A lot of people bitching about missions having a turn-limit, but I think the game is better for it.I didn't know about this until you mentioned it, but that's really nifty! One of the things I hate the most about the XCOM games is how dragged out the missions can become. And since it never punished you for being ridiculously cautious, it could sometimes take ages for even the most mundane missions.
QuoteA lot of people bitching about missions having a turn-limit, but I think the game is better for it.I didn't know about this until you mentioned it, but that's really nifty! One of the things I hate the most about the XCOM games is how dragged out the missions can become. And since it never punished you for being ridiculously cautious, it could sometimes take ages for even the most mundane missions.
What's the outcome of exceeding the turn limit?
Heard a lot about shitty performance, but otherwise it's pretty much universally praised. I know I'm betraying my XCOM-fanboyism but I haven't actually bought it yet. I'm not THAT interested in this reboot that I have to get it on release. I'll get it when there's economic space, a sale or when I actually feel like being kicked in the teeth by RNG. ^^its not that shitty a performer its just the norm for my laptop anything that's full 3d while also designed to look tends to make my laptop angry and kill it normally I wouldn't care(I normally prefer 2d art styled games any way) but xcom 2 has surprised me by actually looking really fun and better than its predecessor.
Well, I've heard of people with beefy gaming rigs having the game chug along. That's what I meant ^^well in my case games like that just don't work if it was just a case of fps id play it any way although if people are having issues like that with good pcs then it may be time for the xcom 2 to invest in some optimisation.
From what I've heard the issue is firaxis added in an absurd level of AA (MSAA 8x) that no one will reasonably run well yet, so the answer is to tone down your antialiasing and then tinker with other things.
Well I dunno what to say then, unless you could help with when it sometimes freezes the animations before showing all the damage at once (it always happens with kill zone for example). I've been having very few problems running with the low settings I decided on.From what I've heard the issue is firaxis added in an absurd level of AA (MSAA 8x) that no one will reasonably run well yet, so the answer is to tone down your antialiasing and then tinker with other things.
That helps but it's really only part of the problem.
Oh lord, please do not attempt to play the original. It was legendary but now is very dated.I haven't played any of the xcoms before that sounds like a good place to start though thanks.
Xenonauts is a wonderful spiritual successor, and one of my top 5 games of all time. It's also on sale and was never very expensive to begin with. If you're at all a fan of the series, you'll love it.
Good lord, I tried the first mission (after the tutorial mission, which is completely scripted and removes player choice) on normal (veteran) difficulty, and got absolutely stomped.Which one do you mean? The one wit the energy thing? Or the one where you find the ADVENT stun soldiers (I think it was the one where you have to protect some transmitter or something like that)?
This is coming from a person with probably around 100 hours spread across games in the XCOM franchise (though to be fair I've never actually beaten any of them).
In XCOM 2, they just do not pull any punches. You're already getting mind controlled in the first mission, and oh by the way did we mention zombies?
I absolutely love how brutal they've made it. I may have to swallow my pride and play it on "easy" for the first playthrough. Beginner in XCOM is like "Impossible" difficulty in most other games.
Good lord, I tried the first mission (after the tutorial mission, which is completely scripted and removes player choice) on normal (veteran) difficulty, and got absolutely stomped.
This is coming from a person with probably around 100 hours spread across games in the XCOM franchise (though to be fair I've never actually beaten any of them).
In XCOM 2, they just do not pull any punches. You're already getting mind controlled in the first mission, and oh by the way did we mention zombies?
I absolutely love how brutal they've made it. I may have to swallow my pride and play it on "easy" for the first playthrough. Beginner in XCOM is like "Impossible" difficulty in most other games.
I've decided to have a go at the original xcom (since it'll actually work on my laptop) would it be worth xenonauts(the spiritual successor) instead/as well as the original?.I definitely recommend Xenonauts instead. The original is absolutely a great game, but it has not aged well. The interface is super clunky, there's pitfalls in research and it's overall extremely clunky to play.
may I ask how that extreme that random number generator for this game is? I just did the first mission of xeno earlier and it didn't seem to obnoxious kind of at the level at which I'm willing to cope with really.
may I ask how that extreme that random number generator for this game is? I just did the first mission of xeno earlier and it didn't seem to obnoxious kind of at the level at which I'm willing to cope with really.It seems random, like Mick says. Sometimes you get screwed, but your soldiers are meant to die, it's all part of the game. Even if you lose an entire squad, you can still win the greater campaign. You can also retreat if things start to get too hairy.
You can also retreat if things start to get too hairy.This. Is important. Not so much if you reload too often (me), but for people actually doing things ironman, its not EU. Theres only a couple missions where the evac point is already set, for the rest you can and are allowed to run away from fights. Just make sure you bring all your soldiers gear with you if possible, otherwise you'll lose it.
Wait, there's a turn limit on ALL missions now? Not sure I'm a fan of that.No one seems to, whenever you ask someone what he does not like about XCOM 2, you will most likely get "The turn limit on missions".
There is not a turn limit on all missions. In fact, the harder missions in the game have no turn limit at all.Now I'm getting conflicting messages. You're saying some missions are not limited, while
The ones that are there are really not much of an issue. One type is a limit to complete an objective (hack a thing, destroy a thing), so you get infinite time after that objective is complete. In both cases, you can complete the objective remotely (specialist can hack from a huge distance, destroy objectives can simply be shot at with always 100% hit rate). Honestly, I don't know how people are having trouble with these.
The other type is less common and is more difficult, that's where you have to extract a VIP. You get a longer turn limit but you have to extract and leave within it. However, in these mission you do not have to kill all the aliens, once you get to the extraction point you finish.
These are part of the more or less 'standard' mission pool. The real challenges come from the blacksites, which have no timer at all (at least I haven't seen one yet).
No one seems to, whenever you ask someone what he does not like about XCOM 2, you will most likely get "The turn limit on missions".says they all are.
This was introduced to counter the very popular overwatch exploit in the first game. Players set everyone on Overwatch after each move and when someone finally found the aliens, they got shot by all the soldiers on overwatch to death, making alot of fights trivial before they even began. The turn limit shall now speed up the gameplay, so they won't turtle in a chokepoint and wait for the aliens to come.
It's simple, anyone saying that all missions have a turn limit is either misinformed or lying.Gotcha. Then it's similar to how XCOMEU was then and I didn't mind that much.
I'm not entirely sure what I meant by that my self I guess that just a product of it being past midnight what I meant to ask was how much can you alter the rng on things like hit chance I've seen more video of that game since yesterday though so I think I'm satisfied there.may I ask how that extreme that random number generator for this game is? I just did the first mission of xeno earlier and it didn't seem to obnoxious kind of at the level at which I'm willing to cope with really.It seems random, like Mick says. Sometimes you get screwed, but your soldiers are meant to die, it's all part of the game. Even if you lose an entire squad, you can still win the greater campaigin. You can also retreat if things start to get too hairy.
It's interesting, because I find the turn limits to be my favorite ADDITION to the game, as compared to either XCOM:EU or Xenonauts.
Once again, before there was just no reason not to play as cautiously as possible, slowly leap-frogging from cover to cover in a grueling process that could sometimes take 10-15 minutes before you even encountered the first enemy. Even after you defeated the first squad of enemies, it could be another 10-15 minutes before you found the next squad. It just wasn't fun, but the game was balanced around the idea that you were doing that, especially on the harder difficulties, so the slow, slogging pace of the game was the norm.
With the turn-limits and the new conceal mechanics, it takes a fraction of the time to get into the action (by necessity), but the game is balanced around this, so you're less likely to get trolled in the process.
It's interesting, because I find the turn limits to be my favorite ADDITION to the game, as compared to either XCOM:EU or Xenonauts.
Once again, before there was just no reason not to play as cautiously as possible, slowly leap-frogging from cover to cover in a grueling process that could sometimes take 10-15 minutes before you even encountered the first enemy. Even after you defeated the first squad of enemies, it could be another 10-15 minutes before you found the next squad. It just wasn't fun, but the game was balanced around the idea that you were doing that, especially on the harder difficulties, so the slow, slogging pace of the game was the norm.
With the turn-limits and the new conceal mechanics, it takes a fraction of the time to get into the action (by necessity), but the game is balanced around this, so you're less likely to get trolled in the process.
I'm curious, how exactly did they balance the game around it?
In the first game I always found that the slow approach was the ONLY approach, because aggressive movement just got you killed instantly by unseen RNG deathrays to the face. You either took it cautiously, or you lost.
Did they do something so that that ISNT the case now?
may I ask how well balanced psionics are in this game? funnily enough I haven't seen any footage of those at all.Psi Operative video. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjE_JSqLt0Y)
In XCOM 2 however Sectoids got a big buff, maybe too big. They can panic soldiers, they can control them, they can irritate them, so they loose movement range and aiming power, they have (compared to other early enemies at this point) tons of HP and to make it worse, they can raise already dead people (enemies as well as your own soldiers) as PSI zombies (who act exactly liek the zombies from the same game except they won't burst into a scary alien spider thing).
In my opinion this is WAY too much for a single enemy.
Sectoids are tough in the first few missions you see them in, but they're trivial after that. Seriously, one of my favorite enemies to face. They almost never attack with anything that deals damage, and the worst they can do is mind control, which is rare, can be resisted, and can be undone by killing the sectoid.yea there appearance was changed so that the populace wouldn't freak the hell out every time they saw them out and about doing their business.
Fought an Archon today. Shen says something about them not really being much better than what her father faced. I was about to ask what she meant, but then I decided to look it up myself and found that they come from Floaters. That's really something.
Supposedly Mimic beacons are really good, but I haven't had much success with them. Maybe I'm just doing it wrong.
Supposedly Mimic beacons are really good, but I haven't had much success with them. Maybe I'm just doing it wrong.
Only a 65% chance to hit?
I don't have the game, but this came through a group chat this morning, thought I'd share
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t31.0-8/12657778_1103960719637998_1477855126481002071_o.jpg)
Only a 65% chance to hit?
That picture (probably quite intentionally) hides the soldier's status bar. There are various negative status effects which lower an ally or enemy unit's chance to hit, such as disoriented, poisoned, etc.
In a normal situation, at that range, and having flanked the enemy, the hit chance would be 85% or higher.
That picture (probably quite intentionally) hides the soldier's status bar. There are various negative status effects which lower an ally or enemy unit's chance to hit, such as disoriented, poisoned, etc.
to be fair realistically speaking that would be a very awkward range to be using an assault rifle in fact if xcom had realistic weapon recoil the hit chance there would be really low probably.That picture (probably quite intentionally) hides the soldier's status bar. There are various negative status effects which lower an ally or enemy unit's chance to hit, such as disoriented, poisoned, etc.
Oh, I'm sure it was tweaked somehow. I was just amused by it (and it came through without any original context). Even 85% would look wrong at that distance, though. :p
Oh sure, I'm not a fan of 100% success either.your making a stealth game? I'm actually kind of interested in that.
The stealth game I'm working on right now uses a cumulative gaussian distribution for its probability curve. Even with a +3 net bonus over the enemies, that's only ~97%
(For reference, +3 is the base bonus given for sneaking about, so the ai won't recognize you as an intruder if you do end up in their line of sight briefly. Checks are made every couple of seconds, so being "evenly matched" has a high bias towards the player. As soon as you are doing something suspicious though, there's a bonus on the other side).
23 enemies on the fourth mission? What kind of mission was this? oO
I never had so many enemies and I'm further into the game than you.
The abilities like Reaper and Killzone that let you take more shots than you otherwise would are amazing. I had a specialist take three shots against one enemy in overwatch, sadly he didn't kill it because Dodge is BS.Yea, that's the AI's ultimate counter to any human ability: BullShot!
There was one time in XCOM:EU where a chryssalid ran up to a tile directly adjacent to my highest level soldier, who was a machine gunner. He had a 99% chance to hit. With a machine gun. At point blank range. As the greatest veteran of the war. And he missed. Didn't hit the thing with a single point of damage.I missed two >90% hits yesterday. At that point I was feeling like my soldiers deserved to die if they were failing that badly. I know that 90% is no guarantee, but it sure *feels* like one.
I missed two >90% hits yesterday. At that point I was feeling like my soldiers deserved to die if they were failing that badly. I know that 90% is no guarantee, but it sure *feels* like one.I prefer the determinism of something like Bionic Dues, but in general I'm ok with my guys missing even well-set-up shots.
1 to be fair in real life hitting something skilled in melee at point blank before it when for you would probably fail I think the better question would be why didn't he shoot it as it was running at himThere was one time in XCOM:EU where a chryssalid ran up to a tile directly adjacent to my highest level soldier, who was a machine gunner. He had a 99% chance to hit. With a machine gun. At point blank range. As the greatest veteran of the war. And he missed. Didn't hit the thing with a single point of damage.I missed two >90% hits yesterday. At that point I was feeling like my soldiers deserved to die if they were failing that badly. I know that 90% is no guarantee, but it sure *feels* like one.
I've been save-scumming a shameful amount, largely because it's my first playthrough and I want to see it to the end if possible. Plus I like approaching the tactical gameplay like a puzzle, trying different methods until something works. Losing a single guy is usually tolerable, but squadwipes or certain irreplaceable soldiers I'll reload for.
[I prefer the determinism of something like Bionic Dues
Though, to be fair, something like BD tends to stuff everything ELSE with RNG to make up for it...Very true. AIW can be even nastier.
I prefer the determinism of something like Bionic Dues, but in general I'm ok with my guys missing even well-set-up shots.
But I would like tools/weapons/perk-choices/research-choices/whatever that let me better prepare for the contingency of a missed shot, and to be able to bend without breaking. If I'm commanding a company and only have one guy covering a spot, and he's got a bolt-action rifle then I deserve what I get if he misses (no matter how incredibly awesome a shot he is).
But if I've got a squad of six guys (so putting one guy on something is one sixth my total resources), and a dude with a fully automatic cannon at point blank range, I expect him to do something other than get turned into worm food because of one coin flip. Alternatively, if they're going to roll me a critical failure that hard, then give me the amusement of having said cannon blow up in the guy's face. Because the probability is similar. Bonus points if the explosion AOE takes out the chryssalid anyway.
I'd like to not savescum so much, but when so much is riding on individual rng rolls, it's my only natural defense mechanism :)
Perhaps the grenades and shotguns and whatever else address this; I haven't played this game yet.
That's what I like about XCOM 2, as it does indeed address this by providing ways to guarantee some kind of damage.Excellent! Definitely looking forward to playing this when I get time.
I had a faceless (if this is the name in the english version) who attacked one of my soldiers. he killed the soldier and the nearby stun lance with the same AoE attack. Bonus points, this was on the upper floor, so he destroyed this as well and crashed down two floors, getting 4 damage for falling. I laughed really hard about this even if I lost one of my soldiers.I remember when I found falling damage. A codex teleported to the top of a 2-story building so I lobbed a grenade at it. It broke the floor and caused the codex to fall all the way to the ground, killing it in one go. I'm glad I got that pleasant surprise instead of seeing it in action on my guys.
Sounds like the terrain deformation is a lot better in this one too.If you give everyone an EXO suit (or a WAR suit), then everyone can, infact, have a rocket launcher, unlike in EU. So if you really need to blow up the map, 5 war suit grenadiers with the right perks and a medic in warden armor means at least 15 explosives from the grenadiers alone (1 x2 grenades, 1 rocket each), plus 6 extra grenades if you didn't give them other items instead, and a medkit in the medic's second item slot.
Brings back memories of the original, where I translated "stop the aliens from terrorizing City X" to "rocket launchers for everyone, leave a huge glass crater in the middle of City X".
that sounds absolutely hilarious.Sounds like the terrain deformation is a lot better in this one too.If you give everyone an EXO suit (or a WAR suit), then everyone can, infact, have a rocket launcher, unlike in EU. So if you really need to blow up the map, 5 war suit grenadiers with the right perks and a medic in warden armor means at least 15 explosives from the grenadiers alone (1 x2 grenades, 1 rocket each), plus 6 extra grenades if you didn't give them other items instead, and a medkit in the medic's second item slot.
Brings back memories of the original, where I translated "stop the aliens from terrorizing City X" to "rocket launchers for everyone, leave a huge glass crater in the middle of City X".
The downside is that you don't have any swordsmen or snipers in that squad (without increasing the squadsize via .ini edit), and your one medic needs to not get killed/panicked/mindcontrolled.
[I prefer the determinism of something like Bionic DuesYeah, same here.
I prefer combat to be more predictable. I don't mind an element of chance, but this feels too swingy.It does sound like you can make build choices for predictable damage, though. In theory, that's enough for me.
Thereare soem cool modules like "does always damage, even when missing" or "has a small chance for instakill".
I played Long War, which was a great mod, and I would say that XCOM 2 is still leaps and bounds superior. Not only in the game mechanics themselves, but in the pacing of the battles and the campaign, which really moves itself right along in a very impressive way. Long War was intentionally... Well long. And there's no problem with that, but the game could often get bogged down with grinding or intensely difficult missions that took incredible amounts of caution and time.to be fair purists have probably either just kept playing the original xcom or xenonauts I doubt they would have stuck around after the first remake.
XCOM 2, more than any other reboot of the original series, really refines the formula. It keeps what makes it great, it removes most of the pointless baggage.
Some diehard purists may be put off by this, but it seems like most people have been very happy with how the formula was redefined. If for no other reason than creating a sequel which was just more of the same would have been somewhat silly.
To be honest that whole possible-insta-kill and guaranteed-damage business sounds very gamey, gimmicky and immersion-breaking.
But then again, the character customisation and the new guns all look completely ridiculous.
But that's just from seeing pictures. Has immersion been downgraded?
Well, in XCOM:EW/EU all the tech was pretty accessible to imagination. You handled most of the game with ballistic weapons and explosives, followed by direct energy weapons. The aliens had weird plasma weapons and you'd later get them too, but that was pretty much the strangest thing. That, and all the auxiliary equipment, always followed simple patterns that are known in the real world. Obviously within an abstract framework that most games use (I somewhat hate the concept of hit points), but we're so used to that...anyways, in The Long War you can modify your weapons in a number of ways: Accuracy, magazine size, AP ammo and similar things. All reasonable enough. There's also some stranger stuff like boosting damage on beam weapons, or increasing critical hit chance...but it's still something proportional, and fitting to the mental framework of the whole system.
But firearms that are guaranteed to deal damage, or have a situation-independent probability of instantly killing anything from the smallest to the largest foe?
That kind of mathematical black magic really itches. Doubly so if the items in question are a "repeater" and a "stock". The what? How is that supposed to work? Is this the game design way of saying "phug anything resembling coherent world design, have some game mechanics!"? Even discounting the immersion factor, how is this supposed to work out for game mechanics? These bonuses are completely disproportionate to the nature of the weapon, and put immense value on just being able to fire as often as possible.
And I still can't get over the implications of such technology. Why train expert soldiers, why give them a variety of weapons? Why not make weapons with larger ammo pools and higher rates of fire in order to better exploit the insta-kill potential? The projectiles don't have to individually hit or penetrate enemy armour, it'll be sufficient for them to go in the approximate direction of the enemy. It's pointless to have big guns or accurate shooters, so just send out a hundred redshirts in a 19th century line formation and have them spray wildly in any direction the enemy may be in.
Think further! Why have artillery, tanks, cruise missiles and guided bombs? The wars of the future will be fought with clouds of tiny bullet-lets...and stocks. And "repeaters".
Alright, I know it's just a game. But that's silly.
I just had a skim through the XCOM2 wikis, and I can already see that I won't be liking it. Maybe it's for the wrong reasons, but the realistic-ish immersion factor provided by The Long War isn't there, whereas a much more game-y "just because" mindset seems to be more prevalent. Shame.
Well, you do you, I guess. I understand the weird disconnect between the names of mods and their function, like how a stock adds damage on a miss, but that doesn't affect immersion for me at all. In terms of the actual mechanics, I don't see how a chance to insta-kill is any less immersive than a critical hit. You got a good shot off and damaged something that destroyed the enemy in a single shot.It's still iffy because it works with the same probability independently of the nature of the enemy - a flat chance to instantly destroy a rat or a tank. That is silly!
The modded stocks could be explained that they make the weapon easier to handle, improving the soldier's ability to hit in ways that inflict superficial wounds even when they fail to hit in a way that does "significant" damage. In this sense it's the inverse of the dodge mechanic.Making it impossible to miss is still mighty strange. So a blind soldier can hit an enemy standing a mile away with a bent matchlock pistol, as long as they use the magic stock? Grah!
to be fair xcom has always been a little bit silly and not completely realistic(I've never played the long war so I cant comment on that at all) just realistic enough to fit the theme and mechanics (although to a lessor degree) personally I'm just pleased that the developers cared enough about the mechanics to put them first over everything else.Well, you do you, I guess. I understand the weird disconnect between the names of mods and their function, like how a stock adds damage on a miss, but that doesn't affect immersion for me at all. In terms of the actual mechanics, I don't see how a chance to insta-kill is any less immersive than a critical hit. You got a good shot off and damaged something that destroyed the enemy in a single shot.It's still iffy because it works with the same probability independently of the nature of the enemy - a flat chance to instantly destroy a rat or a tank. That is silly!
For this reason it also doesn't compare to the crits, because those were always dependant on the nature of the weapon used and the HP and armor stats of the enemy in question.The modded stocks could be explained that they make the weapon easier to handle, improving the soldier's ability to hit in ways that inflict superficial wounds even when they fail to hit in a way that does "significant" damage. In this sense it's the inverse of the dodge mechanic.Making it impossible to miss is still mighty strange. So a blind soldier can hit an enemy standing a mile away with a bent matchlock pistol, as long as they use the magic stock? Grah!
Also the new weapons all look stupid. Stuuupid. I want the Carbine, Battle Rifle and Heavy Machine Gun from The Long War, not some chainsaw-style autocannon straight from the hands of Arnie :(
I think they could address all these concerns by adding a cinematic after the first mission or so:Oh yes, and if you actually do quit at that point it immediately opens one window for steam refunds and one for metacritic (or something) :D
"
Congratulations, Shrugging Khan, you have successfully Disliked This Game!
Press Alt+F4 to continue to further conquests!
"
:)
Come on though, I really see it as valid criticism. If game devs just put in things that make no sense and nobody calls it out, it can only ever get worse :PSure, it's silly. And they should try harder on that front next time.
I think this is hair splitting.no you didn't actually btw is long war a mob or an actual expansion? its just the way people keep talking it make sound like more than a mod to me but yes mechanically this game looks very solid to me.
For example the hit and miss stuff and with mods, that alöways hit. Hit and miss isn't hardlined like it wasin the first remake. There are grazing shots that are a mix between miss and hit. They don't fully hit the enemy but they still do some damage.
XCOM 2 is in all terms better than its predecessor and just because something does not "fit 100% into the lore or realism" I wouldn't refuse to buy an overall awesome game.
Did I mention that the makers of Long War worked with the development team together?
Making it impossible to miss is still mighty strange. So a blind soldier can hit an enemy standing a mile away with a bent matchlock pistol, as long as they use the magic stock? Grah!
Also the new weapons all look stupid. Stuuupid. I want the Carbine, Battle Rifle and Heavy Machine Gun from The Long War, not some chainsaw-style autocannon straight from the hands of Arnie :(
It was a mod for the original game that expanded it (a lot). You could say it's an "inofficial expansion".thanks that looks like the sort of thing id love if I had xcom also one particular part of the q and a amused me greatly.
http://www.nexusmods.com/xcom/mods/88/?
Never played it, though.
I don't know how much they worked on XCOM2 because clearly they weren't lead devs. They released however three mods right at release, one that adds leaders for your team that give squad buffs (but you can have only one leader at the same time in your squad).
Another adds a new alien type. I forogt what the third did but I think it was a new weapon.
I made the mistake, the first time I tried Long War, of starting with the second difficulty (out of 4). I paid so dearly for that decision.It was a mod for the original game that expanded it (a lot). You could say it's an "inofficial expansion".thanks that looks like the sort of thing id love if I had xcom also one particular part of the q and a amused me greatly.
http://www.nexusmods.com/xcom/mods/88/?
Never played it, though.
I don't know how much they worked on XCOM2 because clearly they weren't lead devs. They released however three mods right at release, one that adds leaders for your team that give squad buffs (but you can have only one leader at the same time in your squad).
Another adds a new alien type. I forogt what the third did but I think it was a new weapon.
Q: I'm fairly new to xcom. What difficulty should I start with?
A: Normal.
Q: I'm an XCOM veteran. What difficulty should I start with?
A: Normal.
Q: But I'm really awesome at --
A: Sorry to interrupt, but just start with Normal. We don't have easy difficulties in this mod that hold your hand while you learn the ropes and we've removed every bit of code we can find that cheats for the player on the lower difficulties. It's going to be hard. The other difficulties are just harder versions of Normal; feel free to move up when you get a handle on all the new mechanics. XD
Some info on The Long War:sounds like the sort of thing I would play xcom with if it worked on my laptop which I know for a fact it doesn't since I tried it on a free weekend once and it just straight up shat it self and didn't work.
The Long War is a mod that adds a great deal of new features, items, abilities, game mechanics, balance changes, fixes and other little tweaks to XCOM:EW.
It is also really, really well made. The design choices they made are excellent. They let you adjust many settings to suit your preferences. It generally feels like they picked up where the devs left the game and polished it to perfection (within the limitations of a very mod-unfriendly game).
For the details I'd just link to the wiki (http://ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Long_War), but it's currently got database problems. Huh.
The Long War is also perfectly happy to punish you for mistakes. It gives you dozens of new tools to use though, so it's not like it's just hard - it's just less forgiving. For both the player and the aliens. And...oh god, I can't really explain it well enough. It's BIG. It's GOOD. It's also somewhat complex. It's definitely not a mod that's easy to get into, if only because of how hard it hits and how many new things and changes it introduces. But it's a far better overall experience than the base XCOM, if you're willing to accept that you may well fail, and be beaten, and have to accept losses very frequently (unless you savescum).
Your laptop was defending you.I'm going to take it that you didn't particularly like xcom its not like I was really interested in getting it I was just testing it while I had the chance.
Both XCOM: Long War and Xenonauts are insanely challenging, on any difficulty. I have a running offer for any of my close friends of $50, to anybody who can beat Xenonauts on EASY, save scumming allowed.I'm not sure Xenonauts is insanely challenging on normal. Yes, you will lose some soldiers and sometimes you just make bad decisions and leave your squad in the open and wipe. It's up to you if you wanna reload or train a new squad at that point. Both are equally doable. It's only how much effort you yourself wanna put it, and that's what I like. The option to go full hardcore is there, but it's not enforced.
I remember streaming XCOM EU on the highest difficulty and failing hardly. The viewers laughed their asses off.This is streaming in a nutshell. Viewers always laugh their asses off.
Just beat the game, holy shit that final mission... It was pretty intense. The final room would be quite a challenge on its own even if you didn't have to run the long gauntlet to get there.
*words*Welcome to AAA games, where story is most of the time dumb for heroic and "cinematic" reasons.
*words*Welcome to AAA games, where story is most of the time dumb for heroic and "cinematic" reasons.
*words*Welcome to AAA games, where story is most of the time dumb for heroic and "cinematic" reasons.
Seems to me this has more to do with Firaxis. Civ Beyond Earth is also such a shallow weirdly incoherent and half-assed thing that just sits there mocking you with it's inconsistent writing. I'd even say Beyond Earth and XCOM 2 were written by the same person. That is totally strange to say, but it feels that way. Weirdly dumbed down, shallow like puddle and .. not well thought out.
Just how I like it. I loathe when game writers take their lore too seriously.Which ones do that?
*words*Welcome to AAA games, where story is most of the time dumb for heroic and "cinematic" reasons.
Seems to me this has more to do with Firaxis. Civ Beyond Earth is also such a shallow weirdly incoherent and half-assed thing that just sits there mocking you with it's inconsistent writing. I'd even say Beyond Earth and XCOM 2 were written by the same person. That is totally strange to say, but it feels that way. Weirdly dumbed down, shallow like puddle and .. not well thought out.
Just how I like it. I loathe when game writers take their lore too seriously.
Or the lead writer had another role and wanted the credit for that one instead only?Because names never recur in credits :)
I should clarify, I really have no problem with good stories in games, but they have to be games I'm playing for that specific purpose. Like an adventure game or an RPG. Strategy games, I care about the mechanics first, the story is just a coat of paint.
If a game like XCOM was more focused on story than the strategy mechanics, that would annoy me.
Oh, I could name one. Firewatch. The story is so well made and integrated into the game, that you don't get annpyed. It tells he story also in a unique way that does not interrupt the gameplay.I should clarify, I really have no problem with good stories in games, but they have to be games I'm playing for that specific purpose. Like an adventure game or an RPG. Strategy games, I care about the mechanics first, the story is just a coat of paint.
If a game like XCOM was more focused on story than the strategy mechanics, that would annoy me.
Yeah, same here.
Too many times these days games focus WAY too much on story (and worse, on cutscenes), and the gameplay comes out bad as a result. I get so tired of it happening. I cant remember the last time I found one like that that had alot of story in it and didn't just annoy me.
meh I prefer reading books to playing video games story wise mainly because they don't have to compromise anything among other things.Oh, I could name one. Firewatch. The story is so well made and integrated into the game, that you don't get annpyed. It tells he story also in a unique way that does not interrupt the gameplay.I should clarify, I really have no problem with good stories in games, but they have to be games I'm playing for that specific purpose. Like an adventure game or an RPG. Strategy games, I care about the mechanics first, the story is just a coat of paint.
If a game like XCOM was more focused on story than the strategy mechanics, that would annoy me.
Yeah, same here.
Too many times these days games focus WAY too much on story (and worse, on cutscenes), and the gameplay comes out bad as a result. I get so tired of it happening. I cant remember the last time I found one like that that had alot of story in it and didn't just annoy me.
There aren't many cutscenes and the few that are, are rather small. However, it's a talkative game, every five minutes the radio that you carry starts talking to you. You can anytime select an answer with a special system, not interrupting whatever you are currently doing. However, on some occasions you have only limited time to answer.
The game plays really well with the interacion between player and the never seen NPC who you talk to. You can report every single thing you find, even if it's not important to your goal. On one occasopn your partner even comments that you "talk a little too much".
Some poeple might not appreciate sharpshooters in xcom2 for one reason or another.Man XCOM 2 will spoil you with that Sniper. After using that, then going back to Long War or Xenonauts, you'll have delusions of grandeur about what their actually capable of in the former games.(http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/499141817007079627/5189DF57ABC247C9A8172CCF1F0CC98412FF4C21/)
I had fairly good luck with snipers in xenonauts as well though. (but only in the early game since it crashed often, and now that it was properly released and non-crashy I still haven't gotten around to finishing it...)
You certainly can make XCOM2 harder easily though. Theres an improved ai mod (which I'm not interested in with my current setup, but it does make the aliens less...expected), or mods like IESS+ (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=625780621) that I am using cause things like 9 troopers and an officer fighting you on the first mission (on Commander this time) when you only have 6 rookies for (or 4 rookies I suppose if you didn't increase your squadsize, but only crazy people on ironman would do that with this mod), and they all can attack you during their turn, not just a few of them. Or how about some additional dark events (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=626109271) to make things tougher on you to decide what to counter? Viper rounds could be annoying, extra faceless maybe, but what about a podful of sectopods?
the ai in xenonauts cheats? hu I hadn't noticed still though that's cool are vehicles a thing in the newer xcoms by the way? I don't think they are but I'm probably wrong.Perhaps it's just in the "Unofficial Community Edition" mod (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=524885857&searchtext=) I'm playing. But the AI in that game (Xenonauts) is on par with AI War level cheating. Which is to say, it's really damn good and the intentional unfairness is there to equalize the fact that it's playing against a human being. I honestly have no problem with it, it's just blatantly obvious that it doesn't play by the same rules.
?....I never said I had anything against its just well yea I never noticed it as you said probably just because I'm not using the community edition and I won't in tillthe ai in xenonauts cheats? hu I hadn't noticed still though that's cool are vehicles a thing in the newer xcoms by the way? I don't think they are but I'm probably wrong.Perhaps it's just in the "Unofficial Community Edition" mod (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=524885857&searchtext=) I'm playing. But the AI in that game (Xenonauts) is on par with AI War level cheating. Which is to say, it's really damn good and the intentional unfairness is there to equalize the fact that it's playing against a human being. I honestly have no problem with it, it's just blatantly obvious that it doesn't play by the same rules.
Glad I'm not the only ironman player in here. There's nothing quite like the feeling of that mission that goes to hell fast or 15 hours down the drain.speaking of which I don't think its in xenonauts? although its probably in the community version I imagine?.
speaking of which I don't think its in xenonauts? although its probably in the community version I imagine?.
I lost, Avatar got finished. Have to restart now, because it was Ironman. I had some nasty missions with Andromedons.Andromedons are lovely MC targets. They can make holes in walls for you for free, tank damage (and do so for at least two turns instead of one, sectopods not counted), and shoot back! And also are hackable for even more damage-sponge, assuming you don't just kill it afterwards and that it attracts more attention than your team.
hu guess I must have missed it will have to remember to turn them on in my next run thanks.speaking of which I don't think its in xenonauts? although its probably in the community version I imagine?.
Ironman? Yeah, that's in both vanilla and community.
... "rocket launchers for everyone,...".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZQdaEFa_60
This new game you linked to also sounds very interesting. I love the idea of these procedural monsters here, if they could pull that off well it could get very interesting. I'm a bit suspicious of the bit where "OMG PRE-ORDER" seems to be 75% of that blasted site though. Though I tend not to mind pre-order stuff when early access comes with it. But that's generally the only exception.Phoenix Point is *waaay* off though. They don't expect to be done even by 2018 if I remember correctly. So you might just wanna shove that into the "I'll check it when it's released" bucket.