https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gITg6IB ... B&index=83
This was hilariously funny to watch.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Xwynns actually commented that he'd been proposing an Avatar Project-related change and felt that the end of Marbs campaign was the evidence he needed to convince everyone else, so there is at least someone who is concerned about this.Veneficus wrote:the general feel I am getting from my interactions with JoINrbs is that what the developers want to do is decided and that this feedback is pretty much a waste of time.
They seem to want you to spend hours figuring out how their code works and accept that at anytime a single RNG can end your game and that makes it fun.
Both Marbs and this guy have echoed my frustrations, and it just seems to me like nobody cares.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e2okTP3_dQ&t=50s
Every XCOM game I've every played, both classic and new, can generally have an entire campaign tailspin if you squadwipe on a high difficulty. When has the tipping point of ending a campaign in this series not come down to a single RNG roll when it has gone bad?Veneficus wrote:the general feel I am getting from my interactions with JoINrbs is that what the developers want to do is decided and that this feedback is pretty much a waste of time.
They seem to want you to spend hours figuring out how their code works and accept that at anytime a single RNG can end your game and that makes it fun.
Both Marbs and this guy have echoed my frustrations, and it just seems to me like nobody cares.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e2okTP3_dQ&t=50s
I've lost three campaigns since release in exactly this way and absolutely care.Veneficus wrote:the general feel I am getting from my interactions with JoINrbs is that what the developers want to do is decided and that this feedback is pretty much a waste of time.
They seem to want you to spend hours figuring out how their code works and accept that at anytime a single RNG can end your game and that makes it fun.
Both Marbs and this guy have echoed my frustrations, and it just seems to me like nobody cares.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e2okTP3_dQ&t=50s
Code: Select all
------------(From Line #261)-----------
;Days until first point of doom appears (set to half of doom interval)
MinFortressAppearDays[0]=25 ;Easy
MaxFortressAppearDays[0]=25
MinFortressAppearDays[1]=23 ;Normal
MaxFortressAppearDays[1]=23
MinFortressAppearDays[2]=21 ;Classic
MaxFortressAppearDays[2]=21
MinFortressAppearDays[3]=20 ;Impossible
MaxFortressAppearDays[3]=20
;Hours between subsequent points of doom appearing on fortress
MinFortressDoomInterval[0]=1200 ;Easy
MaxFortressDoomInterval[0]=1200
MinFortressDoomInterval[1]=1080 ;Normal
MaxFortressDoomInterval[1]=1080
MinFortressDoomInterval[2]=1020 ;Classic
MaxFortressDoomInterval[2]=1020
MinFortressDoomInterval[3]=960 ;Impossible
MaxFortressDoomInterval[3]=960
------------------
As I wrote above, he lost because of a lack of missions. He had 80 missions over 12 months which is a very low number of missions. Typically you would hit this within 6-7 months. He basically was not slowing down the avatar project at all and lost to it because of that.Zarkis wrote:Can anybody explain to me why Marbozir lost his campaign (which was played on veteran btw)? I followed his playthrough. He hadn't any squad wipes or lost many soldiers (only 13 guys lost in total as you can see in the final stats). Tactically his gameplay was sound, but he still lost, and I don't get why.
Unlike XCom2, tactical game is only one aspect of LW2. Others already explained it, he ran way too few missions and probably didn't liberate enough regions. I won my second campaign (Commander diff) in March second year with something like 4 or 5 pips on the avatar progress! I actually started the Golden Path missions really late when the avatar progress started to worry me but i wasn't even in a real hurry. Avatar research was slowed by something like 115% at the end IIRC (more than 100%, of that i'm sure). The trick is to make ADVENT's life miserable by running lots of missions (increase vigilance), killing troops (decrease str) and liberate some regions (big drop of str).Zarkis wrote:Tactically his gameplay was sound, but he still lost, and I don't get why.
I think important strategical information should be always visible, because otherwise the player has to use metagaming to win the game.chrisb wrote:I do agree that vigilance is a bit too hidden at the moment. It's not a stat that should be showed directly like strength as this would make breaking the game far too easy. I know some have commented that it should be simply shown like strength, and I thought this at first too. Then I learned how it works and I realize now that it would be very bad to show the raw stat on the map. Perhaps there are better ways to articulate to the player that vigilance is gained by doing missions and is lost every 7 days in each region. So doing lots of missions is very important.
wizard1200 wrote:I think important strategical information should be always visible, because otherwise the player has to use metagaming to win the game.chrisb wrote:I do agree that vigilance is a bit too hidden at the moment. It's not a stat that should be showed directly like strength as this would make breaking the game far too easy. I know some have commented that it should be simply shown like strength, and I thought this at first too. Then I learned how it works and I realize now that it would be very bad to show the raw stat on the map. Perhaps there are better ways to articulate to the player that vigilance is gained by doing missions and is lost every 7 days in each region. So doing lots of missions is very important.
Ok, but if it is expected that the player has this information why would the game suddenly be easier if the player would be able to see the information in the game?azarga wrote:JoINrbs said in one of his recent videos that LW2 is mainly aimed at players who are "intelligent enough to dig info they need from game files or at least read the wiki" - something along those lines. Players are expected to read wikis/forums/reddits/etc - work as a community - when they play this mod and get all the essential info and cookie-cutter strategies from there.
Thanks for the swift reminder about that highly complex work of mine.. it's a good tool to have in anyone's arsenal of known facts!Jacke wrote:BTW, to get more information in the XCOM Archives, you could install the mod LAByrinth.
For what it's worth, global vigilance, what slows down avatar progress, is shown in the haven management menuLordYanaek wrote:I usually don't care much what someone "more or less" said because it's usually less rather than more and out of context so i'd like to know where he actually said that![]()
As for Vigilance level, there is a big difference between knowing how it works (be it from an official manual or community documentation) and actually having the numbers visible.
A good compromise would probably be to have some sort of indicator but not the direct number. Something along the lines of Low(1-4))/Medium(4-8)/High(9+) would give us an indication without making abusing it easy. Of course calculative players would be able to tell that the moment vigilance goes from low to medium it's exactly at 5 but those are probably already counting missions/week for an even more efficient control of the vigilance level so they won't really be affected.
That would be a very good solution.LordYanaek wrote:A good compromise would probably be to have some sort of indicator but not the direct number. Something along the lines of Low(1-4))/Medium(4-8)/High(9+) would give us an indication without making abusing it easy.
I know that but having some similar clue for each region might help players, or at least avoid the feeling that important information is hidden due to bad design or sadistic design decisionsJulianSkies wrote: For what it's worth, global vigilance, what slows down avatar progress, is shown in the haven management menu
However, there is little to no indication that Global Threat Level is linked to how many missions you're completing. For someone with no in-depth knowledge of the game, it would not be unreasonable for them to think it could be linked to how many regions you've contacted or how many rebels you have or how far along you were on the Golden Path or how many mission of a specific type you're doing, etc.JulianSkies wrote:For what it's worth, global vigilance, what slows down avatar progress, is shown in the haven management menuLordYanaek wrote:I usually don't care much what someone "more or less" said because it's usually less rather than more and out of context so i'd like to know where he actually said that![]()
As for Vigilance level, there is a big difference between knowing how it works (be it from an official manual or community documentation) and actually having the numbers visible.
A good compromise would probably be to have some sort of indicator but not the direct number. Something along the lines of Low(1-4))/Medium(4-8)/High(9+) would give us an indication without making abusing it easy. Of course calculative players would be able to tell that the moment vigilance goes from low to medium it's exactly at 5 but those are probably already counting missions/week for an even more efficient control of the vigilance level so they won't really be affected.