Pavonis Interactive Forums

Dear devs!

- Fire Grenades have a 75% instead of a 100% chance to apply fire to a flammable unit. Fire bombs have a 85% chance to apply fire.

THIS is by far the greatest nerf that can be done.

With ayys aim progression and previuos nerf to disabling abilities (flash/suppression/smoke/tac sense/hard target) and most classes (i.e. gunner) there will be no way to reliably counter a strong ayys you absolutely can't kill beside stasis (until it will be nerfed to like 65% to work on strong ayyes).
This seems to me like the devs wanted us to suffer casualties in every mission.

I'm not top-10 player and want the play to be fun - challenging but not frustrating.
I don't like that much RNG!!!
I'm tired of this stupid (sorry!) graze at 100% shots on units with 0% dodge!
And that still proc even with 0% graze band even on a stationary (!) object just too often (had last night a relay grazed 2 (!) shots in a raw - nice balance, sure).

1.5 has a lot of very nice and important changes and I definitely want to update once it available.
But I kindly ask you please let this one to be configurable in the ini so we can turn it off.
Hadcore players should have fun - sure. But the others should (I hope) also have fun too...

Best regards,
Noober

Noober wrote:Dear devs!

- Fire Grenades have a 75% instead of a 100% chance to apply fire to a flammable unit. Fire bombs have a 85% chance to apply fire.

THIS is by far the greatest nerf that can be done.

With ayys aim progression and previuos nerf to disabling abilities (flash/suppression/smoke/tac sense/hard target) and most classes (i.e. gunner) there will be no way to reliably counter a strong ayys you absolutely can't kill beside stasis (until it will be nerfed to like 65% to work on strong ayyes).
This seems to me like the devs wanted us to suffer casualties in every mission.

I'm not top-10 player and want the play to be fun - challenging but not frustrating.
I don't like that much RNG!!!
I'm tired of this stupid (sorry!) graze at 100% shots on units with 0% dodge!
And that still proc even with 0% graze band even on a stationary (!) object just too often (had last night a relay grazed 2 (!) shots in a raw - nice balance, sure).

1.5 has a lot of very nice and important changes and I definitely want to update once it available.
But I kindly ask you please let this one to be configurable in the ini so we can turn it off.
Hadcore players should have fun - sure. But the others should (I hope) also have fun too...

Best regards,
Noober

honestly they were a little too strong, i'm fine with this change.

It's probably gonna take just a 1 minute .ini edit if you want to revert it to 100%, so what's the problem

100% was to much.

If you walk up to most enemies, you get close to 100% by shooting them in the face anyway!

100% to hit in the face and a graze- sure!

but with 75% it means no difference if you have this grenade or not as it is used not ot damage but to disable and for this purpose only 100% matter.

So please tell me there is that line in the .ini

many thanks

No!

I like it. I like it a lot.

For where they are in the tech tree, they are ridiculously powerful. There is no reason to use any other grenade (other than sting) all the way to the end. They already do a lot of damage so I would treat the burning as a bonus. It also ignites their tile, so there's a good chance they will burn anyway.

the damage is not that much of matter in this case - i'll be quite happy if it's set to 0 damage but 100% burn.
any other spec grenades is a comlete trash - not even worth a slot even is free from POI.

PLEASE !!!

I tend to agree with both points of view here.

Yes, Fire Grenades are too strong in 1.4 and need some sort nerf either in effect or cost/availability because they are way too cost-efficient as they are.
No, i don't think changing the fire effect to a %base proc is the right way to balance them.

I've stated this several times before but RNG based balance is the worst sort of balance because it doesn't really balance anything, it just makes a mess of your tactics.
If fire grenades are OP currently (i agree to that) changing them to 75% chance to set an enemy on fire won't make them 25% weaker and "balanced". It will make them overpowered 75% of the time and underpowered 25% of the time. This is not entirely true because of their AoE effect but generally speaking that's how RNG "balancing" works, it doesn't balance anything, just turns something that was OP to something that is OP sometimes!

It would be much better to keep fire from grenades 100% chance, increase the chance to set enemies on fire with the flamethrower and reduce the power of the burning effect. There's certainly different ways to implement it but here is an idea. As always i don't know if it's good nor how hard it would be to implement it but i'm throwing it for discussion and possibly to help spawn better ideas.
Idea for fire

• Fire on itself does DoT but doesn't prevent you from taking actions (Vanilla XCOM2 didn't prevent shooting). It might stop some abilities that require concentration (like Psi powers, squadsight shooting), maybe every ability, but basic shots and simple melee attacks at least are still possible. If the developers want to be creative with AI it might force affected units to shoot at the enemy that set them on fire (pure instinctive reaction) which would give some real tanking value to defense perks for flamer techs but still put them into a riskier situation then currently when they try to "burminate" a pod. An easier solution but that would overlap with Poison would be to simply give an aim penalty for being on fire.
• Affected enemies however have a chance to "panic" from being on fire, moving to any cover and hunkering there, trying to extinguish the flames (possibly hunkering would stop fire immediately). The chance to panic would be based on will and possibly enemy type (a basic ADVENT guy have a high chance / 100% to panic while a Muton will usually not care).
• Being on fire would still be an issue but not as strong. Removing special abilities on itself is useful, having a chance to disable the unit completely for 1 turn while also doing DoT would make it different (and stronger) than disorientation, however you couldn't count on the enemy being totally out of the fight, and hunkering rather than double moving would make them harder to just kill while they are burning for those enemies that won't die from the DoT thus making the effect weaker and more balanced than it's currently. I think it would still be strong enough to warrant the use of fire based weapons but no longer a hard counter to anything organic.
• An interesting side effect would be to give more "personality" to various enemies.

Nerf of burning effect means a heay nerf of the flame-technic build - right into uselesness.
In this case I would always bring a flash-sting grenadier to disable or sapper for cover destruction rather than technic.

Devs continuously cut off all abilities to reliably control enemies. This is sad tendency. Players will find ways to deal with it, but will it be funny and entertaining? For me it's not funny already, I stopped playing after facing 7 MEC pods which I can't control of kill fast enough to avoid casualties.

Completely argee with you!
Where are a lot of realy nice changes in 1.4 but some nerfs are just too much for me.
It seems like I will be second to do it if it will be implemented as it is stated.

It is getting annoying to be honest. Part of what makes XCOM enjoyable is the emphasis on problem solving: there's a board, you got your pieces, and your pieces got different solutions. You're presented a problem you must solve, and the meat of the game is finding the correct order to solve the problem in the most efficient way. Finding said orders makes the game enjoyable and it's what keeps me coming back to the game.

Everytime you take away a solution and make us throw dice instead you cut fun out of the game. I don't enjoy having to throw dice every time I must solve a problem. Otherwise I would have played Tharsis more than once after I beat it. Specially because you're gambling away the hours/days/weeks you put in a campaign, with characters you sometimes are fond of.

Hopefully this "always leave it to chance" mechanics ain't the sort of game design we'd be expecting out of Terra Invicta.

Since this is the balance-change reaction thread:

- Troop Maneuvers after midgame will often have a pod that includes certain FL-appropriate aliens that show up rarely to ensure those corpses are available more often (Gatekeeper, Andromedon, Archon and Codex)
- Gas grenades gain 1 AOE and half-point of damage
- Venom Rounds removed core cost, cost 1 crystal instead, trading post value reduced to 5

I think the devs are trying to encourage diversity of control options used. Whether they're doing an effective job is another matter, but their intent seems to be to encourage other options too. I'd prefer if venom nerfs Aim or Mobility harder but I appreciate people won't like sneks being buffed because of that. Conceptually the gas grenade is supposed to be terrain denial but the unreliable duration and low aim penalty make it "just another flashbang". Maybe if there was a way to continually re-apply the poison status every turn you stay in the puddle? As is, the surefire way of having poison be relevant is to apply it right before the enemy shoots (by covering fire + venom ammo or blue move into the puddle).

- Removed Gatekeeper and Sectopod from Aggressor job

What does this mean?

While I wholeheartedly agree RNG is the worst form of balance, there is more to the problem solving aspect of finding the correct 'solution' to each turn.

Shots already miss. Vital shots you must hit. The nerf adds a new angle to the problem solving. It goes from straight Soldier A locks down enemy X, Soldier B kills enemy Y, adding in a necessity to execute actions in the right order and react to variances in the outcome.

While I do appreciate how nice it is to play out your turn perfectly, I do feel there is more satisfaction if you plan it well and execute it, throwing in contingencies and it then still turning out fantastically.

I was recently doing a network tower and my Shinobi got cornered 2 dashes from the button. It turned out to be one of the best fights I ever had because the RNG put me in a different situation I had to rethink my way out of, rather than just meticulously following a pre-written 'perfect' plan.

The fire grenade being 100% reliable is in a way boring. This is a radical statement, but once you know the outcome of every single action perfectly, its not really that different to save scumming.

Sure, but when do we stop? Are we gonna cap aim to 100 next so that DFA Sharpshooters still have a chance to grace, because certainty is not fun and the game artificially throwing wrenches at us to increase difficulty is good game design?

LordYanaek wrote:I tend to agree with both points of view here.

Yes, Fire Grenades are too strong in 1.4 and need some sort nerf either in effect or cost/availability because they are way too cost-efficient as they are.
No, i don't think changing the fire effect to a %base proc is the right way to balance them.

I've stated this several times before but RNG based balance is the worst sort of balance because it doesn't really balance anything, it just makes a mess of your tactics.
If fire grenades are OP currently (i agree to that) changing them to 75% chance to set an enemy on fire won't make them 25% weaker and "balanced". It will make them overpowered 75% of the time and underpowered 25% of the time. This is not entirely true because of their AoE effect but generally speaking that's how RNG "balancing" works, it doesn't balance anything, just turns something that was OP to something that is OP sometimes!

It would be much better to keep fire from grenades 100% chance, increase the chance to set enemies on fire with the flamethrower and reduce the power of the burning effect. There's certainly different ways to implement it but here is an idea. As always i don't know if it's good nor how hard it would be to implement it but i'm throwing it for discussion and possibly to help spawn better ideas.
Idea for fire

• Fire on itself does DoT but doesn't prevent you from taking actions (Vanilla XCOM2 didn't prevent shooting). It might stop some abilities that require concentration (like Psi powers, squadsight shooting), maybe every ability, but basic shots and simple melee attacks at least are still possible. If the developers want to be creative with AI it might force affected units to shoot at the enemy that set them on fire (pure instinctive reaction) which would give some real tanking value to defense perks for flamer techs but still put them into a riskier situation then currently when they try to "burminate" a pod. An easier solution but that would overlap with Poison would be to simply give an aim penalty for being on fire.
• Affected enemies however have a chance to "panic" from being on fire, moving to any cover and hunkering there, trying to extinguish the flames (possibly hunkering would stop fire immediately). The chance to panic would be based on will and possibly enemy type (a basic ADVENT guy have a high chance / 100% to panic while a Muton will usually not care).
• Being on fire would still be an issue but not as strong. Removing special abilities on itself is useful, having a chance to disable the unit completely for 1 turn while also doing DoT would make it different (and stronger) than disorientation, however you couldn't count on the enemy being totally out of the fight, and hunkering rather than double moving would make them harder to just kill while they are burning for those enemies that won't die from the DoT thus making the effect weaker and more balanced than it's currently. I think it would still be strong enough to warrant the use of fire based weapons but no longer a hard counter to anything organic.
• An interesting side effect would be to give more "personality" to various enemies.

I like your thinking!

there are situations where you will activate more than you can handle and you can't do anything to prevent it. Just because of map generation. In this case every action is crucail and there is no place for RNG as it can cost you a squad wipe.
That is why I rush PG and fire grenade and that's why I always bring a grenadier with heavy ordinace. 75% on turn endind action mean that you've just lost one full action of your only 5-6 against owerwhelming force of timed mission.

That might mean a squad wipe or the heavy casualties but neither of that now depends on you - you are a slave for RNG. And I don't want to be a slave.

Maybe a better question would be how to buff Poison/Acid so that Fire was not an automatic go-to?

I myself take HO on every single grenadier regardless of any other perks to give them 2 fire grenades as its so potent.

Thinking more about it, a better form of RNG control would be that the enemy could pat the fire out, thus getting control after 1 turn if they don't fail a panic test.

Noober wrote:100% to hit in the face and a graze- sure!

You are aware, I assume, that you can turn off the graze mechanic in the options, right? If it bothers you that much, just set the graze band down to 0 and you'll never graze again. Just be aware that the ayys' shots are subject to graze mechanics, too, and turning it off for you will also turn it off for them.

This is way too magnificent. Can't the damage falloff equation be jammed into the chance to burn and have it falloff from 100% at the center?

@LordYanaek. +1

I don't like adding more randomness to the game as it is, there need to be a few 'oh ****' sure fire abilities even if they are sparse. I'd much prefer if they play around with the ideas you suggest. AI would probably be beyond the scope but playing around with the nature of the initial damage and DoT would yield better balancing results.

You have to keep in mind that the nerf to fire grenades was mostly due to making mechanical units more scary and to make you use other equipment to deal with them.

The main issue for me is that they always seem to double-down when trying to make something work - they made MECs a lot more common and in droves, and they they nerfed fire to make controlling non-MECs even more difficult.

A better way to balance it is to simply lower initial damage but add more per turn damage (both from fire and suffocation from the toxic gases). Also add an ability to Extinguish fire as a turn-ending action.

RookieAutopsy wrote: Shots already miss. Vital shots you must hit.

The shot percentage is something that you as a player can influence. You can decide if you want to rely on a 90% shot or if you want to Holotarget that just to be sure. You have the option to run in for a bigger proximity bonus with the risk of adding additional pods. You chose the percentage of your shot.

The in my opinion bad thing in this case is the fixed percentage that can't be modified, once again removing player agency in favor of pure RNG. It's the Flashbang nerf all over again.

Instead of RNG-nerfing the effect, increase the actual cost of using these items:

"Incendiary Grenades increase Soldier infiltration time by an additional 2 hours, Incendiary Bombs by an additional 4 hours"

Make us think, force us to make trade offs, don't make us roll the dice.

DerAva: Agree. Besides, it seems the reason they're nerfing Incendiary now is because we had to switch away from Flashbangs after the nerf. I agree with the sentiment that Incendiary is sort of OP, but then again aren't the Alients OP as well? A large number of the aliens in the game equal death when left uncontrolled (heck, the Grenadiers carry incendiaries too) and now we're losing another answer because disabling a single (sometimes a couple) biological enemies for 1 turn and maybe dealing lethal on the 2nd turn is too good to rely upon.

Pretty sure I'm going to keep using them, even with 75% chance to fire, not sure how else to nerf them anyway. I don't like the idea of making them more expensive, there are already too many expensive things in the game. You could reduce their damage to 0, and I'd still use them if they had 100% fire chance. Their radius is already the minimum.