Saph7 wrote:given that the prevailing opinion of a lot of the posters in this thread seems to be that to win missions you need a 100% accuracy, high-damaging attack that automatically disables its target for a turn
I don't blame you for arriving at this incorrect conclusion. The feedback has been disorganised and highly emotional - I'm getting a headache from reading it. Here's my understanding of the underlying motivators for the critique:
- "I value my soldiers I've raised over tens of missions. I want an oasis from RNG (M3 uber aim dudes shooting is scary even with high cover) so I can keep them wounds-free so I can play with them more often. I know I'll win even with the incendiary nerf but I don't want my treasured soldiers to take wounds."
- "I am opposed to the principle of a single, static dice roll for toggling such a high impact binary switch. Aim/Graze/Crit RNG is something the player has options to mitigate. These CC grenades with inherent proc chances are fixed and uninfluencable."
- "I'm terrified of the RNG's tail-end. There's so many really scary things that I can't kill quickly and if the RNG aligns with them then I wipe. The only shield I have against these scary things is fire, I don't know or trust anything else."
- "Isn't this nerf in response to a few players just cheesing out with mass-incendiaries? Why should I be collaterally affected by their powerplays?"
As we can't pragmatically have a detailed interview with each critic to check we've all got equal understanding of the problem, it's difficult to tell what's a valid opinion and what will be corrected with improved understanding. Like 0% supply raid complaints before we knew of Smash & Grab details. I'm not sure how many players remember incendiaries can still 'CC' by just killing the target - sure, less scary things get to live a turn and shoot you, but "a trooper was left alive" shouldn't mean you wipe. If that's all it takes to wipe, the campaign is going downhill long before that.