DaviBones wrote:Actually, after thinking about it, I think the best solution (forget who suggested it) is simply a message in the Commander's Quarters, along the lines of:
"While ADVENT mostly acts responsively to XCOM activity, we should be sure to not become complacent in our operations. If ADVENT has high strength in a region, they are fully capable of fabricating a mission and feeding it to XCOM intelligence intentionally, with the goal of snaring an XCOM squad and wiping them out.
We should be cautious when doing missions that seem 'too good to be true' in regions with high ADVENT strength."
The only thing I would be worried about is this could potentially scare people a bit too much.
I'd actually like to see a "story mission" that emphasizes that, maybe something could be added in between liberation missions that would pseudo showcase an "easy mission" ( Much less punishing Snare Mission ) that is described as "We can't pass up this chance, there's nobody guarding this thing" ..and it's showed through a mission just what you can expect when it's actually a real snare mission. This introduces players to something dangerous..giving them a small scare..and preparing them ( and explaining without having to be explained to ) for snare missions. You can still get some of the same intended effect of throwing the player off and punishing them for being "complacent" or "ignorant" of the mission type...without just throwing them to the wolves.
---------------
My argument is that while the faceless dark event is super annoying, it and the other dark events create a "tenseness" that would otherwise be lacking. Without this and the other difficult dark events, you would be playing in sort of a "sterile environment" where nothing unexpected ever happened. Which could actually be argued as desirable for Rookie difficulty. I would be very interested to hear what the Rookie play-testers think on the subject of both temporary dark events and snare missions..
Okay, but I wasn't actually insinuating that faceless, or snare missions, were annoying. Like I said in the part you quoted, I was trying to point out that it seems "outrageous" for people to keep saying that snare missions are just something you fall into once and then never again.
I disagree on the dark event ( faceless or otherwise ) making it so things are not a sterile environment though, not sure the insinuation on that statement. I think faceless ( and dark events ) just as a they are as a vanilla type and mechanic is more than enjoyable. I can understand wanting to utilize them better / more appropriate to their them of being infiltrators and punishing choices / events...which is why faceless in particular are prevalent in havens, a dark event, etc. but I don't personally believe they need to ( the haven gimmick being really annoying in my opinion, but I understand the fantasy of it. ).
I'm happy that other folks enjoy the beefier and more punishing versions...but I wouldn't say that all of us do ( I know I don't like having really punishing permanent effects in place frequently ). From a thematic viewpoint, it makes sense, but from a gameplay perspective...it's going to be very subjective ( regardless of difficulty ). And I would be interested in hearing rookie level players on the subject of permanent dark events, rather than just temporary ones.
Id be happy to explain that in more detail at another time if you wanted.
Ok misunderstanding here: I was speaking in the context of if some sort of warning/indication being added as to the nature of the trap. In the game's current state, without any such indication, I fully agree that it is unfair for players who don't know of the existence of snare missions. The difference between this and the faceless dark event (which I think is fine as is) is that the faceless dark event gives you a very clear pop-up explaining exactly what is going on when it triggers.
I'm confused here. In what context was the subject of warning / indicators brought up? ( I know I have in the past..but not in the part where you quoted ). You seemed to suggest that where was already more than enough information / indication available to know if a mission was a snare mission or not; you ended your statement with
"They are pretty damn obvious..." after all.
In regards to the rest of the quote, I'm glad you think it's understandable that it's not good for new people to be put into that kind of a situation; and i also agree that there is a difference between the faceless dark event and the snare missions. This coincides with what I had sated at the start of this particular reply, in that it would be great if there was some sort of mission or event that triggers to get new players into realizing that this is something that happens, and why. That way, at least, they don't start mistrusting what the infiltration system tells you about missions...because they'll cite "that one mission that keeps happening" where it says it's easy but you get swarmed by almost a hundred enemies. Hence...the creation of this thread out of confusion / frustration.
When I say "proper difficulty" I mean it in a subjective sense rather than an objective one as you are assuming; the "proper difficulty" for any given player is the one that suits his or her particular skill level. My point is that the game is balanced around strength 7+ regions being terrifying and basically impenetrable fortresses, and anyone that is doing flawless strength 7+ missions routinely, is playing outside the scope of the balance design set up by PI. Therefore, their suggestions, ideas, and opinions must be taken with a grain of salt (not dismissed completely! all suggestions have value obviously) until they start playing on a higher difficulty level which is better suited to them.
Okay, it just seems weird to say "proper difficulty" ..or mention difficulty at all, because of the example / reason I gave that it's rather a moot point. A Rookie player would have an easier time ( code wise ) with High Advent areas...but would get crushed via the gameplay; while veteran+ players would be at a disadvantage ( code wise ) and be more than likely not inclined to even try it.
Now, in regard to the strength 7+ comments ...we're talking about snare missions. The entire point of them is to mislead players into thinking they're doing an easy mission. I don't believe players are intentionally doing extremely hard content...in order to keep getting these "easy missions" that end up being tricks all the time. And in that regard, I think we're leaning a bit too into conflating "newly discovering this mission type" with "by Rookie players". I was simply arguing on principle alone, rather than trying to tie this into whether difficulty ( or experience of a player as a while ) factors into whether this is an acceptable feature or not. I believe the extent of my concern, and criticism, was the utter lack of information regarding it while playing; and ergo ...just stumbling into a situation where you're not suppose to win.
I don't understand your reasoning for the "grain of salt" comment either, and frankly..that does reek of condescending remarks. Snare missions are not difficulty dependent, right? So what would that have anything to do with whether someone could voice an opinion or not? Am I misunderstanding you yet again? I think you're trying to insinuate that doing Strength X level content is only reserved for players that can do top difficulties ...which makes no sense. Difficulties are for all content..not just parts of it. You even pointed out you wanted to hear feedback from Rookie players about Snare missions.....
And again, we're talking about the presence of missions that say they are easy. And as far as I can tell..it's not like the game readily and clearly states the threat level / strength of a region. Something that, if we were talking about inexperienced players ( to the mod at least ), would definitely be something they would not be aware of.
