What are you playing?

[Jaedar]

This little analysis illustrates that it is generally worse to take two (x-15)% shots than one x% shot

If by worse you mean better, then yes, that is what it seems to be illustrating.

Anyway, its a numbers game, but its a boring one to me. If I want a game where success and failure depends very heavily on RNG, I'll play blood bowl because its way better at it. I find xcom doesn't have enough tools(early game at least) to impact the RNG enough.

It should also be noted that there _are_ enemies that have access to a specific supression fire ability, just as your support and heavy classes do. These troops will pin specific enemies, and you can't escape that supression without being shot at if you're the target.

Afaik, supression is just targeted overwatch, but it also reduces aim of the target.

Xcoms meta game isn't perfect, but the developers have actually given one of the classes, the assault, an ability called 'quick reflexes'. It allows them to dodge the first overwatch shot fire upon them every turn. The result is you have them hoppin all over the place to get the aliens to waste their overwatch fire. Effectively, it seems to have been designed this way on purpose.

I think this is one of the issues of the game. Some of the abilities are just too good to ever skip.

[AEmer]

I agree; I'd definitely prefer training roulette for that reason... I like the skills overall, it's just that, I'd l

"If by worse you mean better, then yes, that is what it seems to be illustrating." That is what I mean, yes.

As for xcom being too RNG influenced...I really disagree. The tension comes from the fact that you are forced to make choices that will get your soldiers killed.

There's only two ways to deal with that: You either make it like chess, where you have attritional cost to your moves during many turns - that is, you will always lose pieces as you play, but you have a direct say in which ones you lose - or you determine how and where the losses come about from stochastic variance and risk factors.

The only other alternative to these two methods is that the player won't have to lose soldiers. Since that's not an option, you must either rely on consistent trades or variance and risk. There's just no other way to go about it.

Unfortunately, it's pretty common that people don't like the randomness of variance and risk....but since the only other alternative is to make your soldiers an expendable resource that you consistently have to burn to make headway, well....this method just works better.

It's also the one almost all RPG's use.

What allows players to succeed in XCOM generally isn't 'cheese' or 'exploits' - rather, it's minimizing risk factors. That takes a long time for some players, and it takes a short time for others. Some are aware that they're doing it, some are blissfully unaware.

The way xcom is shaped is such that you are very close to simply having a winning strategy: Stay in cover and use plenty of overwatch, and you can get through most of the game in one piece on the 3 easiest difficulties. Not so with impossible: Here, staying in cover doesn't cut it. So you need to go beyond that. You need to actually use positioning and tactics to your advantage.

Consider the 95% shot for a moment. Suppose you are in a situation where a 95% shot would win you the mission. Should you take it? Well, would you lose the campaign if you failed? And are you going to take more than 20 such shots during the campaign?

Because then taking those shots will lose you the campaign with a 64% probability. That's pretty poor odds.

This isn't an RNG thing. This is a choice you have to make, and you make it by being smart, not by being lucky.

[Jaedar]

I agree; I'd definitely prefer training roulette for that reason... I like the skills overall, it's just that, I'd l

Think you got cut off there. Also, training roulette unfortunately doesn't fix that, because it seems to still make you choose between squad sight/snap shot and close and personal / lightning reflexes. Still a fun option.

Unfortunately, it's pretty common that people don't like the randomness of variance and risk....but since the only other alternative is to make your soldiers an expendable resource that you consistently have to burn to make headway, well....this method just works better.

The original x-com begs to differ. It also works better thematically I think. It's a war, people die. Making the player engage in the 'cold calculus of war' is itneresting imo.

Consider the 95% shot for a moment. Suppose you are in a situation where a 95% shot would win you the mission. Should you take it?

Well, if you're not taking 95% shots, I really don't see how you ever get past a single mission given you have to literally 2 tiles(and flanking) away for a better shot.

This isn't an RNG thing. This is a choice you have to make, and you make it by being smart, not by being lucky.

I feel I should clarify. I don't dislike randomness. What I don't like is that I don't feel I'm given enough tools to toy with it. You just sort of... hunker down and hope the AI fucks up unless the encounter happens to take place in a fortuitious part of the map where it's possible to flank. I don't really enjoy this sort of play too much, I wanna be able to do more proactive tactics, not wait around to react. It's just how I like to play.

[AEmer]

Aww, that's a shame. Well, close and personal has its merits. Taking three shotgun shots at a target in one turn is kindof cool. You can really bring the pain. It's just not something I can afford to take on my first two assaults.

And it's ok to take a 95% shot...so long as it's not a win-loss thing, and so long as you're not going to do it consistently. Because if you do that, you _are_ going to miss one of them.

I mean, ultimately, losing _one_ soldier in the entire campaign is often what it'll come down to, but xcom _is_ really mean about it and will have the others panic, so...

Well, anyway. I do see the merits of running expendable soldiers. I think to some degree, the SHIV's are designed to fill that role. I've never actually tried capturing a drone...I wonder how effective they'd be at SHIV repairs. They are pretty cool.

Perhaps if you were allowed to take a SHIV in addition to your regular crew, that would open up for more agressive tactics...

[Jaedar]

Aww, that's a shame. Well, close and personal has its merits. Taking three shotgun shots at a target in one turn is kindof cool. You can really bring the pain. It's just not something I can afford to take on my first two assaults.

The problem with it is that you have to be close enough to shoot without run and gunning. This really limits its usefulness imo.

Perhaps if you were allowed to take a SHIV in addition to your regular crew, that would open up for more agressive tactics...

Perhaps if you were allowed to take more dudes, say 12.... perhaps if they all could carry more than one grenade, and perhaps if they could fire freely and not just at enemies the fickle LOS engine thinks they see.... yes, yes I do beleive that could work

[AEmer]

I've been playing with skill roulette. It looks like the sniper is the only one that has the binary squadsight vs. snapshot.

And to be fair, because you've no idea what the later skills are random, snap shot can actually work out now.

http://i.imgur.com/munjcni.jpg

I really like the skill roulette. It is very cool. That combined with not created equal and hidden potential? Really cool. I'm enjoying an impossible (with some savescumming...) with this setup quite a bit. I shall admit: I wish I could take 8 guys right now. I think if they removed the 'new guy' training from officer training school and let me take 8 guys, impossible ironman would find a sweet-spot for me. The much greater variety in soldiers means i really want to train more guys, but also that some dudes are expendable. Some extra slots so I could use them for more dangerous tasks would be great.

[Jaedar]

I've been playing with skill roulette. It looks like the sniper is the only one that has the binary squadsight vs. snapshot.

Huh, guess it was just bad luck I got lightning reflexes versus up close against eachother in the same place they usually are.

[AEmer]

Xenonauts. Have you tried this one Jaedar? It might be something for you.

[Jaedar]

I think it would, but I'd rather wait until it is done before playing it. Same reason I'm not playing blackguards right now.

[AEmer]

I would like to show you something.

This is the website for Star Citizen:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com

This is the most successful crowdfunded game to date.

How have they managed it? They've sold people space ships. In a universe that has yet to be explored and felt, in a game that has yet to be made.

Somehow, this game company has weaponized hype through some sort of refining process, and they've secretly been distributing it in the water supply. That has made 300.000 pc gamers pay on average 100 US Dollars.

The cheapest ship? Small freighter with a bunk bed behind the pilots seat. That one is 40 bucks, and includes alpha and beta access as well as the single player game and 3 months insurance. Biggest ship sold so far? A Corvette with a bridge with room for 9 people, a hangar with room for 2 of the small class ships sold. Close in size to a firefly.

And everything in between. Most expensive one went for 1200, and they were sold out within minutes each time they went up.

The corvette would require at least 9 people to operate at full efficiency, whereas they've also (already) announced that they'll do a frigate, a destroyer, a cruiser, and a battlecruiser... and of course they've also done a carrier.

All of this, they want to put in a persistent universe. With boarding parties and ground combat and permadeath.
Now I'm not one to scoff at a star fighter dog fighting space simulator game, so I will probably be getting the 40 dollar package myself, but...yeah. I just thought you all ought to see what weaponized hype does.

This is a recruitment infographic for a guild. In a game that _doesn't exist_:
http://i.imgur.com/b6OnGAn.png

[Jaedar]

Yeah, star citizen is just ridiculous.

[bobby 55]

Hype? Yeah I guess, but a space sim by Chris Roberts would have a lot of drawing power.

[Jaedar]

Hype? Yeah I guess, but a space sim by Chris Roberts would have a lot of drawing power.

You're thinking of buying in, aren't you?

[AEmer]

I don't know what else to call it. I'm not saying hype to be negative about it, I'm not negative about it.

I hope that they deliver on just a tenth of what they've promised. However, I'm not blind. This game company has made loftier promises than any other game company in the history of gaming.

And I know, I know....kickstarter games are pretty good. They let game companies focus. I've seen game companies push out games with twice the intricacy and complexity in half the time compared to 10 years ago. I know tools are better than ever before. I know games like obsidians eternity and the guys making the planescape sequel and many other cool people are doing really cool things. Making games they always wanted to do.

But this is a bridge further. This is making promises upon promises for an untested product on the back of a dead genre. I hope it succeeds but...it's ridiculous in a whole new way.

[bobby 55]

Hype? Yeah I guess, but a space sim by Chris Roberts would have a lot of drawing power.

You're thinking of buying in, aren't you?

Busted.

@AEmer: I really do see your point as I think ambitious isn't the word that comes close to what they're trying to achieve. It's just with all that cash, and not having to answer to "the man", they can do it (or attempt to) their way. Again, Chris Roberts.