Please rethink this!

Noober
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Noober » Fri Jun 30, 2017 8:50 am

Maybe even rename it Incendiary Device (cannot be doubled by Heavy Ordnance/Rapid Deployment).
one use seems not enough as stasis (the main competitor) is a cooldown ability
as of Rapid Deployment - it's already unaffected by thiis skill being destuction type nade rather then support.

Saph7
Long War 2 Crew
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 4:00 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Saph7 » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:21 am

LordYanaek wrote:Not sure where you got this idea from. Few people said anything even close to that. The majority of the posters seem concerned about either the need to nerf fire grenade at all (they don't think it's too strong, possible because they never played mass fire grenades on everyone), others (myself included) are concerned about the recurrent use of the RNG to "balance" various items. There was maybe one or two posts from people who seem to believe it will make missions impossible, i wouldn't call this the "prevailing opinion". I do agree with you that we don't need fire grenades to win missions, i don't use a lot myself as i use them only on grenadiers and only one squad has a permanent needle grenadier that always has some fire grenades.
I do use them a lot, or at least I did in my last Legend campaign. My standard teams for mid-game GOPs were 1 Assault with Close Encounters, 1 grenadier with Heavy Ordnance, 1 Technical, a specialist, and a fifth soldier if I had enough infil time. First pod dies to an overwatch ambush: that's about 3 enemies. Grenadier kills 2 more with Incendiaries. Assault can easily kill 1 enemy a round. There'll usually be 1 or 2 drones, one of which gets controlled by the Specialist. Technical can be counted on to get rid of a couple more with his rocket and/or flamethrower. And if you're playing anything up to and including a Very Light, that's pretty much the entire map. It was routine for me to clear missions without the enemies getting to make a single attack, except maybe the odd yellow alert shot.

I understand that you don't like control attacks depending on a random number roll, but my counterargument to that would be that a control attack which doesn't have some chance of failure is probably overpowered. If you have a 100% shut-down-this-enemy button with no significant drawbacks, then it's basically impossible to lose a fight against any single pod unless that pod has multiple dangerous enemies in it (which is actually quite rare, at least until quite late in the game).

Noober
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Noober » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:44 am

If you have a 100% shut-down-this-enemy button with no significant drawbacks, then it's basically impossible to lose a fight against any single pod
If you can fight one pod at a time - it's already basically impossible to lose regardless of fire.
The problem arise when you are standing against more then 1 pod which happens too often even if you are as super carefull as you can be on timed mission with rnf's pressure. Just because the map was generated so badly than evac is at LZ and objective - in a far away corner.
And this is the case where we don't need rng as each failed action might mean a wipe.
Map generation is already a super RNG-based dice, please don't make it be multiply by RNG in control.

Psieye
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:27 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Psieye » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:48 am

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.
My three 8-man GOp squad Commander campaigns:
1st
2nd
3rd

Thrombozyt
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:37 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Thrombozyt » Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:02 am

The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that the best option would be to keep fire grenades powerful (maybe even slightly increase the power) but make them truly limited by being a consumable item like combat drugs. Cost would be Office Corpse + 5 supplies and if you use one in a mission you need to rebuild it.

Given that officer corpses are limited but not rare, it negates the spamming of fire grenades as easy shut down button but allows them to fill the niche of an emergency tool that you use when things have taken a turn for the worse. You could even think to extend the burn duration in exchange.

The other option would be to increase the tech requirement and maybe require a Muton corpse and additionally increase weight by 1 and a 4h infiltration penalty.

Goofych
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2017 10:10 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Goofych » Fri Jun 30, 2017 12:29 pm

gimrah wrote:The issue was that grenadiers are pretty weak except as incendiary mules, when they were OP.

The buffs to gas and biggest booms is aimed at making other grenade types competitive.
Acid - Melts cover at the start of aliens turn.

Poison - 2 turn debuff to will, reduces/negates FB resistance.

NovaFlame
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:05 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by NovaFlame » Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:14 pm

Saph7 wrote:I'm kind of curious: 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, what do you guys do when you don't have them? Do you just not attempt any mission where you can't bring at least 1 incendiary grenade per 2 enemies?
That's an awfully patronizing assumption to make. Personally, I use incendiaries rather sparingly - I won't deny that they're extremely strong, but I tend to prefer the larger radius afforded by flashbangs, even if they don't lock down enemies quite so comprehensively (as I've said, I feel that disabling enemy abilities is the important part). And of course, stunner assaults are always an option if I do need to shut down an enemy altogether. With the proposed nerf, though, I could very easily see myself abandoning incendiaries altogether, since there are far better options for damage and they'll no longer be reliable for crowd control. And I just can't see that being a healthy change for the state of the game, which is already heavily balanced in favor of hyperaggressive alpha strike tactics.
Psieye wrote: - "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."
- "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?"
That sums up my take on the matter quite well. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Noober
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Noober » Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:42 pm

- "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."
- "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?"
that is right for me.
the other conclusions are not.
never bring more than 2 (1 slot) incendieries and that was enough for me even at HQ assault type missions.

Psieye
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:27 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Psieye » Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:53 pm

Saph7 wrote: I understand that you don't like control attacks depending on a random number roll, but my counterargument to that would be that a control attack which doesn't have some chance of failure is probably overpowered.
I believe the acceptable middle ground in principle would be a random number roll that the player can influence via tactical cleverness. Without code-level familiarity, I'd offer a solution like "more burn chance in enclosed spaces" where 'enclosed spaces' is measured by how much cover the target is surrounded by. Distance to target would be a somewhat unrealistic (for grenades, totally works for flamethrower) but mechanically serviceable option too.

Perhaps another approach would be to set the terrain on fire (for at least 1 turn) in a wide AoE and only do damage (0% burn chance) in the target tile. Then the tactical challenge becomes "can you make it move through the fire, applying burn to itself?" - thus making flush and roust more interesting.
My three 8-man GOp squad Commander campaigns:
1st
2nd
3rd

RantingRodent
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:01 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by RantingRodent » Fri Jun 30, 2017 3:55 pm

Why not add a perk to the Grenadier tree (and AWC?) that's an activated ability for boosting grenade proc chances, with a cooldown. Make it compete with Volatile Mix. This would bring the Fire Grenade's guaranteed control more in line with less overpowered sources of guaranteed damage/control.

Saph7
Long War 2 Crew
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 4:00 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Saph7 » Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:04 pm

Psieye wrote:I believe the acceptable middle ground in principle would be a random number roll that the player can influence via tactical cleverness. Without code-level familiarity, I'd offer a solution like "more burn chance in enclosed spaces" where 'enclosed spaces' is measured by how much cover the target is surrounded by. Distance to target would be a somewhat unrealistic (for grenades, totally works for flamethrower) but mechanically serviceable option too.
See, I'm just not really convinced that having attacks work off an absolute RNG chance as opposed to a scaling one is such a big deal. We had the same argument back with the Flashbang nerf, and I didn't find it all that convincing then either, for the simple reason that practically every attack in XCOM 2 uses at least one randomised roll and usually several. Yes, technically you can get every single shot you take up to 100% by "tactical cleverness" (ie running to point blank range and sticking your gun in their face), but in practice expecting to do that every time is completely unrealistic. It still comes to a dice roll, you're just trying to hit a moving target number instead of a static one. But I feel like we're going in circles at this point.

Noober
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Noober » Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:20 pm

practically every attack in XCOM 2 uses at least one randomised roll and usually several
not quite right (100% to hit):

at least the following abilities
1. Soulfire/Stasis
2. Combat protocol
3. HoB
4. Demolition + SPARK bombard (against cover)
5. Reaper

and also AoE:
5. grenades
6. rockets
7. heavy Weapons
8. PSI AoE (rift/lance)

I am right all of it will be nerfed to % in the future?

Saph7
Long War 2 Crew
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 4:00 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Saph7 » Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:31 pm

Randomised damage rolls.
Randomised scatter in the case of rockets.
Randomised burn chance in the case of flamethowers.

The only one of those which is truly 100% non-random is Stasis. Which is arguably OP as well, since it makes fights against single lategame enemies like Gatekeepers/Sectopods pretty trivial. I can argue for it to be nerfed if you really want me to.

Noober
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Noober » Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:49 pm

I can argue for it to be nerfed if you really want me to.
no thanks!
But I feel like we're going in circles at this point.
Ok.
Now it's clear that the decision has being made and none of this 4 pages of comment was actulally matter.
I also understand that even if you are eaten you still have two ways out.
Well in this case there is still 77 line in the ini as the one and switching to something else - as the other.

IslamDunk
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:43 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by IslamDunk » Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:53 pm

Just putting my 2 cents in. I often wonder if this mod's intention is to either deliver fun experience to the player, or to make the victory more harder to approach so the player needs to invest a lot of time into it. LW2 feels like a problem, an issue, a question that requires dedicated thinking, rather than a game. On Veteran, the regular GOP experience starts to become nervous when the date hits December.
But that's just me. I have been thinking about it lately, and especially since the upcoming Incendiary Grenade change, it had me write this post.
Last edited by IslamDunk on Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:03 pm, edited 3 times in total.

NovaFlame
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:05 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by NovaFlame » Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:58 pm

RantingRodent wrote:Why not add a perk to the Grenadier tree (and AWC?) that's an activated ability for boosting grenade proc chances, with a cooldown. Make it compete with Volatile Mix. This would bring the Fire Grenade's guaranteed control more in line with less overpowered sources of guaranteed damage/control.
I like the idea of spending a perk to upgrade a normally unreliable source of crowd control to guaranteed or near-guaranteed status (similar to taking stun gunner on an assault), but if it requires giving up volatile mix (easily one of the most desirable perks in the entire grenadier tree), it won't be worth it unless the grenadier is stacking excessive numbers of incendiaries - which is exactly what the incendiary nerf is intended to discourage.

Maebalzurakin
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:02 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Maebalzurakin » Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:01 pm

Saph7 wrote:I'm kind of curious: 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, what do you guys do when you don't have them? Do you just not attempt any mission where you can't bring at least 1 incendiary grenade per 2 enemies?
I never really even used grenades. My play stype is to use stealth spotters for my snipers, then let the shinobi and assault clean up whatever is left. Small pods are usually dead before they even know I am there.

Psieye
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:27 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Psieye » Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:03 pm

Saph7 wrote: See, I'm just not really convinced that having attacks work off an absolute RNG chance as opposed to a scaling one is such a big deal. We had the same argument back with the Flashbang nerf, and I didn't find it all that convincing then either, for the simple reason that practically every attack in XCOM 2 uses at least one randomised roll and usually several. Yes, technically you can get every single shot you take up to 100% by "tactical cleverness" (ie running to point blank range and sticking your gun in their face), but in practice expecting to do that every time is completely unrealistic. It still comes to a dice roll, you're just trying to hit a moving target number instead of a static one. But I feel like we're going in circles at this point.
The difference between absolute-and-fixed vs tactically-scaling is player psychology. Agreed, you're not going to put gun-to-face before shooting every time, or even half the time. The perception that "if I do work to engineer ideal circumstances, I can mitigate (though maybe not eliminate) the RNG" is important to players - maybe not all players, but certainly to many. In other words, trying to hit a moving target number that you have some control over FEELS better than a static one. Objectively it's just a bunch of dice rolls at the end of the day. But some players put great importance on having control over that target number.

Personally I do feel that some of the critics have tunnel vision. If an incendiary fails to proc burn, just shoot to kill the scary thing which still took lots of damage. If you've activated multiple pods and need absolutely every action to count, you've already fucked up so kneel before the RNG and see if you get a miracle story. Or re-think builds and compositions so this situation happens less often. But the core principle of "influencable target number feels better than a static one" is a standalone designer philosophy that I think is a big deal. That is to say, some of these complaints might die down if you made burn proc move between 50~90%. Sure some will hardline for "must be movable to 100%" but some might only care that the target number can move at all.
My three 8-man GOp squad Commander campaigns:
1st
2nd
3rd

Saph7
Long War 2 Crew
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 4:00 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Saph7 » Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:07 pm

Psieye wrote:The difference between absolute-and-fixed vs tactically-scaling is player psychology. Agreed, you're not going to put gun-to-face before shooting every time, or even half the time. The perception that "if I do work to engineer ideal circumstances, I can mitigate (though maybe not eliminate) the RNG" is important to players - maybe not all players, but certainly to many. In other words, trying to hit a moving target number that you have some control over FEELS better than a static one. Objectively it's just a bunch of dice rolls at the end of the day. But some players put great importance on having control over that target number.
That's fair. I have the feeling it'd take a fair bit of work to code, though, even assuming we could agree on what variables the burn chance should be dependent upon (which doesn't seem like a question with an obvious correct answer), so I suspect it'll be fairly far down the priority list.

Psieye
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:27 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Psieye » Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:12 pm

Saph7 wrote: That's fair. I have the feeling it'd take a fair bit of work to code, though, even assuming we could agree on what variables the burn chance should be dependent upon (which doesn't seem like a question with an obvious correct answer), so I suspect it'll be fairly far down the priority list.
As a fellow commercial software developer, I agree: this is a difficult-to-define, hard-to-implement ticket for an intangible, unquantifiable payoff. Glad this thread wasn't for nothing though, we came to an understanding.
My three 8-man GOp squad Commander campaigns:
1st
2nd
3rd

DerAva
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:46 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by DerAva » Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:19 pm

Saph7 wrote:Randomised damage rolls.
Randomised scatter in the case of rockets.
Damage rolls can be influenced by the player, both on the Strategic and the Tactical Level:
  • Weapon choice (SMG vs. Rifle)
  • Equipment choice (special ammo types)
  • Talent choice (center mass, lethal)
  • Combining attacks on a target to Shred/Rupture
Rocket Scatter can be influenced by:
  • Firing after a move or when standing still
  • Using command on your technical to give a 2nd action point after a move to reduce scatter
  • Selecting high aim rookies for your technicals
  • using perception PCS on technicals to improve their aim
I'm not sure why that whole complaint is that hard to grasp. I want my decisions in the game to matter, not to rely at some arbitrarily set number in some .ini file.

Let's spitball some more ideas:
  • "Disorient" increases burn chance by 25% - so I can get a reliable burn for additional investment, but if I want to open up on a pod from concealment I have to gamble on the die roll
  • replace "Center Mass" on the Grenadier tree with a talent that improves burn chance - I can get double grenades or I can get reliable burns
  • set burn chance to 100% but reduce it by 5/10% for each point of armor the enemy has - makes it reliable against easy enemies but if I want to burn that Muton Elite or General I'd better shred it first
XCOM should be a game about interesting and meaningful choices - and I just don't see how a static percentage chance on anything contributes to that.

RantingRodent
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:01 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by RantingRodent » Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:29 pm

NovaFlame wrote:I like the idea of spending a perk to upgrade a normally unreliable source of crowd control to guaranteed or near-guaranteed status (similar to taking stun gunner on an assault), but if it requires giving up volatile mix (easily one of the most desirable perks in the entire grenadier tree), it won't be worth it unless the grenadier is stacking excessive numbers of incendiaries - which is exactly what the incendiary nerf is intended to discourage.
Do you want reliable crowd control, or do you want unreliable crowd control over a wider area? That seems like an interesting decision to me, with different levels of utility in different scenarios. A GOPs-focused Grenadier that only hits light missions needs reliable hits for action economy, whereas a Grenadier that tackles larger missions will have a lot more opportunities to make ideal use of larger radii and less is at stake when they take an individual action.

NovaFlame
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:05 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by NovaFlame » Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:04 pm

DerAva wrote:set burn chance to 100% but reduce it by 5/10% for each point of armor the enemy has - makes it reliable against easy enemies but if I want to burn that Muton Elite or General I'd better shred it first
Now that's an interesting idea. I do like the sound of it; seems like it would stimulate interesting choices in gameplay.

I still can't help but feel that there's a mismatch here, though - if, as Saph has said, the problem lies specifically with incendiary-stacking grenadiers, I feel that it might be better to nerf the stacking, rather than the grenade itself. Increased weight, infiltration penalties, or even simply making specialty grenades non-stackable. There are plenty of options that could address the problem under consideration with far less collateral damage compared to a direct blanket incendiary nerf.

User avatar
SirensCry
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:47 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by SirensCry » Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:54 pm

I see the debate deepens, I would like to share something i hadnt consider before :

It seems to me that the issue lays deeper than the nerfing of occasional items. I just stumbled on the idea that the nerfs are being caused by abuse most of anything. Lemme see if i can explain myself on my limited english :

Examples from the top of my head :

- People were abusing the troops column/retals/wtv it was the mission for the corpses and stuff. Solution? Nerfing those missions so as to NEGATE said abuse.

- People were abusing the RNF system, for same motives. Solution? Nerfing/overcomplexing RNF mechanics so as to NEGATE said abuse, again.

- Now we have some people apparently rushing Fire grenades and making their whole team (?) comp out of those, abusing their use. Solution? You guessed it.

Looking at this i cant help but notice the trend, and the error on that way of " fixing " abuses.

It is my opinion that you CANT balance a whole game/mod based on the abuses a few PREFER to endure in order to beat it more easily. I mean come on, running the same mission type, with the same optimized team in order TO FARM? wont be more practical just to console command what you need then? ( I ll never understand plain cheaters. Whats the point of playing? )

I mean, lets think : The game is single player, SINCE WHEN ANY developer patched a single player game in order for the player to not use console commands/cheats/cheesy strats/wtv they like to do? If they want to ruin the game for themselves...well, be my guest. I dont even know how or why the devs bothered with those things on the first place.

I hope my point is clear enough. If not, i would gladly try to explain myself better.

Sirens.

LordYanaek
Posts: 940
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:34 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by LordYanaek » Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:55 pm

OK, i'll try to make my point as clear as possible.
There's actually a few different things that caused my posts in this thread.
  • The fire grenade nerf in itself I'm not using those a lot as i try to have different squads with different synergies to make battles varied. However even this way i've been able to appreciate their power and can imagine how massing them would be both strong and boring. I'm not opposed to a nerf, but i'm questioning whether adding a proc chance to the fire effect is the right way to balance them because i don't think it really works well on strong single target emergency abilities. I'm perfectly OK with the proc chance on the flamethrower (even if i continually complain how it looks different when xwynns uses it, but that's more a joke than anything else) because it's an AoE effect. Even with a proc chance i will probably set some enemy on fire and i'll concentrate on the others. If it fails i still have damaged a bunch of enemies and it will be easier to kill them. The flamethrower is an opening attack and having some RNG decide whether it procs and on which targets it does is fair, i'll try to adapt my strategy.
    The fire grenade on the other hand is a single target hard control option that i think is best saved for emergencies (and i've finished some missions without using it). An emergency ability needs to be reliable, or it might as well not exist at all. An emergency ability is a last resort and you won't be able to adapt your strategy if it fails, you'll just suffer the consequences. With that in mind having a proc chance won't make it more interesting as you won't have any decisions to take after it fails, you were already out of options.
    Now, you might think that even as an emergency option it was too strong. Maybe it was but if you remove that emergency use, what's left of a fire grenade? A single target (most of the time) direct damage attack. The control effect might as well not exist if i can't rely on it since i have a number of crowd control abilities (including the flamethrower that applies the same powerful effect, but can affect multiple targets) and re-usable single controls. There is a number of different ways to apply direct, unavoidable, damage without using an item slot for it or items that affect multiple target so i'm not sure i'll see a good reason to take a fire grenade at all after that nerf and i would prefer to see another nerf that still gives them some use. Of course i may be totally wrong as i haven't been able to test it.
  • RNG balancing trend. Recent patches show an increase in proc chances for various items. This trend makes me worried about what LW2 will become (and to some extent what Terra Invicta will be). There's already a lot of RNG in XCOM2, adding more and more on top of that takes away from the tactical aspect of the game and pushes it towards pure luck. I'm not saying LW2 is a pure luck game but i sure hope it doesn't become one.
  • Control abilities nerf. A number of nerfs have touched control abilities recently (flashbang, suppression, venom/dragon rounds, now fire grenades). At the same time a number of soldiers get more aim progression, some ammo get bonus damage and some stupidly powerful mass killing items (shredder gun) stay mostly untouched. Separately each of those changes (or absence of change) seem justified but together they tend to make controlling enemies (something that was already sub-optimal as it was delaying the fights, thus increasing the risk of attracting more pods and having RNFs drop) less reliable and less useful. The loss of reliable controls together with a difficulty to just tank enemies exacerbates the importance of quickly killing everything - eventually returning to a vanilla "kill everything before they get to act" situation. This would in turn reduce the tactical options and make the game more susceptible to the existing RNG as every missed shot becomes more of an issue the least alternatives we have to just kill everything.
    Once again i'm not as worried about the fire grenade itself than the trend. I definitely hope the developers don't go to far that way without giving us other alternatives (better tanking ability, other control options ...). LW1 was great for the ability to have prolonged fights with various ways to slowly gain the upper hand and i truly hope LW2 will become as great in it's final state
I hope it's clear because i won't be able to explain better anytime soon.
I might even come back when 1.5 is already out so see you later and Good Luck Commanders :)

Post Reply