A Tale of two players

[DerAva]

It's hypothetical world, in which two players, player A and B, end up in exactly the same situation on exactly the same mission. It's a troop column, things got slightly out of hand, and with only a few soldier actions remaining they try to make the best out of this situation:

Player A launches a Sting Grenade from his Grenadier into the uncontrolled enemies, stunning two of them with the Sting effect. An incendiary grenade thrown from another soldier sets one enemy ablaze, taking him out of the fight for another turn.
The specialist in the team is able to take down the remaining advent trooper with his Skulljack (netting a nice +10 Intel on top), and that leaves only one uncontrolled Muton - thankfully the Combatives Shinobi is able to block that attack.
After a flawless mission player A is pretty happy - Advent Strength in the region is down, making the already queued up Supply Raid a lot easier, as it is now below the threshold for a nasty command pod.

Player B does exactly the same actions, with slightly different results. His Sting grenade doesn't stick, and one of the enemies even resists the basic Flashbang effect. The incendiary fails to set the enemy on fire, leaving him free to take an action. At least the Specialist is able to move away from the enemy after his skulljack attempt fails. The Shinobi, however, is not that lucky and gets knocked right into Bleed-Out as he fails the 90% Combatives roll and the Muton punches him.
Despite 1 death and 3 gravely injured soldiers, player B manages to win the mission. A Pyrrhic Victory at best, since Advent Strength was not reduced by this Troop Column. The upcoming Supply Raid will be tough.


Clearly player A is the better player, and player B needs to step it up and "git gud".

[Zyrrashijn]

Sure. B should've changed the plan after the FB was unsuccessful.

[Psieye]

Definitely. Player B (and A for that matter when unlucky) needs to think "ok that didn't work, how do I adapt?" Certainly both players need to "git gud" for letting the situation get out of hand in the first place. It's a troop column, the player isn't under pressure to hurry.

[stefan3iii]

I'll also add that situation 2 has a 0.3125% chance of happening. Ie missing 3 flashbang stuns, an incendiary, and a combatives proc.

[DerAva]

It's of course a rare constructed scenario - although, with 250k subscribers and campaigns that take 100+ missions to complete, how rare will it actually be?
This thread was more born out of the frustration of yet another 2 incidents of static percentage rolls that the player can not influence making their way into the 1.5 patch notes. Hyperbole with an extreme example? Sure.
That doesn't mean that this specific design choice simply bugs me.

[fowlJ]

Okay, but what is anyone supposed to take from an example that isn't actually going to happen a meaningful amount of the time, is proceeded by whatever poor decisions led to relying on those abilities in the first place, and only results in one death and some wounds anyway? You're not going to lose a campaign to this (or to any more reasonable scenario), unless you were in a serious downward spiral already, and if your situation was that fragile then anything could have been the end of it.

[stefan3iii]

It's of course a rare constructed scenario - although, with 250k subscribers and campaigns that take 100+ missions to complete, how rare will it actually be?
This thread was more born out of the frustration of yet another 2 incidents of static percentage rolls that the player can not influence making their way into the 1.5 patch notes. Hyperbole with an extreme example? Sure.
That doesn't mean that this specific design choice simply bugs me.

Sure, but that's a core part of xcom, you're not supposed to finish a campaign without deaths. There are strategy games with no RNG, and they're fun, but they also feel like more of a puzzle game. Xcom is about dealing with risk and inevitable loss, the RNG is a big part of what makes it interesting and unique. Obviously there is some balance, a game that is totally random isn't fun, but as it is now it's very far from that.

[Thrair]

It's of course a rare constructed scenario - although, with 250k subscribers and campaigns that take 100+ missions to complete, how rare will it actually be?

Still quite rare. As the chances of Player A's good result will also happen more often. The percentages will remain the same.

This thread was more born out of the frustration of yet another 2 incidents of static percentage rolls that the player can not influence making their way into the 1.5 patch notes. Hyperbole with an extreme example? Sure.
That doesn't mean that this specific design choice simply bugs me.

Fair enough. If it helps, at the same time that they were changing Combatives to a lower proc rate, I think they mentioned finally figuring out what was causing Combatives to occasionally fail anyways. Now it can fail, but there's a consistency to it that applies evenly to all soldiers and can be planned around, rather than a bug that was affecting soldiers with negative base dodge.

[Thrombozyt]

There are degrees to balancing with a random chance.

I absolutely hate the fact that it's now 50/50 that troop columns reduce strength. After all, that's the main reason of doing troop columns - to reduce strength/alert. I also don't know the reason why - there hasn't been a problem with that.

I dislike the fire grenade changes as the grenade is still overpowered - 75% of the time. I would have rather seen it become much more expensive to use by making it a true consumable.

I'm fine with the combatives nerf as I found it ridiculous to begin with. It's clearly an exploit of the Muton AI and it would have been a better solution to change the AI to consider other options if they do more expected damage (e.g. move & shoot or move and grenade). Going toe to toe with a Muton just armed with a blade should be a last resort maneuver. However, I would have preferred it, if the stats of the soldier doing the blocking would have been taking into account.

I'm completely fine with the sting grenade as the stun is more of a bonus effect and you know which enemies are partially resistant to the disorienting effect.

[Thrombozyt]

It's of course a rare constructed scenario - although, with 250k subscribers and campaigns that take 100+ missions to complete, how rare will it actually be?

Still quite rare. As the chances of Player A's good result will also happen more often. The percentages will remain the same.

That I would like to challenge. The main effect of a troop column is to reduce advents presence. Now it will be a smash&grab with slightly different rewards half of the time. Why increase the resource influx by making the troop columns easier to find and directly hit the main reason for searching and doing this mission?

[Psieye]

It's of course a rare constructed scenario - although, with 250k subscribers and campaigns that take 100+ missions to complete, how rare will it actually be?

Still quite rare. As the chances of Player A's good result will also happen more often. The percentages will remain the same.

That I would like to challenge. The main effect of a troop column is to reduce advents presence. Now it will be a smash&grab with slightly different rewards half of the time. Why increase the resource influx by making the troop columns easier to find and directly hit the main reason for searching and doing this mission?

At a guess, to make it easier for a region to build up to Str 8 and actually invade? It feels too easy to keep Str low right now. This makes vigilence strategy matter more.

[Jacke]

One thing that bugs me about these changes is that they are very binary in their nature. As someone put it, part of the time the effect is overpowered, but sometime the effect is nerfed to uselessness.

Well, weapon attacks don't have a fixed amount of damage, so why should flashbangs, incendiary grenades, and Combatives defense have 2 fixed outcomes, one overpowered and the other useless.

How about flashbangs produce a range of -Aim and -Will by rolling versus the targets Will? How about fire attacks just not shutting down ranged attacks and leaving melee attacks untouched, but roll against the target stats to produce ranges of -Aim, -Will, and -Mobility, and Perk shutdown. How about Combatives roll to provide a number to reduce the possible damage of the melee attack and another value as the riposte attack damage.

Cut down the Aim enough and the AI will have the mob do something else. Cut down the Will and eventually they'll break and panic. Cut down the Mobility and the target is controlled.

I'd prefer this to a binary coin flip, heads you win, tails you lose system.

[DerAva]

Sure, but that's a core part of xcom, you're not supposed to finish a campaign without deaths. There are strategy games with no RNG, and they're fun, but they also feel like more of a puzzle game. Xcom is about dealing with risk and inevitable loss, the RNG is a big part of what makes it interesting and unique. Obviously there is some balance, a game that is totally random isn't fun, but as it is now it's very far from that.

I'm not arguing against RNG here, far from it. RNG is the bread and butter of the game. The player having influence on RNG is what gives you interesting and meaningful choices and player agency.

Do you take that 60% shot with your ranger? Do you move to high ground first, upping the shot to 80% but then you can only take a single one? How about using the 2nd action of your DFA sniper to Holotarget instead? But then you can't steady for your next turn. You could also flashbang the target to remove tac sense and lone wolf, but you might need that grenade later. How about using demolition on the cover? Your gunner is out of free reloads, though, and you might need to move him next turn to aoe-suppress.

These are the kind of choices that, in my opinion at least, make the game interesting and that make your decisions matter. It's also where player skill and awareness come into the picture. Lobbing a grenade at an enemy and hoping that the 75% burn chance doesn't screw you over doesn't really add anything to the game - as a player you are powerless in that situation because there is nothing you can do to influence the outcome.

And that choice doesn't have to come on the tactical layer. There could be a perk to increase burn/acid/poison application chances - suddenly it's my choice to train or not train this perk, and if the 75% screws me over it's my fault for not giving priority to that. How about an item that increases those chances? Suddenly I have to give up a grenade (or armor?) slot on my grenadier if I want to opt out of RNG.
Alternatively you could leave the chance at 100%, and give enemies a % chance to spawn with a Hazmat vest (maybe through a DE), making them immune to fire. Now you have to pay attention on the Battlefield which buffs the enemies have and not waste your actions against enemies that are immune.

[Psieye]

These are the kind of choices that, in my opinion at least, make the game interesting and that make your decisions matter.

There comes a point where actions speak louder than words. Instead of your current approach ("Devs, spend unknown amounts of dev/tester hours to make it happen because Persuasive Philosophy"), why not ask how to make your own LW2 mod so you can directly experiment and present the community with tested proposals? You're trying to make strangers do something with mere words. Something costing a lot of manhours that I'm not sure you're accounting for. I don't think you're going to get any further with just talk.

Sure, talk is important. But we've had this discussion more than once now.

[Icarus]

There comes a point where actions speak louder than words. Instead of your current approach ("Devs, spend unknown amounts of dev/tester hours to make it happen because Persuasive Philosophy"), why not ask how to make your own LW2 mod so you can directly experiment and present the community with tested proposals? You're trying to make strangers do something with mere words. Something costing a lot of manhours that I'm not sure you're accounting for. I don't think you're going to get any further with just talk.

Sure, talk is important. But we've had this discussion more than once now.

Not necessarily. Balancing seems to be still going on. And if something gets changed anyway, doing it differently (instead of additionally) doesn't cost a lot of time extra. Additionally, giving the devs feedback on how things are solved is important. So important, in fact, that I scrapped one of my own projects when I was unable to get this kind of feedback.

So, if I were a developer, I'd rather have this kind of feedback than not. And I think we can count on the devs to note if it gets too much.

[Psieye]

Not necessarily. Balancing seems to be still going on. And if something gets changed anyway, doing it differently (instead of additionally) doesn't cost a lot of time extra. Additionally, giving the devs feedback on how things are solved is important. So important, in fact, that I scrapped one of my own projects when I was unable to get this kind of feedback.

So, if I were a developer, I'd rather have this kind of feedback than not.

Good point. The line really blurs between user, payer (or rather, "source of funding") and tester. I take it further and smudge in 'modder', 'dev' and 'designer' too - if you have time to play a LW campaign and wit to produce structured feedback with persuasive arguments, you can dig into the code with help and actually try out some proposals. But as you say, you cannot take Feedback (or rather, Interest) for granted.

[Thrombozyt]

Sure, but that's a core part of xcom, you're not supposed to finish a campaign without deaths. There are strategy games with no RNG, and they're fun, but they also feel like more of a puzzle game. Xcom is about dealing with risk and inevitable loss, the RNG is a big part of what makes it interesting and unique. Obviously there is some balance, a game that is totally random isn't fun, but as it is now it's very far from that.

I'm not arguing against RNG here, far from it. RNG is the bread and butter of the game. The player having influence on RNG is what gives you interesting and meaningful choices and player agency.

Do you take that 60% shot with your ranger? Do you move to high ground first, upping the shot to 80% but then you can only take a single one? How about using the 2nd action of your DFA sniper to Holotarget instead? But then you can't steady for your next turn. You could also flashbang the target to remove tac sense and lone wolf, but you might need that grenade later. How about using demolition on the cover? Your gunner is out of free reloads, though, and you might need to move him next turn to aoe-suppress.

These are the kind of choices that, in my opinion at least, make the game interesting and that make your decisions matter. It's also where player skill and awareness come into the picture. Lobbing a grenade at an enemy and hoping that the 75% burn chance doesn't screw you over doesn't really add anything to the game - as a player you are powerless in that situation because there is nothing you can do to influence the outcome.

And that choice doesn't have to come on the tactical layer. There could be a perk to increase burn/acid/poison application chances - suddenly it's my choice to train or not train this perk, and if the 75% screws me over it's my fault for not giving priority to that. How about an item that increases those chances? Suddenly I have to give up a grenade (or armor?) slot on my grenadier if I want to opt out of RNG.
Alternatively you could leave the chance at 100%, and give enemies a % chance to spawn with a Hazmat vest (maybe through a DE), making them immune to fire. Now you have to pay attention on the Battlefield which buffs the enemies have and not waste your actions against enemies that are immune.

I would like to support this 100%. More and more flat % chances are being introduced on rolls that a player cannot influence, that are relatively few and that carry significant weight. More than once alternatives have been proposed, that will also result in a dice roll to the same end, but where the player can influence the chance through his actions. I haven't seen any reason why not to use a more nuanced approach.

EDIT:
Will Gate Crasher also only have a 50% roll to reduce alert? So with poor luck, you could end with an alert 3 starting region on legend?

[JulianSkies]

Sure, but that's a core part of xcom, you're not supposed to finish a campaign without deaths. There are strategy games with no RNG, and they're fun, but they also feel like more of a puzzle game. Xcom is about dealing with risk and inevitable loss, the RNG is a big part of what makes it interesting and unique. Obviously there is some balance, a game that is totally random isn't fun, but as it is now it's very far from that.

I'm not arguing against RNG here, far from it. RNG is the bread and butter of the game. The player having influence on RNG is what gives you interesting and meaningful choices and player agency.

Do you take that 60% shot with your ranger? Do you move to high ground first, upping the shot to 80% but then you can only take a single one? How about using the 2nd action of your DFA sniper to Holotarget instead? But then you can't steady for your next turn. You could also flashbang the target to remove tac sense and lone wolf, but you might need that grenade later. How about using demolition on the cover? Your gunner is out of free reloads, though, and you might need to move him next turn to aoe-suppress.

These are the kind of choices that, in my opinion at least, make the game interesting and that make your decisions matter. It's also where player skill and awareness come into the picture. Lobbing a grenade at an enemy and hoping that the 75% burn chance doesn't screw you over doesn't really add anything to the game - as a player you are powerless in that situation because there is nothing you can do to influence the outcome.

And that choice doesn't have to come on the tactical layer. There could be a perk to increase burn/acid/poison application chances - suddenly it's my choice to train or not train this perk, and if the 75% screws me over it's my fault for not giving priority to that. How about an item that increases those chances? Suddenly I have to give up a grenade (or armor?) slot on my grenadier if I want to opt out of RNG.
Alternatively you could leave the chance at 100%, and give enemies a % chance to spawn with a Hazmat vest (maybe through a DE), making them immune to fire. Now you have to pay attention on the Battlefield which buffs the enemies have and not waste your actions against enemies that are immune.

I would like to support this 100%. More and more flat % chances are being introduced on rolls that a player cannot influence, that are relatively few and that carry significant weight. More than once alternatives have been proposed, that will also result in a dice roll to the same end, but where the player can influence the chance through his actions. I haven't seen any reason why not to use a more nuanced approach.

EDIT:
Will Gate Crasher also only have a 50% roll to reduce alert? So with poor luck, you could end with an alert 3 starting region on legend?

I think the main difference is that the myriad suggestions include methods through which the chance for CCing could be increased to 100%, which I believe is the one thing they won't do, there cannot be a reliable way to control something.

[stefan3iii]

But there is a way to control the percentages for incendiaries, just fire two incendiaries, and the chance becomes 94%. Or three for 98.5%. Or combine it with any number of other random things in the game that may kill or control your target. Incendiary bombs increase the burn chance to 85%, and I agree perks to buff them would be interesting, but I don't think it's some critical balancing/fun issue.

[Saph7]

But there is a way to control the percentages for incendiaries, just fire two incendiaries, and the chance becomes 94%. Or three for 98.5%. Or combine it with any number of other random things in the game that may kill or control your target.

Pretty much. Incendiaries do a ridiculous amount of damage, and even if you don't get a burn, you have a good chance of killing a M1 or M2 enemy outright, or setting their tile on fire. Or you could, as pointed out, combine it with something else instead of placing yourself in a position where you're staking everything on that one shot.

I've been playing with the 75% version of Incendiaries for a few weeks now, and they're still super powerful. Just played a 4-man Lib1 a couple of hours ago where the Grenadier used one to kill a Sidewinder in a single shot (oh, hey, looks like the burn chance failed, too bad you're still dead).

[Psieye]

Pretty much. Incendiaries do a ridiculous amount of damage, and even if you don't get a burn, you have a good chance of killing a M1 or M2 enemy outright, or setting their tile on fire. Or you could, as pointed out, combine it with something else instead of placing yourself in a position where you're staking everything on that one shot.

It's a curiosity how people tunnel vision on "CC chance is now 75%" and forget the damage component of incendiaries. I think it's from the "Heavy Ordnance but otherwise flashbang perks" build, which is totally fine when the incendiary only does 4 damage.

[8wayz]

I truly do not wish to side track this discussion, but the main purpose of grenades in general is crowd control and to debilitate the enemy. Making a grenade deal such high damage was counter-productive. I will gladly trade 50% of the current damage for its intended crowd-control effect.

[deducter]

This reminds me of the lightning reflexes debate in LW1. I was strongly against the -90% rather than -100% chance vs the overwatch shot, and I cited exactly this RNG reason for why I was against that change.

It turns out LR is still incredibly strong even if you get hit once in a rare while. I think incendiaries will still be very strong after the nerf.

[llll BlackFlag]

And that choice doesn't have to come on the tactical layer. There could be a perk to increase burn/acid/poison application chances - suddenly it's my choice to train or not train this perk, and if the 75% screws me over it's my fault for not giving priority to that. How about an item that increases those chances? Suddenly I have to give up a grenade (or armor?) slot on my grenadier if I want to opt out of RNG.
Alternatively you could leave the chance at 100%, and give enemies a % chance to spawn with a Hazmat vest (maybe through a DE), making them immune to fire. Now you have to pay attention on the Battlefield which buffs the enemies have and not waste your actions against enemies that are immune.

Great ideas, +1 for the hazmat DE

[Thrombozyt]

But there is a way to control the percentages for incendiaries, just fire two incendiaries, and the chance becomes 94%. Or three for 98.5%. Or combine it with any number of other random things in the game that may kill or control your target.

Pretty much. Incendiaries do a ridiculous amount of damage, and even if you don't get a burn, you have a good chance of killing a M1 or M2 enemy outright, or setting their tile on fire. Or you could, as pointed out, combine it with something else instead of placing yourself in a position where you're staking everything on that one shot.

I've been playing with the 75% version of Incendiaries for a few weeks now, and they're still super powerful. Just played a 4-man Lib1 a couple of hours ago where the Grenadier used one to kill a Sidewinder in a single shot (oh, hey, looks like the burn chance failed, too bad you're still dead).

While I can see your point about them still being powerful statistically, I don't see why the CC part was targeted in such an inconsistent manner when clearly the damage part would have been easier to manage.

I also wonder, what your justification for the Troop Column change is. Successful Troop Columns were the primary way to reduce ADVENT strength/alert - they do so now only 50% of the time. Given that Gate Crasher is a troop column and previously it was possible to have your starting region at alert 2, now you can have a alert 3 starting region on higher difficulties, which makes things significantly harder compared to the more normal alert 1 region.