X-COM XCOM 2 + War of the Chosen Expansion Thread

[LizardWizard]

Nigga if you don't want to reload, don't reload. I hate getting fucked by bugs (especially in a game like xcom2 where it's a fairly permanent disadvantage), so I don't play ironman.

If you play ironman and get fucked by bugs, in a game where it is obvious there will be bugs and glitches, you have no right to complain.

Or you can just easily backup your ironman saves every once and awhile.

 

[Zero Credibility]

It's funny how at EW release, everyone complained about the weirdness of needing to slaughter soldiers in order to get a MEC and everyone was like "wtf is this?" "why not simply robot? why i have to cut soldiers limbs?"

and years after, at X2 dlc release everyone the opposite "wtf? full robots???" "I miss MEC, why no hybrid human-robot like EW?"

Dunno. Using a robot would make sense, but they just don't look good or (from what little I bothered to use them) pack the same punch old mechs did. They feel like shiv did in the first game, only they are not disposable either. Altogether meh and not worth the bother to build, equip and level them.

 

[Mazisky]

It's funny how at EW release, everyone complained about the weirdness of needing to slaughter soldiers in order to get a MEC and everyone was like "wtf is this?" "why not simply robot? why i have to cut soldiers limbs?"

and years after, at X2 dlc release everyone the opposite "wtf? full robots???" "I miss MEC, why no hybrid human-robot like EW?"

Dunno. Using a robot would make sense, but they just don't look good or (from what little I bothered to use them) pack the same punch old mechs did. They feel like shiv did in the first game, only they are not disposable either. Altogether meh and not worth the bother to build, equip and level them.

LW2 team said they rebalanced them. Let's see if they got powered

 

[Zeriel]

Weapons are built individually and not as squad upgrade

You're kidding, right? Firaxis switching to "you never have to build any weapons and armor" in X2 was received as a great decline when first announced.

 

[Grunker]

What the fuck do I care how it was "received"? That something is perceived as hardcore doesn't make it good design by default. If they take Rubber Banding properly into consideration this might end up being a great decision, which is why I said "not sure." But if they pile on features like this for the sake of being "hardcore", well.

I had the same concerns with Red Fog, but that mechanic turns out to be balanced because if you're behind you can use safe shots to wittle down opponents (and the obvious benefits are, well, obvious, like hits not being immaterial until the killing blow). So that mechanic is pretty nice.

 

[Zeriel]

It's not hardcore, but it is a fundamental feature of the original games (every item you use has to be produced and has a build time) that was stripped out in X2, it seems a bit weird to me to be opposed to it returning, but whatever.

 

[Grunker]

Nu-Xcom is very different from the old games. I thought that much was obvious

 

[Zeriel]

But building items was in EU. Do you feel it was an improvement in X2 how it was gone? Personally I didn't think so, it was one of the changes they made I felt detracted from the game. Having to wait and build pieces individually in EU added to the tension for me, it made it so that you didn't instantly see a surge in power just from completing research on new tiers of weapons, and having the "one guy with the laser rifle" on your squad intensified your attachment to soldiers, which is one of the core pillars people like about new XCOM.

 

[Grunker]

But building items was in EU. Do you feel it was an improvement in X2 how it was gone?

Yes, because I felt the way it worked in EU was a weird concession. Like, they wanted to pay homage to the original but not in a complete way, which meant we ended up with a half-assed system that made rubber banding worse. In my opinion. It's not that I think it can't work somehow, it's that I think it didn't it EU.

having the "one guy with the laser rifle" on your squad intensified your attachment to soldiers, which is one of the core pillars people like about new XCOM.

This is true, but it also highlights the weakness of the system I'm talking about. Your one Major is completely crucial. He dies, it's almost over. He dies with your only laser weapon? That's even worse.

One of the things I liked most about 2 is how wounds seem to last longer, forcing you to deepen your roster and spread out your resources, and the game is more balanced around that. Still not enough in my mind, but it's something. At least, my roster is deeper and consequences of losing my second-most important guy lessened, so I find myself continuing playing more if that happens on ironman.

 

[Jaedar]

This is true, but it also highlights the weakness of the system I'm talking about. Your one Major is completely crucial. He dies, it's almost over. He dies with your only laser weapon? That's even worse.

That's why in the original game you could pick up and use the weapons of fallen comrades, soviet style.

One of the things I liked most about 2 is how wounds seem to last longer, forcing you to deepen your roster and spread out your resources, and the game is more balanced around that.

You know nothing John Grunker.

The roster size of x2 is nothing compared to what you'll have after one in game month in long war.

 

[Grunker]

You seem to be under the assumption that I dislike all LW changes. This is clearly not the case. I just dislike the sum more, because I think the game is long and grindy enough as it is.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

the game is long and grindy because it sucks. it wouldn't feel long and grindy had it been decent.

 

[ArchAngel]

don't play ironman

Nigga if you don't want to reload, don't reload. I hate getting fucked by bugs (especially in a game like xcom2 where it's a fairly permanent disadvantage), so I don't play ironman.

If you play ironman and get fucked by bugs, in a game where it is obvious there will be bugs and glitches, you have no right to complain.

I didn't play ironman anymore after I lost two campaigns to game ending bugs but later I didn't reload on all bugs. Like the one where two bodies on top of each other, I would not reload on that one. Although it might be a bug, it is a small one and it can be avoided.
I had to reload when I could not finish the mission with last enemy being stuck in same square as a barrel and I could not damage him. Quitting the mission was equal to starting the campaign over because I was in a bad position with tech and available manpower so I loaded a save before the mission and did it again. It loaded a different mission where I lost a soldier (in bugged run I didn't lose any) but managed to finish it at least.

 

[Leechmonger]

The problem is that paper systems thrive on abstraction with complex actions reduced to single input die rolls

Good games use die rolls sparingly, and almost never for outcome resolution.

Spoiler

PnP games aren't good.

Spoiler

Neither is nuXcom.

XCOM2's difficulty is wildly rubber banding - if you do poorly, things will spiral out of control, and if you do well, things become a breeze.

That's the exact opposite of rubber banding. Are you familiar with rubber bands?

the game is long and grindy because it sucks. it wouldn't feel long and grindy had it been decent.

Nailed it.

 

[Grunker]

You're right Leechmonger, I was using an incorrect term. Sorry about that. The point remains the same, of course.

 

[Galdred]

Good games use die rolls sparingly, and almost never for outcome resolution.

No.

Edit: feel free to take part in the discussions there :
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/whats-the-point-of-randomness.93407/

Edit2: Note that X-COM (with hyphen) also uses a lot of randomness.
A definition under which X-COM is not a good game can only be wrong.

 

[Zeriel]

I honestly have a hard time thinking of games that don't use "dice rolls" in the general sense. Even first person shooters often use a damage range for different sections of the body.

 

[Leechmonger]

The point remains the same, of course.

I agree with you, by the way.

Edit2: Note that X-COM (with hyphen) also uses a lot of randomness.
A definition under which X-COM is not a good game can only be wrong.

I'm generalizing of course, but there's a clear correlation between a game (PC or boardgame) using die-based outcome resolution and it being shit. There are outliers like the original X-COM, which has so many die rolls resolved nearly in parallel (countless recruits shooting one after another) that the statistics almost always converge to the mean. nuXcom lacks this of course due to its limited squad size and is much worse because of it (and other reasons). In general I would say a game's design is worse and less elegant the more luck has a role in determining success (as opposed to skill). Think of Monopoly and Risk as classic luck-based boardgames that are now popular to bash.

Also I'd like to point out that randomness is not the same as luck. A game can inject randomness in several ways that have varying degrees of luck associated with them; the ratio of randomness to luck varies with each implementation. The goal should be to achieve the level of randomness (and hence in a sense replayability) the designer is looking for while minimizing the control that luck has over the outcome of the game.

 

[Mazisky]

NEW INFOS ABOUT LW2:


-A new mechanic called "infiltration".

-A new class called "Technician", specialized in Flamethrower and Rockets (with perk tree reflecting that).

-Bunch of brand new secondary weapons designed for LW2

-Rocket scatter and Grenade falloff mechanic

 

[Skittles]

Edit2: Note that X-COM (with hyphen) also uses a lot of randomness.
A definition under which X-COM is not a good game can only be wrong.

I'm generalizing of course, but there's a clear correlation between a game (PC or boardgame) using die-based outcome resolution and it being shit.
(...)
Also I'd like to point out that randomness is not the same as luck. A game can inject randomness in several ways that have varying degrees of luck associated with them; the ratio of randomness to luck varies with each implementation. The goal should be to achieve the level of randomness (and hence in a sense replayability) the designer is looking for while minimizing the control that luck has over the outcome of the game.

Luck that invalidates, precludes or replaces player choice/the consequences of player choices sucks (in a strategy game, obviously, not games of chance, etc.). The question isn't "how many times does the game roll the dice?"--it's "how much does that randomness actually determine the outcome of the game?" There are several acceptable--desireable--roles for randomness in a strategy game that I can list off the top of my head.

1. Randomness can inject greater challenge into single player games, forcing you to adapt to circumstances that are completely unforseeable and preventing any approach from being a sure thing.

2. Random rolls can abstract factors a game can't/doesn't simulate to provide an experience "truer to life" or at least the expectations of the player.

3. Probabilities allow more minute adjustments in statistics to matter and makes them more interesting. Even a relatively involved game that eschews probability has one fewer tool on its belt when differentiating between actions/items, e.g. all other factors being equal when taking a particular shot in an X-COM like game, weapons A & B will always hit and C will always miss and they deal 1, 2, and 3 points of damage, respectively, is less interesting than A: 100% for 0-2, B: 50% for 2 - 5, and C: 10% for 3 - 6, especially when it's very easy to reduce your options in the first scenario to a simple matrix of decision = outcome. Enough rolls mean that, yes, there's always a safest option and it'll be very similar to the options in the first scenario, but...

4. Low probability/high reward or high risk/high reward strategies are fun.

 

[Galdred]

Edit2: Note that X-COM (with hyphen) also uses a lot of randomness.
A definition under which X-COM is not a good game can only be wrong.

I'm generalizing of course, but there's a clear correlation between a game (PC or boardgame) using die-based outcome resolution and it being shit.
(...)
Also I'd like to point out that randomness is not the same as luck. A game can inject randomness in several ways that have varying degrees of luck associated with them; the ratio of randomness to luck varies with each implementation. The goal should be to achieve the level of randomness (and hence in a sense replayability) the designer is looking for while minimizing the control that luck has over the outcome of the game.

Luck that invalidates, precludes or replaces player choice/the consequences of player choices sucks (in a strategy game, obviously, not games of chance, etc.). The question isn't "how many times does the game roll the dice?"--it's "how much does that randomness actually determine the outcome of the game?" There are several acceptable--desireable--roles for randomness in a strategy game that I can list off the top of my head.

1. Randomness can inject greater challenge into single player games, forcing you to adapt to circumstances that are completely unforseeable and preventing any approach from being a sure thing.

2. Random rolls can abstract factors a game can't/doesn't simulate to provide an experience "truer to life" or at least the expectations of the player.

3. Probabilities allow more minute adjustments in statistics to matter and makes them more interesting. Even a relatively involved game that eschews probability has one fewer tool on its belt when differentiating between actions/items, e.g. all other factors being equal when taking a particular shot in an X-COM like game, weapons A & B will always hit and C will always miss and they deal 1, 2, and 3 points of damage, respectively, is less interesting than A: 100% for 0-2, B: 50% for 2 - 5, and C: 10% for 3 - 6, especially when it's very easy to reduce your options in the first scenario to a simple matrix of decision = outcome. Enough rolls mean that, yes, there's always a safest option and it'll be very similar to the options in the first scenario, but...

4. Low probability/high reward or high risk/high reward strategies are fun.

Risk management is indeed a big part of why randomness is desirable(cf Blood Bowl).
I posted a more detailed reply in the workshop.

 

[Mazisky]

Scattering is a thing for rockets, as in previous Long War for XCOM : Enemy Within, as is explosive damage falloff, both for grenades and rockets.

I've reworked the mechanics for how rocket scatter works in Long War 2 to better suit the more tile-oriented mechanics in XCOM 2. There is now a max scatter. Scatter amount increases after moving, and is affected by soldier aim and abilities. In the new iteration, scatter also affects blaster launchers, even though they can target locations via pathing (no direct LOS).

I've also changed up how explosive falloff works too compared to previous Long War. Since a typical grenade only affects a few tiles, applying a straight damage penalty worked out to be too severe. Instead, explosive damage falloff (to units) now only affects the minimum damage, but not the maximum. So at the edges, it's still possible to hit for a lot of damage, but it's also possible to hit for a lot less.

There is environmental damage falloff as well, although it mechanically works differently from unit damage for technical reasons. There are also abilities related to this mechanic.

We worked on suppression. A lot. I'll add the Area Suppression now supports shooting at everyone in the AOE who moves as long as you still have ammo.

LW2 is such a comprehensive change to the game that I suspect the expansion if there is one won't be coming so soon.

I hope if there will be an expansion, they will update their LW2 mod for it for an overall big definitive experience.

As long as i love LW mod and their guys, only an official expansion can add new elaborate maps and assets.

 

[Galdred]

Why wouldn't they make an expansion? The game sold pretty well, didn't it?
1,223,546 ± 60,270 according to Steamspy. It is less that Beyond Earth , but probably still enough for an XPack.
Edit: nvm, Beyond Earth had a free week end

 

[Mazisky]

I hope if there will be an expansion, they will update their LW2 mod for it for an overall big definitive experience.

As long as i love LW mod and their guys, only an official expansion can add new elaborate maps and assets.

. It's the Firaxis timeline that puzzles me

Yep, it's taking longer than EU to EW announce\release, but i guess it happens cause LW2 in between delayed all.

 

[Mazisky]

New Tier 4 Sniper rifle looks good