have not come to the Pavonis forums to seek LW2 strategies. While I like the notion of vigilance itself (i.e. that performing successful missions should provoke Advent into committing more troops to a region) I don't think its link to the Avatar Project makes sense, from neither a narrative point of view nor from the desire to provoke interesting gameplay.

One the first point, it really doesn't make sense that Xcom being successful in standard missions would delay the Avatar project. Why would blowing up a monument, say, to attract Advent's attention, delay Avatar? The Advent ground troops are presumably not involved in the Avatar project itself - those contributing to Avatar will presumably be research scientists in the Avatar facilities. That is not to say that no successful missions would delay Avatar. I imagine, for example, killing a VIP scientist might if they had a significant role in Avatar.

On the second point, as LW2 stands, it is essential for XCom to perform lots and lots of missions (including things like troop ambushes) to slow down the Avatar project. In other words, the optimal strategy is to be as noisy as possible to attract Advent's attention and then move on to new regions that are quieter to perform easier missions. This is undesirable on a statical layer because it is linking together things that would be better kept separate. Would it not make must more sense for XCom to have a multi-pronged strategy? On the one hand they need to gain supplies and resources (via havens or missions) to build up their forces while staying under the Advent radar; on the other hand they have to perform missions to sabotage the Avatar Project, which unfortunately will gain Advents attention. Separating the two out makes for more interesting and strategic gameplay.

So I have some suggestions:

1. Remove the link between vigilance and Avatar progression. In other words XCom activity (in a general sense) would not slow down the Avatar project.

2. Give us more realistic ways to slow down the Avatar project. This system actually exists in vanilla, so why not use it and expand on it? The most obvious example is that we can remove Avatar pips by destroying facilities. This was easier in vanilla since (iirc) we didn't need presence in a region to perform a mission there. But I can think of plenty of other ways. For example...

2a. Allow us to find facility leads via missions (as usual) by hacking or finding Advent data pads, and allow us to raid them irrespective of where they are on the map. This makes sense narratively. (This may mean that we need more facilities with fewer avatar pips each.)

2b. To encourage liberating regions, reveal any Avatar facilities within, say, 2 region steps away from the liberated region. This also makes sense narratively since a liberated region might gather rumours of nearby activity. If this is too much, you could allow intel gathering in a liberated region to provide a chance of finding a facility within say 3 region steps distance (this would give an extra reason for setting your liberated region rebels to intel).

2c. Allow certain missions to remove Avatar progress. For example, as suggested above, a VIP kill mission could remove an avatar pip from the nearest facility. A UFO raid could remove pips too. In fact, I can think of many new mission types you could introduce to do this.

3. Link vigilance to the number of Advent killed, region liberation and ironically the number of Avatar pips removed. If you go on a 0% supply raid raid and kill dozens of Advent, they should get pissed at you. Similarly, liberating a region should get them worried. Also, inverting the current causation of vigilance -> slowing down Avatar to become slowing down Avatar -> raises vigilance makes much more sense. Raising vigilance would then no longer be a deliberate intention, be an undesirable side effect of your other activities. You would need to balance the benefit of 0% supply raids against the vigilance cost. Quietly gathering supplies in some remote location would not cause so much attention but is much slower.

In summary, I think separating vigilance from avatar makes sense narratively and provides extra gameplay opportunities. I realise this is a bit radical and not something that could be done quickly, so I am just throwing this out as a suggestion. Any comments?
LordYanaek
Posts: 940
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:34 pm

Re: Vigilance and the Avatar Project

Post by LordYanaek »

Severian wrote:Any comments?
Several actually ;)
  • First of all, i think it makes sense from a narrative perspective that increased vigilance slows down AVATAR. Sure you are not directly acting against it but you are causing enough ruckus that ADVENT is busy with other considerations. They are spending resources trying to find you, moving troops and "building" more. They have limited resources, and that's probably especially true for some specific resources like the "DNA goo" they are using both to develop the avatars and produce their soldiers. It's the resources they spend on reinforcing their army and trying to find rebel cells that slows them down on their research. Since they don't know that you are informed of their project, they don't feel the need to hurry it and they respond to what looks like the most urgent threat (after all the Elders have been "dying" for centuries now, they can wait a few months more).
    From a pure narrative PoV, attacking AVATAR directly, while removing existing pips should actually make them worries and speed up the research of future pips. From a gameplay PoV it would probably be really bad so it's better ignored.
  • From a gameplay PoV it encourages you to actually attempt missions rather than hide in you corner taking only the easiest missions.
  • The Vanilla system of "Don't worry about the doom bar, you'll erase it once it reaches max" always seemed extremely lame to me and i think moving away from a purely reactive "remove the pips" to a preemptive "slow them down" approach in LW2 was a good idea. Switching back to the Vanilla system also incurs the risk that AVATAR will once again be a non-issue as it is in Vanilla.
  • Linking vigilance to the number of Advent killed and regions liberated would promote an extremely low profile game where the best strategy is always to do as little missions as possible, staying as stealthy as possible and never liberating any region after the first one while slowly gathering supplies as the hologlobe spins around endlessly. With few missions to take in order to avoid increasing vigilance you would probably want only one squad as you wouldn't need more and wouldn't have enough missions to level them up anyway. This would be the exact opposite of LW2 and honestly, i would probably find it boring.
  • Other than that, you have a number of interesting ideas for direct ways to slow down AVATAR that would probably work well with a lower vigilance effect. Killing VIPs might cause a temporary stop of any progress (alternatively any fortress progress, possibly preventing pips from being transferred from facilities). Better access to Facility Leads could also help. Maybe Facility Leads could have a chance to unlock a known but currently locked mission rather than reveal a new one (you got more detailed information on an already known facility rather than learning the existence of a new one). More missions to steal data and cause some temporary slowdown or even temporary stop could also be interesting if they add new gameplay (they should be different from other "hack" missions).
Steve-O
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:00 pm

Re: Vigilance and the Avatar Project

Post by Steve-O »

Without going into any kind of detailed analysis (as I haven't been playing the game long enough) - I do think you're on to something here.
I like the idea of specific missions to counter the Avatar project - I think that would help clarify what I'm actually doing, strategically.

As it stands, I think at least partially because vigilance as a stat is not plainly visible, I sometimes feel like I'm not exactly sure what I'm doing to counter Avatar. I go on missions and stuff, and Avatar randomly goes down (or up!) and I just kind of hope for the best while desperately running as many missions as I can afford to.
LordYanaek wrote: The Vanilla system of "Don't worry about the doom bar, you'll erase it once it reaches max" always seemed extremely lame to me and i think moving away from a purely reactive "remove the pips" to a preemptive "slow them down" approach in LW2 was a good idea. Switching back to the Vanilla system also incurs the risk that AVATAR will once again be a non-issue as it is in Vanilla.
I get this, and I don't particularly want to see that become the case, either. However, perhaps there are other ways to prevent this "ignore the Avatar" mentality? Perhaps, for example, pips become permanent slowly, so you can only push it back so far? Narratively, at least, that would represent that the aliens don't forget what they've already learned just because you blew up a facility or two. You can set back their current research, but you can't undo what they've already done. XCOM sort of becomes like EXALT for the alien research teams ;)
Zyxpsilon
Posts: 274
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 1:26 am

Re: Vigilance and the Avatar Project

Post by Zyxpsilon »

The only rational solution to the "Hidden" Doom-Tracker principle is quite simple for me.

Just unlock it earlier based on some other logical methods by choice;

-- As soon as the fill-rate reaches a NEAR activation status (on average.. 3/8 pips away from being full).

-- Purposely let us "buy IT out" (Very HIGH Intel amount?) when we'd want to.

-- Since it actually is such an early/mid-game concern.. pack IT in a pivotal --Research Project-- of its own.

I fully understand the first HQ Assault via Liberation Missions cycle "rule" & share the cool concept idea of Suspense (on Rookie/Veteran but NOT for higher levels) .. but the tragic failure of a Campaign Loss by neglect to intervene in "some random fashion & timely enough" or otherwise really should be solved -- considering how we all swim in Supplies output in the late-game phase even IF we get a chance to just "ignore" its steady growth with edgy risks to rely on Storyline counter-reactions against Pips.
Jacke
Posts: 623
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:10 am

Re: Vigilance and the Avatar Project

Post by Jacke »

Zyxpsilon wrote:The only rational solution to the "Hidden" Doom-Tracker principle is quite simple for me.

Just unlock it earlier based on some other logical methods by choice;
I think this is a good idea. How about it come from an accumulation of success on Hack and Recover missions, indicating intelligence accumulated from succeeding on this missions to a point where the Avatar Project is discovered and enough leads are learned to be able to track its progress (which if you think about it, knowing the progress of the Avatar Project instantaneously is rather amazing).
LordYanaek
Posts: 940
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:34 pm

Re: Vigilance and the Avatar Project

Post by LordYanaek »

This isn't really the point of this thread but i agree that some sort of safety switch to show the doom track prior to liberation if it goes too high could be useful in addition to the current system. This would require some clear warning thought to explain that something bigger is happening and requires urgent investigation. The objective would thus become "Invade an ADVENT HQ to recover high security data" and liberation would be a side effect.

The difficulty in doing this would be to convey the information properly, including some "bald men on the screen" message and changing the objectives. Doing it properly would require a lot of work, and doing it the "quick and dirty" way is sure to piss players who will see the doom clock appear "magically" almost full as surely as loosing with "no warning that they are doing something wrong" (except for ignoring the main objective for 10 in-game months :roll: )
Tuhalu
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:02 pm

Re: Vigilance and the Avatar Project

Post by Tuhalu »

If you're about to lose due to the AVATAR project completing, but you haven't liberated a region yet, the game should start flashing the quest objective "Liberate a Region" in pink and yellow so you actually notice it. Also change the wording to "Liberate a Region so you don't lose the game".
Severian
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:23 pm

Re: Vigilance and the Avatar Project

Post by Severian »

LordYanaek wrote: First of all, i think it makes sense from a narrative perspective that increased vigilance slows down AVATAR. Sure you are not directly acting against it but you are causing enough ruckus that ADVENT is busy with other considerations. They are spending resources trying to find you, moving troops and "building" more. They have limited resources, and that's probably especially true for some specific resources like the "DNA goo" they are using both to develop the avatars and produce their soldiers. It's the resources they spend on reinforcing their army and trying to find rebel cells that slows them down on their research. Since they don't know that you are informed of their project, they don't feel the need to hurry it and they respond to what looks like the most urgent threat (after all the Elders have been "dying" for centuries now, they can wait a few months more).
From a pure narrative PoV, attacking AVATAR directly, while removing existing pips should actually make them worries and speed up the research of future pips. From a gameplay PoV it would probably be really bad so it's better ignored.
This is of course a subjective opinion, but I disagree. It think the Elders would still prioritise the Avatar project since their lives depend on it. And moving troops around wouldn't really reduce the resources available. This is a minor narrative objection I admit, but certainly not one that is clear enough to expect the random player to intuit without being told. Now, to be honest, I can't recall exactly, but is the link of vigilance (or at least XCom activity) to the Avatar project speed ever made explicit in the LW2 info in game?
From a gameplay PoV it encourages you to actually attempt missions rather than hide in you corner taking only the easiest missions.
Yes, it encourages you to do lots of otherwise pointless mission with objectives that you doing need to achieve. I would rather have my reasons for doing missions aligned with their objectives, whether that is freeing XCom rebels, gaining intel or supplies, or even reducing or slowing the Avatar project.
The Vanilla system of "Don't worry about the doom bar, you'll erase it once it reaches max" always seemed extremely lame to me and i think moving away from a purely reactive "remove the pips" to a preemptive "slow them down" approach in LW2 was a good idea. Switching back to the Vanilla system also incurs the risk that AVATAR will once again be a non-issue as it is in Vanilla.
I disagree that removing the pips is reactive. It is a very direct attack on the Avatar project. Whereas raising vigilance to slow the avatar project down is much less direct. Again, this is a subjective thing though. However, the "Don't worry about the doom bar, you'll erase it once it reaches max" is only a problem of balance. In vanilla, the issue with the Doom bar was that the Doom Clock that activates when the bar is full would reset every time you take out a facility (with the doom clock running). This meant that you could switch it off whenever needed by having a facility ready to assault when needed. If you take that away (as has already been done in LW2) then you can no longer infinitely delay the Avatar Project. And how easy the doom bar pips are to remove depends on how quickly they are added and the accessibility of facilities. If for example, as I suggested, you could only see them by researching a datapad (whose research time could also be tuned) or by having a liberated region nearby, then the doom bar could be very difficult to stop.
Linking vigilance to the number of Advent killed and regions liberated would promote an extremely low profile game where the best strategy is always to do as little missions as possible, staying as stealthy as possible and never liberating any region after the first one while slowly gathering supplies as the hologlobe spins around endlessly. With few missions to take in order to avoid increasing vigilance you would probably want only one squad as you wouldn't need more and wouldn't have enough missions to level them up anyway. This would be the exact opposite of LW2 and honestly, i would probably find it boring.
This is not true because you would still have plenty of other reasons to take on missions. You need intel to expand, you need supplies to buy weapons, you need extra XCom staff (engineers, scientists, recruits and rebels), you need to find facilities via datapads or by expansion. The point is though, that you would be doing missions for well understood reasons, rather than a nebulous "slow the Avatar project" that you have to somehow know about instinctively. Admittedly, LW2 does reduce the need for missions by having supplies and intel generated by rebels. I would suggest that this should be reduced to provide more motivation for missions, particularly in liberated regions (where imho it is far too much). I notice that many experienced players don't even try to generate supplies from rebels in the early game.
Other than that, you have a number of interesting ideas for direct ways to slow down AVATAR that would probably work well with a lower vigilance effect. Killing VIPs might cause a temporary stop of any progress (alternatively any fortress progress, possibly preventing pips from being transferred from facilities). Better access to Facility Leads could also help. Maybe Facility Leads could have a chance to unlock a known but currently locked mission rather than reveal a new one (you got more detailed information on an already known facility rather than learning the existence of a new one). More missions to steal data and cause some temporary slowdown or even temporary stop could also be interesting if they add new gameplay (they should be different from other "hack" missions).
These are all good ideas. I think what I am really looking for is for LW2 to have better and clearer mission objectives that properly convey why it is important (or not) to do the mission. You should be able to say (for example) this mission will give me 30 intel (or whatever) and judge whether the mission risk and the extra attention you attract is worth it. At the moment it is very hard to tell because you feel this constant pressure to perform all missions to slow down the Avatar project.
LordYanaek
Posts: 940
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:34 pm

Re: Vigilance and the Avatar Project

Post by LordYanaek »

Severian wrote: This is of course a subjective opinion
Since we are talking about aliens motivations and technology, this is entirely subjective and there is no real answer. That's why i try to fit my (subjective) rationalization to the game mechanisms rather than rationalize something that doesn't fit with the game and then hope the developers change it :)
Now, to be honest, I can't recall exactly, but is the link of vigilance (or at least XCom activity) to the Avatar project speed ever made explicit in the LW2 info in game?
Apart from the word "vigilance" which isn't used anywhere in the (visible) game, it's extremely explicit.
Avatar-Archives-Entry.png
Avatar-Archives-Entry.png (13.91 KiB) Viewed 14629 times
Unfortunately, this is rather easy to miss as it's in the XCOM Archives of the Commander's quarters and we are conditioned by Vanilla XCOM to never go to that room but it's where the LW2 documentation is. This entry appears after you learn about the AVATAR project.
Yes, it encourages you to do lots of otherwise pointless mission with objectives that you doing need to achieve. I would rather have my reasons for doing missions aligned with their objectives, whether that is freeing XCom rebels, gaining intel or supplies, or even reducing or slowing the Avatar project.
It's probably very hard to "balance" it right with the added player variable if your missions actually have a "bad" effect in addition to a "good" one. If every mission completed make the next one harder a lot of players will just hide in their corner and then complain that the game is impossible. The current system might not be perfect but at least once you get how it works, you know doing missions is good for you despite the immediate risk of loosing soldiers. Adding a hard to measure long term risk will probably confuse players who really won't know when they should take a mission and when they shouldn't.
sarge945
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:47 am

Re: Vigilance and the Avatar Project

Post by sarge945 »

I really like this idea. Having conflicting game mechanics which are designed to work in contrast is a really good method of creating rewarding choices as well as meaningful tension in a game situation, and I fully support it and hope the devs will take some of this on board.

Of course, conflicting mechanics can also create a horribly broken and unfun game, but I trust the devs to know what they are doing
Post Reply