Please rethink this!

orion_winterfire
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:12 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by orion_winterfire »

DerAva wrote: 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.
This.
Exquisitor
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 4:50 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Exquisitor »

I've enjoyed reading this thread. It has lots of great discussion and ideas. I don't have a lot to add, but I do have some comments. First, it's not like they're removing the burning debuff, it's just being altered to a lower chance of application to 75%. That's still pretty darn good. Second, aren't some aliens already immune to burning? I've had some actually shoot while burning. That was annoying and I didn't think it was possible. Third, incendiaries are the "go to" grenade because they also do a lot of damage, apply a debuff, the debuff lasts longer than acid and venom, they come early in tech, and they deny terrain to the aliens as do the other choices. Why not make the other grenades equivalent in terms of damage, DoT, effect (chances to hit, attack ability, etc.), purchase, etc. They're very unequal now, hence the use of incendiaries. Fourth, I really like the idea of a talent build that increases the effectiveness of any specialty grenade. That could be an effective way to fix the issue.
deducter
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:47 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by deducter »

I am reminded of the discussion before the first beta of EW LW about lighting reflexes. The plan was to change this to 90% on the first shot, down from 100%. I remember arguing very vocally for how this is terrible idea, reducing a reliable skill to some random dice roll and it would totally destroy this ability.

It turns out my fears were overblown. Lighting reflexes is a great skill in LW1. I have had a Scout one-shotted on a unlucky roll, but that was once in an entire campaign. Although the argument was very heated at the time, today LW1 posts are reddit are not about how the game is completely unplayable because LR is 90% on the first shot.

On the other hand, I could understand the reasoning to not nerf this fire grenade. Even if soldier deaths don't lose you the campaign, on an emotional level is still really sucks. I still remember the gut-punch when I lost some soldiers on a Command Ironman campaign. Double-moving two soldiers next to a trike, activating, and having an advent rocketeer blow them both up with a rocket, losing a GSGT specialist. A TSGT grenadier bleeding out on a network tower because my ranger with the med kit was too far away. My bleeding-out psi soldier getting grenaded to death by a Muton. All of this really sucked when it happened, so why would anyone want to feel that on a more regular basis?

I've probably lost about a dozen SGT+ soldiers, but even so I am crushing Advent on the campaign map. It's almost December and the avatar progress is at 2 pips and I'm ready to start the final network tower and water world. I could probably lose another dozen soldiers and still cruise to victory.

My idea is to restrict this change to Legendary and probably Commander difficulties. Presumably players on these difficulties know what they are getting themselves into, that they won't be a flawless campaign.
Psieye
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:27 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Psieye »

LordYanaek wrote: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.

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
Ah, this is an interesting argument: the desire to see a viable Control doctrine, where you engage in a grindy firefight that slowly resolves. It's separate to your other points (the clash on views there has been laid out above). I do believe you're over-extrapolating from short-term data points (I've seen a room full of esteemed scientists have the same emotional reaction). The devs seek balance and they perceive they over-reached when designing control options. If they actively didn't want a Control doctrine they'd have never made gunners have area suppression at Squaddie or given infinite flashbangs and smoke grenades.

If anything, what makes Control look unattractive on otherwise-designed-for-Control maps (like HQ) is sniper cheese.
My three 8-man GOp squad Commander campaigns:
1st
2nd
3rd
User avatar
xwynns
Long War 2 Crew
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:40 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by xwynns »

Incendiaries were never designed to be a cheap item that a rookie can use to shut down a Muton Elite with perfect reliability, or that a grenadier could use to shut down an entire pod. They were supposed to be the single highest damage grenade in the game. The fact that so many people used them solely for absolute control over rng while ignoring their rather ridiculous level of damage speaks more to the reason for the nerf than anything else.

The ability to reliabily shut down a super powerful enemy with a consumable was never intended to exist in the first place.
User avatar
SirensCry
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:47 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by SirensCry »

Hey Xavier, fellow viewer here ^^ Thanks for joining in.

Reading your last sentence, it made me think on a...lets call tangent lol :

What happened to the Aliens capacity to heal themselves? Remember Exalt medics on LW1 ? that was an amazing mechanic. Maybe adding the ability ( or a new Advent/Alien ) capable of doing this - healing or cleansing or both in improved enemies - could solve the " problem "?

You indirectly nerf status effects for the player, by increasing variety of enemies/abilities. Ergo improving and refreshing the gameplay overall.

I think its win-win.

What do you guys think?

Sirens.
User avatar
WanWhiteWolf
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 10:09 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by WanWhiteWolf »

xwynns wrote:Incendiaries were never designed to be a cheap item that a rookie can use to shut down a Muton Elite with perfect reliability [....] The ability to reliabily shut down a super powerful enemy with a consumable was never intended to exist in the first place.
If that's the case, why is combatives still in the game? If you are not supposed to be able to shut down a Muton Elite with perfect reliability, simply remove this perk as well; or give it 75% chance to work. That would be fun. In fact, a fire grenade costs research + item cost + it's consumable + it blocks enemy for a single turn + it costs 1/2 AP to be used. Combatives does not have any of this constrains.
xwynns wrote: ....or that a grenadier could use it to shut down an entire pod.
A Technical can shut down - statistically - 6 out of 8 ayy from the command pod at squadie level with 0 gear. A grenadier with an incendiary in the same situation is happy if he achieves half of that.

I mean...after this change, why would anyone bother with a grenadier over a flamethrower?
PRO FLAME:
- Flame costs no research
- Flame costs no rss to manufacture
- Flame does not occupy an inventory slot
- Flame has 6x times bigger radius than an incendiary
- You get 2 free FLames at Squadie level

PRO INCENDIARY
- Grenade can be used at a bigger range

I agree that incendiary needed a rework. But rework mean re-balance (nerf one side; buff another). By the way it stands now, you simply have 1 less item in the game.

The reason why people use it so much is because the game has almost no CC options left. You either employ CC tactics or you run from one corner of a map to another and cheese with SquadSight Snipers. That seems like fun ...
dario_gaston
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 3:32 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by dario_gaston »

Okay then, there shouldn't be a cheap way to cc elite aliens. I still think there should be more options to sorta effectively cc elite aliens if the game is to keep the little battle strategy it has left.
User avatar
8wayz
Posts: 340
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 3:59 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by 8wayz »

xwynns wrote:Incendiaries were never designed to be a cheap item that a rookie can use to shut down a Muton Elite with perfect reliability, or that a grenadier could use to shut down an entire pod. They were supposed to be the single highest damage grenade in the game. The fact that so many people used them solely for absolute control over rng while ignoring their rather ridiculous level of damage speaks more to the reason for the nerf than anything else.

The ability to reliably shut down a super powerful enemy with a consumable was never intended to exist in the first place.
I beg to differ.

Making a grenade that already has a debilitating effect and additional per turn damage being the highest damage dealer in the grenade department was a poor choice to start with.

In my opinion grenades should go like this:
Highest damage - HP/ Plasma. It deals great primary damage and shreds some armor.
Highest armor and environmental damage - Acid. This will be a reliable way of destroying some scenery, as well as dealing with pesky MECs.
Highest per turn damage - Fire. This one should be used to crowd control enemies with the intent of killing them over a few turns.
Highest debilitating effects - Poison/Gas. This needs a rework to see what can be updated about the effects it causes or how the poison stays on the map.

Hence, if you want to make the debilitating effect of fire less pronounced, it will be better to just add a malus to AIM and Defence when on fire, instead of outright prohibiting non-mêlée attacks. And revise the damage the grenade does itself. Of course, this will affect the Flamethrower as well.
Last edited by 8wayz on Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
wobuffet
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:09 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by wobuffet »

8wayz wrote:Highest damage - HP/ Plasma. It deals great primary damage and shreds some armor.
Highest armor and environmental damage - Acid. This will be a reliable way of destroying some scenery, as well as dealing with pesky MECs.
Highest per turn damage - Fire. This one should be used to crowd control enemies with the intent of killing them over a few turns.
Highest debilitating effects - Poison/Gas. This needs a rework to see what can be updated about the effects it causes or how the poison stays on the map.
Yes, this is the right track: differentiate all the grenades and effects.

Here's my attempt (changes underlined):
Disoriented: -20 Aim, -6 Mobility, and -20 Will. Cannot use most special abilities.
Stunned: Can't do anything.
Burning: -33 Aim, -40 Will. Inflicts 1–3 damage per turn, lasts 2 turns. Cannot use most special abilities (but can still use ranged attacks).
Acid Burn: -33 Aim, -10 Mobility. Inflicts 4–6 damage, lasts 1 turn. Cannot use most special abilities.
Poisoned: -20 Aim, -6 Mobility. Inflicts 1–4 damage per turn, lasts 1–4 turns. Cannot use most special abilities.

So none of these statuses shuts down ranged attacks completely, but Burning and Acid Burning (i.e., Incendiary and Acid Grenades) inflict extra-severe Aim penalties. Both also have extra-small blast radii, of course.

In this world, Acid Grenades are best against heavily armored and melee units but require quick follow-up because the status only lasts 1 turn.
Incendiary Grenades are best against units that must definitely be somewhat controlled for 2 turns.
And Gas Grenades are best for mass-debuffing a larger crowd of enemies, with variable results.
Jacke
Posts: 623
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:10 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Jacke »

wobuffet wrote:Yes, this is the right track: differentiate all the grenades and effects.

Here's my attempt (changes underlined):
....
I like that approach. Numbers may need adjusting and would have to be playtested.

And I like to look at the real world for inspiration. Incendiary grenades and other fire weapons are for suppressing and eliminating hard targets like entrenchments. They are brutal and soldiers often surrender just at the threat of their use. ADVENT don't surrender, but they still burn like everyone else.

It's been years but I still remember the scene in "The Odd Angry Shot" when the Aussie infantier takes out an opponent by throwing a white phosphorus grenade at him.
Truefell
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 4:35 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Truefell »

Speaking of CC effects, I really like the poison effect from LW1
The main change is that their poison has been replaced with acid, which lowers aim (flat -20%) and mobility (-25%) as poison does, and affected units take slightly more damage from attacks, but acid no longer causes damage directly. Instead, acid inflicts damage to a victim as they take actions, so moving, reloading, firing, overwatch, etc. will all cause an affected unit to take 1 damage. A unit that goes on overwatch will take the damage when they go on overwatch, not when they fire. Hunkering down is safe and a unit that simply remains still and hunkered for the duration of acid will take no damage at all. Acid clouds dissipate within 2 turns and the acid debuff lasts 2-5 turns. Robotic units and soldiers with Medikits or sealed armor are immune to the mobility effects of acid and won't take damage from actions, but will still take more damage from attacks and have reduced aim while affected by acid.
Especially part where Medikit doesn't give you full immunity, but immunity to damage.

And I think that fire debuff should behave differently. For example, instead of shutting down ability to shoot it would make a unit lose an action because he is attempting to extinguish fire. Make every turn check that will roll a chance of extinguishing fire at the beginning of the turn. Some enemies should have better chance of extinguishing due to better armor (as well as Xcom). Hunkering will provide better chance (or chance multiplier). Maybe Muton elite got a sealed armor that will prevent damage from fire but apply an action and aim debuff (partial immunity).
Also an aim penalty for the remaining action.

Also, why doesn't explosives have a critical strike effects. Let's say baseline chance for all grenades of 20%(decays from center of exploision) to apply critical effect (Biggest booms increase chance to 50%(maybe make it somehow dependable from Grenadier's aim)):
- Flashbang - Blind: Doubles aim and mobility debuff.
- Poison - Asphyxiation: Chance to apply Disorientation or Stun effect (per turn check)(and/or disable movement), increased damage over time.
- Incendiary - Blazing Fire: Chance to apply Panic.
- Acid - Caustic Acid: Ignores armor, additional shred, rupture and DoT.
- EMP - Shutdown: 100% Shutdown.
- HE: additional point of damage and shred.
- Plasma: Rupture.
JulianSkies
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by JulianSkies »

WanWhiteWolf wrote:
xwynns wrote:Incendiaries were never designed to be a cheap item that a rookie can use to shut down a Muton Elite with perfect reliability [....] The ability to reliabily shut down a super powerful enemy with a consumable was never intended to exist in the first place.
If that's the case, why is combatives still in the game? If you are not supposed to be able to shut down a Muton Elite with perfect reliability, simply remove this perk as well; or give it 75% chance to work. That would be fun. In fact, a fire grenade costs research + item cost + it's consumable + it blocks enemy for a single turn + it costs 1/2 AP to be used. Combatives does not have any of this constrains.
I imagine that, given that the Arc Thrower is in the game, the key here being that Incendiary Grenades are consumables thus avaiable to any soldier.
I imagine if you're going to have the capacity to lock any particular alien down perfectly it has to be a skill investment on a soldier, so that you're giving up the ability to do something else since it competes with other perks, and also the ability is locked to that soldier so you need to be careful where you field her, and she's going to be unavaiable for a number of missions.
Dlareh
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:41 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Dlareh »

I'm not sure LW2's burning mechanic locking down enemies so completely for 2 turns is a good thing, and I'm not sure the planned changes to fire grenades are ideal. Perhaps something better could be conceived, and perhaps other non-fire grenades could be made more relevant since most of them are a sad joke that's not only seldom worthwhile, but also come too late in the game to even make you think twice.

So perhaps some serious rethinking and rebalancing should be done.

However, one thing we can be very sure about is that the planned 1.5 change to fire grenades is a good change relative to how things are now. It's insane how powerful fire grenades are currently.
Excitement continues to build as city centers across the globe prepare for the latest incarnation of Groundhog Day.
wobuffet
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:09 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by wobuffet »

Here's the problem with Incendiary Grenades as of 1.4, as I see it:
(1) Burning locks out special abilities and ranged attacks. This is more powerful than Acid Burning, Poisoned, or Disoriented.
(2) Burning also lasts for a guaranteed 2 turns.
(3) Lastly, Incendaries are cheap to produce and can be equipped and effectively used by any soldier (any class, any rank).

How might these be fixed? In order,
(1) Make Burning less powerful (and also make Acid Burn, Poison more powerful, by the way!).
For example, Burning inflicts -33 Aim and -20 Will but does not shut down ranged attacks.

(2) Make Burning last a variable amount of time, like Acid Burn does already: say, 1–3 turns with equal probability. Or perhaps 33% chance to go out each turn, doubled to 66% if the affected unit Hunkers.

(3a) Finally, make Incendiaries Grenadier-only (as an Ability instead of an item like Ghost Grenade, or perhaps an expensive-to-produce, class-locked item).
(3b) Alternatively, make Incendiary Grenades have a shorter throwing range, so that a non-Grenadier can only throw it, say, 6 tiles or so.


Of these, (1) is the most critical. Don't let Burning shut down all ranged attacks, and it will be much easier to balance Incendiary, Acid, and Gas Grenades (see my attempt here: http://www.pavonisinteractive.com/phpBB ... 494#p46478 )
There is a lot of room to make this balance work: variables include Aim/Crit/Will/Mobility penalties, length of negative status (including variable lengths), damage taken per turn, grenade throwing range, blast radius, initial damage, armor piercing, armor shredding, and rupturing. For sure with all these options, we can specify an array of grenades such that each can be the most appealing option to a particular player/style of play.

Fixing the problem by adding more RNG to incendiary grenades is like allowing guns into a knife fight, but only if the guns are rigged to work 25% of the time.
Noober
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Noober »

Dear all.

From the last feedback here from devs and Xavier it's absolutely clear that the desision is made and the stated nerf is inevatable no matter what is said from our side.
Good thing - it's easy reversable by ini edit so those too angry with it has at least this undocumented option.
But bad thing - it's clearly not the end and as far as I see the tendency they are working on nerfing the other abilities (DfA?, Stasis?, Assault Stun? anything elase? all of those?).
Let's just "hunker down and pray" the game will not become soon something playble by only those with thousands hours of experience.
RookieAutopsy
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 9:35 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by RookieAutopsy »

Anything that is an automatic go-to will (and should) be changed. The creation of viable choice makes the game richer and more engaging. I would however like to see more viability in the other choices. I think there really should be more rock/paper/scissors with the grenades though and for you to go 'damn, I wish I brought a gas grenade instead of an incendiary' against certain pods.
Dlareh
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:41 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Dlareh »

Yeah. Worst case scenario, if you feel too many things have been nerfed you lower the difficulty level a notch to cope.

There is no point complaining about devs and playtesters doing their job in trying to make a more balanced game by adjusting abilities that are very clearly too powerful in their current state.
Excitement continues to build as city centers across the globe prepare for the latest incarnation of Groundhog Day.
stefan3iii
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:49 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by stefan3iii »

Noober wrote:Dear all.

From the last feedback here from devs and Xavier it's absolutely clear that the desision is made and the stated nerf is inevatable no matter what is said from our side.
Good thing - it's easy reversable by ini edit so those too angry with it has at least this undocumented option.
But bad thing - it's clearly not the end and as far as I see the tendency they are working on nerfing the other abilities (DfA?, Stasis?, Assault Stun? anything elase? all of those?).
Let's just "hunker down and pray" the game will not become soon something playble by only those with thousands hours of experience.
Lots of things get buffed too. Technicals, Psi, Specialists, various ammo, mag rush, liberation, etc etc. If a strategy game is a supposed to be a series of interesting decisions, then having something like incendiaries which are always correct to focus on, takes away choice and makes the game less interesting.

I think they'll still be too powerful with the stated nerf. Biggest difference I think is that you'll need to use incendiary first, and then react based on whether your targets burn or not, as opposed to using them as the last move in a turn now to shutdown any left over enemies.

The poison buff still looks very weak to me. In XCOM, most enemies die in 1 turn, and some enemies die in 2 turns. If something is alive for 3 turns then shit has hit the fan and you're probably taking damage on your soldiers. So the damage output of a poison grenade is pretty awful, because usually it'll have 1 or 2 turns to do damage. As a CC effect it is much worse than a flashbang, there are many enemies immune to poison (Vipers, Chrysallids, Robots), and many enemies that simply cannot be allowed to use special abilities (m2 grenadiers, rocketeers). On top of that, there is a chance it wears off immediately on the the next turn, and the previously poisoned berserker runs in and murders your dudes. The idea of a hybrid cc/damage grenade isn't crazy, but it needs to do one or both better, and adding +1 damage isn't nearly enough.
Some ideas, obviously not all at once:
1) Poison disables melee attacks, and chrysallids are vulenerable to poison. I don't know why this makes story sense, but poison grenades would now have a niche as an anti chrysallid/berskerer utility.
2) You can't shoot at all from inside a gas cloud. Would basically make poison gas a sort of cover denier, would open up interesting tactical play, ex poisoning all cover that can be used to flank your soldiers. Might be a lot of work to implement.
3) Significantly increase damage, something like 5-7 on hit. Yes, they should do more damage than frag grenades, frags work on everything, shred armor, and destroy cover.
4) Make poison last a minimum of 1 alien turn, so you can at least rely on it as CC.
RookieAutopsy
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 9:35 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by RookieAutopsy »

I'm not familiar with the AI code (and thus if it would work) but disabling melee would be a good effect to team with Gas as it turns it into an excellent area denial weapon. With its large radius and the cloud persisting for a while, melee enemies would either have to waste the time to run around it or take the hit to be able to close the distance to attack next turn.
Franzy
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Franzy »

Okay, let me share my vision of grenades rework.
To my mind, grenades should make a lasting environment effect, kinda like real life.
- Explosives/plasma are used to shred armor and destroy cover, so 100% okay as they are.
- Fire grenades are used to flash enemies from cover. So they should deal some damage and light tiles on fire. If you start your turn on a tile on fire or cross this tile, you take some damage and have a chance to start burning. If you're on fire you can not use special abilities and have stat penalties, but can use standard attacks. Hunkering down extinguishes fire. Here's the catch: you can not do ANYTHNG but move from a tile that's on fire. Hence you're forced to move and leave cover (or hunker and take damage from fire until you leave or fire burns out).
- Poison grenades deal damage to everyone inside the cloud every turn. Being inside the cloud also applies stat penalties and blocks using special abilities. You must move outside poison cloud to use special abilities. Moving through poison cloud poisons you; however being poisoned only makes you take small damage over time. So poison acts to deny enemies some area.
- Acid works similarily to poison, but have smaller radius and shreds 1 point of armour every turn a unit stays in the cloud.
User avatar
SirensCry
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:47 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by SirensCry »

Noober wrote:Dear all.

From the last feedback here from devs and Xavier it's absolutely clear that the desision is made and the stated nerf is inevatable no matter what is said from our side.
Good thing - it's easy reversable by ini edit so those too angry with it has at least this undocumented option.
But bad thing - it's clearly not the end and as far as I see the tendency they are working on nerfing the other abilities (DfA?, Stasis?, Assault Stun? anything elase? all of those?).
Let's just "hunker down and pray" the game will not become soon something playble by only those with thousands hours of experience.
100% agree. Im afraid so.

Indeed, following this tendency since its beginning, everything seems to come down to : Players who want to have a good time playing the game, and players who want a perfect challenge. The vision of the Devs should be obvious now.

I shouldnt...but i cant resist lol :
SirensCry wrote:I would agree with most of the OP opinion. But id rather recommend each one to make the adjustments they like for the game THEY like.

Remember this is a Proyect/vision of the awesome team at Pavonis. You can offer feedback, and im sure its appreciated, but plain complaining certain aspects its no use.

Dont get me wrong, im not saying its bad to do so! But its no use.

The mod is already HIGHLY customizable, just ask for the modification you want to add/remove to make your game enjoyable and im pretty sure anyone on the forums would help.

Its what i do and im pretty happy with my 100% fire, not-blind snap shot snipers, precise rockets and 100% sword attacks.

Here :
Xcomgamedata_weapondata.ini , Line 77. There you have the fire grenade/bomb properties. Mod it away!.

Sirens.

Pd : This is for 1.3

I told you? =P

Ini- Adapt or perish! lol

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

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by NovaFlame »

wobuffet wrote:(3a) Finally, make Incendiaries Grenadier-only (as an Ability instead of an item like Ghost Grenade, or perhaps an expensive-to-produce, class-locked item).
Honestly, I'm in favor of making all three special grenades grenadier-only. Not as perks, just as class-locked equipment. Acid and gas will still need some significant changes in order to be relevant, but giving grenadiers exclusive access to the unique grenades would make sense thematically and would help the class stand out more.
User avatar
WanWhiteWolf
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 10:09 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by WanWhiteWolf »

I see the argument thrown that "they are OP , they must be nerfed".

I don't think anyone argues that incendiary is the most powerful grenade. What people are argue and complaining is that this nerf will simply remove the item from the game.

What most people - per my understanding - would expect is to balance them. This either means nerfing them so they can still be useful; or nerf one aspect and buff another aspect of the item. For example removing the 100% chance but increasing it's radius - which is 1 btw ; or buffing their initial damage if the burn is unreliable; or nerf fire itself ...etc.

Also, why is everyone saying that the incendiary last 2 turns ? It's either bugged for me but the grenade lasts 3 turns ( XCOM - Alien - XCOM)

Means you can only disable an enemy for 1 turn ; not 2.

The burning damage will be applied on the 2nd alien turn (Alien - XCOM - Alien) but he will not be burning (which is what we are interested in).
DaviBones
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 8:30 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by DaviBones »

WanWhiteWolf wrote:I see the argument thrown that "they are OP , they must be nerfed".
Also, why is everyone saying that the incendiary last 2 turns ? It's either bugged for me but the grenade lasts 3 turns ( XCOM - Alien - XCOM)

Means you can only disable an enemy for 1 turn ; not 2.

The burning damage will be applied on the 2nd alien turn (Alien - XCOM - Alien) but he will not be burning (which is what we are interested in).
No, your game is working just like everyone else's. The confusion here is that a "turn" as defined by XCOM 2 consists of both teams' actions (XCOM - Alien). This is why when a mission timer says "2 turns until forced evac" it means that after (XCOM - Alien - XCOM - Alien) any soldier not in the evac will be captured.
Post Reply