Agreed. We don't need health bars to be immediately obvious. As for TU's - good riddance. It becomes too much of "hey, how can I outsmart the pathfinding algorithm, and do I have to count the number of points through this one tile of terrain followed by two facing changes" - not to mention trying to reserve points to shoot with and realizing you need to change facing too, so now you can't shoot.Originally Posted by AlphaCent
Rather than health bars, some sort of general indicator would make logical sense, whether that's a description like "Barely scratched" to "Nearly dead", or just visual changes where enemies look progressively more banged up and bloodied.
Thank you for clearing some of those points up. I'm happy with most of them, execpt of course....
SQUAD NUMBERS......! it doesnt make any sense on any level to restrict the team numbers, no matter how large/small the map is. Again i'm not looking for 20+, Maximum 12 would be ideal!
Please remember guys that a lot of players will be playing this for the first time and would imagine that 99% of them arn't a retired "Seals" or "SAS" Captain (which have fire teams bigger than 6 by the way....) so, I imagine it will take the newbies numourious fallen squad members to find a tatic(s) they are confortable with, through some very fustrating gameplay. Not the greatest way to potentially read your first review, So why does it matter that much you have taken this decision to cut palyablity on the battlefield?
There will be a player that will want to "strong-arm" there way through the battlefield. Normally it's because they are more intrested in other parts of this great game... Reasearch or Politics maybe? Maybe they are just sadistic.... who knows?! But we have a game here, that can incorporate all these different stlyes. but it comes accross with this decision effectivley saying "You HAVE to play this part of the game the way WE want you too" I'm a little upset about that in honesty.
If I want to fly through some missions, I might want to take 12 guys.... see my point? and there are so many different missions now, how just about limiting some missions? extraction, sabotage and escort maybe? where you realistcally would have a smaller team.
Guys, you love the game and you are experinced at it. There will be a lot of new players to XCom, please for the love of sectoids, please give them the wonderful game experince that you first had.....
Last edited by rharris; 05-05-2012 at 02:02 AM.
Its been stated many times that if you took 12 soldiers - at least 6 of them would have nothing to do - also the way the levels have been crafted you would kill the balance having that many soldiers.So basically you will win everytime - then you would be moaning that its to easy?
As for new players how frustrating do you think they will find it to have to move 6 extra solders they dont need?
When this game is released you will get a maximun of 6 soldiers so deal with it - no doubt this game is going to get modded to death by the modding community and i am sure sooner or later you will get a modded version with upteen soldiers and so many shivs and so many aliens etc etc etc but they will have to balance it - just like firaxis have for 6 soldiers?
The squad cap is just way too low for sure. Here's my first impression of 4-6 cap limit. (espeically the 4 cap, that's just ridiculously low).
1) loss of immersion, its just too unrealistic. Gameplay isn't everything without the immersion factor.
2) easier game. Based on current gaming trends where the developers are streamling the game so you cannot fail, having 4 cap sounds like they are toning down the overall difficulty so battles can be easily done with 4. If they had said the game is balanced around 6 or 8 soldiers, then we can expect the game to be harder because you need that many soldiers to complete a mission.
But if they did balance the game so its tough with 4 squad, then that'll be cool. But then that means newbies stand no chance and they would need 10+ until they learn enough to be experts...so I think this xcom will be super easy compared to old xcom.
They only don't have anything to if you dont give them something to do... two 'sticks' with four 'mobile units' the rest of snipers and heavy weps is not really that big of a squad... because you only have eight move. thats not really a lot.
Timewatch is right. with a team of four or 6, there is no immersion. how can you get into a deeper playing mode, when you are cutting out half the tatics you could be using with a larger squad. It comes down to the you limiting a player options and that isnt what I want to see. If you feel the 'Will' will be lost, then (if the guys have got this right).... play on the iron man difficultly level with four men and see how far you get.....!
If you feel playing with six suits you, thats fine. All I'm saying is lets have the OPTION to play with more....
do u not understand if u up the ammount of soldiers it will kill the balance that they have set out?if you have more troops - you can cover more postions - you have more troops than aliens - u cant just flick a switch and it becomes automatic - these things are set out in stone - for all the ammount of different varitions you are looking for this game would be in development for another 2 years and to be honest i think you are being totally unrealistic?
This game is not a remake -its a reimagintion of a old game - you should count yourself lucky its even being made - i have heard nothing but people moaning and whinging and whining about this that and the other and to be honest i am totally and utterly sick of it.
If you hate what there doing that much just play the original and you will be happy - leave the future of this game to people who actually know what xcom is about - because squad size - ammo clips - voice overs - time units - etc etc etc are really not that important - the important thing is a new xcom game is being released by people who actually know what xcom is about - unfortuntaly you just cant see that?
some folks are just jumping on some kind of dumb ass band wagon - real xcom fans have been waiting since 1994 for a real successor to this game -to be honest the wait has been far to long - i am just glad it is finally coming - excuse my french but i have read to much stupied ☺☺☺☺ on here that has whined and moaned about stuff just for the sake of it and has had no real relevence to what this new game is about.
this will probably be my last post on here as some folks on here just frustrate me - you just dont realise how lucky you are ?
Last edited by IllusionOfLife; 05-05-2012 at 05:49 PM. Reason: Do not bypass the language filter
Also I'm replaying xcom1 and 2 right now. Superhuman xcom1 was pretty hard, none of my soldiers in the first 6 months of gameplay survived. Xcom2 is ridiculously hard on superhuman!
But what i noticed from playing both games, the best way to play was to actively use only 3-5 soldiers at a time. The rest needs to be kept a safe distance and apart from each other. As a soldier falls, another from the back goes to replace the fallen. Time and again, I had to quit the mission because I would group them up in what I think is a safe area, and then they'll die together.
So I see where the developers are thinking 4-6 is good number. But the demo shows this xcom to be very different from old xcom. There's real cover here, and the focus is using full squad tactic to take down aliens. Whereas the old xcom was more about sending 1 scout out to spot an alien, then using another soldier to kill it from safe distance. There's a lot of hit and run, hide and seek gameplay with old xcom.
That's why I like the move-action + cover system in xcom. Gameplay-wise, this should be superior. But the problem with 4 squad cap is the old xcom has very high attriution rate. Soldiers die so easily, extra numbers are needed which gave the feeling of alien superiority. I really don't see how they can achieve this with only 4 squad cap.
Not to mention, some of the best moments were after a very long drawn out battle, 9 out 10 squads are dead + the tank. One soldier remaining, and i know there's only 1 alien left. I'm like...wow, i'm going to win this!! Those were the best moments of xcom.
One last thing, I mentioned immersion factor is very important, and this is why of all the xcom remakes this xcom:eu looks the best. Its graphics is far superior and the gameplay demo shows that it plays out more realistically. Immersion-wise, this is the best remake out there...aside from the super low squad cap of course.
Last edited by timewatch; 05-05-2012 at 07:34 PM.
Give it time people, in a year from now you'll have people on the forums saying:
"omg do you remember the original when we played with 15 soldiers running around, how lame was that???!!!"
I think it will add a lot more tension, lose one and yer only 3 away from losing the battle ...
While I might not use quite as strong language as Tazong, and while I may not have spent as much time on the forums as him/her, I completely agree with him/her. I view this new game as the progeny from the original game. I view it as its own entity with a tie to the first, but not a complete copy. As Tazong said, I agree that if you have difficulties with the changes in the new game, it is clear that you are a devoted original X-Com EU fan, as we all are. But you might as well keep playing the old game. Either that, or make up your own re-imagining that you think will be perfect, or please be tolerant of Firaxis as they strive to find the balance between preserving the original while serving up something new that is not a boring exact duplicate.
Yes, I confess I too am also a bit worried about cutting the squad size down from 14 to 4-6 but I feel very comfortable that after Firaxis has been at this for 4 years, they have good reasons for the changes they have made. I'll just suck up my insecurity and let the insecurity just add to the excitement and thrill of playing the new game.
[COLOR="yellow"][QUOTE=tazong;1538645]do u not understand if u up the ammount of soldiers it will kill the balance that they have set out?if you have more troops - you can cover more postions - you have more troops than aliens - u cant just flick a switch and it becomes automatic - these things are set out in stone - for all the ammount of different varitions you are looking for this game would be in development for another 2 years and to be honest i think you are being totally unrealistic?
This game is not a remake -its a reimagintion of a old game - you should count yourself lucky its even being made - i have heard nothing but people moaning and whinging and whining about this that and the other and to be honest i am totally and utterly sick of it.
If you hate what there doing that much just play the original and you will be happy - leave the future of this game to people who actually know what xcom is about - because squad size - ammo clips - voice overs - time units - etc etc etc are really not that important - the important thing is a new xcom game is being released by people who actually know what xcom is about - unfortuntaly you just cant see that?
some folks are just jumping on some kind of dumb ass band wagon - real xcom fans have been waiting since 1994 for a real successor to this game -to be honest the wait has been far to long - i am just glad it is finally coming [QUOTE][/COLOUR]
Ok. This is a little insulting and I want to reply, because i think some of the points you have made, are very valid and i understand why some gamers have this opinon.
I completly understand that having 12 soliders each time COULD upset the balance, I say could because we actually dont know what actual game play is going to be like, so its all speculation at this present time. I'm extremely excited about this game, I cant wait for it to come out! but I'm not the only one that feels this way. though I think timewatch made a very valid comment..
But what i noticed from playing both games, the best way to play was to actively use only 3-5 soldiers at a time
I think the game IS better that way, for certain missions. I beleive that if attcking larger UFO's, Terror missions or Alien Bases, like i have re-iterated on different threads, is that: I JUST WANT THAT OPTION.
I believe that Firaxis are doing a great job and I know how long they have been working on the game, and we all know that this could be an absolute EPIC hence the passion WE all have for this game, which I have also been playing for since I was 14, (and really never stopped!) so I just dont want this to fail, as I am sure you don't either.
All I'm saying is this game has such a miriad of ways to play, it can appeal to everyone, I have no doubt about that. but i feel that gamers should be given the OPTION of playing it how they wish. we all started with bigger squads and reduced our numbers eventually.. i'm saying that the new players to this game shouldnt be denied the opportunity to find it out for themselves either.
if anything smaller squad completions can be a badge of honour within the gaming communities, especially with achievements to highlight this in consoles and posting on the website, after the game comes out.
I appolgise if my post upset Tazong, or other guys and gals on here, I am an old fossil that has been playing this for a long time, I do understand why the reasons are, i without sounding like William Wallace, but in my very poor attempt at a Scottish accent...
I just want the "freedom!" to be able to choose.
Last edited by rharris; 05-06-2012 at 03:33 AM. Reason: spelling and grammer
if they'd you grant that freedom, think about what they'd have to compromise of the rest of the game for that option. You'd have to try to balance all kinds of variations, with different amounts of soldiers.
I prefer it the way they have it. if you have a certain amount of soldiers, you can work your balance around that. given that, you can guarantee the balance actually works. if you can have a random number of soldiers, then the (im-)balance will always run a high risk of destroying the game for you.
To be honest i should apoligise - I had - had a few beers last night (thou thats not a excuse) i think when i see so many posts and a lot of which seem to be very negative - it really does make my blood boil - like i have said before it seems some people are just knocking the game for the sake of it.
My real point is - just take this game for what it is - stop comparing it to a game from 1994 because they are never going to be the same thing.Just except this game with open arms and shout yes - a new xcom turn based strategy game - it took 18 years but it was worth the wait.
The developers have said they are going to support the modding community and that has two great benifits.
Firstly the longeivty of the games life is going to be prolonged because the modders will make new maps - aliens - weapons etc and thats going to keep the game fresh.
The second is sooner or later a mod will come out that will pretty much be a replica of the original game but using the new games engine.
This basically means you will get the game you are after - wether its more men or ammo clips etc etc etc
Thats the frustrating part in trying to get that message across - you will get the game you want but please please please - just execpt the new xcom game for what it is - and thats is a brand new xcom game.Many xcom fans have been waiting a long time for this game - now its finally coming,its a bit like having a son - its something you love and you get annoyed or angry when someone criticises it.
p.s
like i said before i do apoligise for my little rant last night - i by no means meant to offend anyone - i think it was pure frustration of not being able to get my point across and nothing else.
wow is this a joke or do you trully think the original was boring?if so loooooooooollllll
you have a point there
Last edited by Codex; 05-06-2012 at 09:55 AM.
I think you missed shredz point a bit.
the point was that way <= but you went that way =>
and i have to agree with shredz: after we all had our share with the new version, it might feel odd getting back to UFO. I think most people will only THEN realize, how good THIS version will be.
It could be at times. Like when you're searching the whole map for one last alien. That was incredibly boring.
Listen, peopol,
Firstly, I've found out that 6-8 people is a comfort number to manage for me personally. Secondly I usually "forget" this or that operative somewhere in the backs, untill I accidently found him by jumping screen. And thirdly I use the whole squad just to enshure security in a WWII search mission style (I mean when your people line up chainwise and slowly moowing forward).
Moreover I do not ususally do more actions then moove, take cover, shoot rifle, throw grenade (maybe sometimes stun an alien), ohh and heal! Really I am not fond of using tonns of equipment in a mission, and It's almost the minimum list that we also will have as a minimum (i bold this) in the upcomming X-COM. So I getting closer to the point of developers. Not speaking that wi will have more options/gear/actions during customizing squad.
Tell honestly, do you often use more then 4 gear items per person, and more actions than me do?
Oh and when it appears to moove 16 or more person in one turn, yes it's sometimes appear boring, since like I spend 60% of time on empty mooving my 16 troops untill I finally founs one single alien.
Tazong Mate, that's fine. I totally understand and I should be open to it being a new experience. I'm not trying to be negative in anyway.
I'm happy that this game has soo many passionate fans. Enjoy a Carling for me, I do miss home sometimes.
I can't speak for point one, because that's subjective.Originally Posted by timewatch View Post
The squad cap is just way too low for sure. Here's my first impression of 4-6 cap limit. (espeically the 4 cap, that's just ridiculously low).
1) loss of immersion, its just too unrealistic. Gameplay isn't everything without the immersion factor.
2) easier game. Based on current gaming trends where the developers are streamling the game so you cannot fail, having 4 cap sounds like they are toning down the overall difficulty so battles can be easily done with 4. If they had said the game is balanced around 6 or 8 soldiers, then we can expect the game to be harder because you need that many soldiers to complete a mission.
But if they did balance the game so its tough with 4 squad, then that'll be cool. But then that means newbies stand no chance and they would need 10+ until they learn enough to be experts...so I think this xcom will be super easy compared to old xcom.
Point two, on the other hand, is a total logical fallacy. Just because you have less people doesn't mean it's somehow easier. In point of fact, this is pretty much debunked now and I don't even have to point it out. Jake Solomon lost 22 people career in classic mode. He's the developer of the game and still had high casualties. On average the number of casualties percentage wise remains the same from what he said about losing roughly two people a mission. That's half to a little less than three-quarters.
So think how well we're going to do when we pick up the game. Normal to Classic difficulty have casualties. Classical, even more, is said by Solomon to be designed without winning in mind. You could win it, but it's not got it programmed into its vocabulary.
can anybody or developer answer how many items can be researched or obtained in the 3 tech trees? to be more specific alien tech?? human tech?? etc. so i can grasp how big the tech tree is compared to the original game.
You are missing the logic, if you think its a logic fallacy. More people requires more coordination. Its more time consuming to control and move 10 soldiers than 4. Think of it this way, what's easier, moving 4 guys for a kill or moving 8 guys for a kill? Its a more difficult task..you don't want to bunch up your soldiers and get aoe'ed and still have them be able to shoot at the alien. You also need battle awareness and know where all your guys at and if they are able to help each other. Its so easy to lose track when you have 14 guys spread out. Easy to keep track with only have 4. And there's only so many cover available in the map, so its easier to end up with troops with nothing to do as opposed to only 4 soldiers who'll always have cover available for them to go to.
Lots people immediately thought this game was made more for console than pc. This is why, its just easier and faster to play with 4 soldiers than with 14. I'm playing tftd right now, those battles can take forever, moving 10+ guys and trying to remember where they are. It would be so much faster and easier to do with only 4 guys cap limit.
Talking about logical fallacies, there's a argument going around that losing soldiers in a 4 soldier cap is much more challenging. That's a yes and no.
1) with a 4 soldier cap, when you are down to 1 soldier, you have 25% of your total strength. With a 10 soldier cap, when you are down to 1 soldier, you have only 10% of your total strength. In both cases when the battle goes so badly that you have only 1 soldier left, guess what's harder, playing with 25% total strength or only 10%? Hmm..
2) with a 4 soldier cap, you only lose in increment of 25%. With a 10 soldier cap, you lose in 10% increments. So balance-wise, that means you lose 2.5 soldiers in a 10 soldier cap before you lose 1 soldier in a 4 soldier cap. Soldiers will die faster and it'll be easier to lose total unit strength. And when you lose a soldier, you lose all their attack power and abilities.
So at the beginning of the battle, you lose a soldier, you are at 9/10. The other guy is still at 4/4. Then you lose another soldier going down to 8/10, the other guys is still at 4/4. Then you lose another soldier down to 7/10, the other guy finally goes down to 3/4. For the beginning 2 rounds, one player was actually losing strength while the 4 cap player is not.
The people who argues that losing 1 out 4 soldier is more devastating is assuming they'll lose the soldiers at the same rate as a 10 soldier cap. If they are both balanced to be the same, the 4 soldier cap will lose at a much slower rate. This is why people think they're playing with superhero soldiers instead of the squishy humans in the original xcom.
So in respond to the 4cap is harder crowd, it is only so if the 4cap soldiers are as squishy as a 10cap soldier. But if we are assuming they are keeping the difficulty roughly on par with original xcom, then a 4cap soldier is much tougher to kill.
wow, wall of text, just letting it all out. Wasn't going to type it at all, but that's what happens when people respond to my posts!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
okay- if you don't want to read the wall of text here's a much shorter version, and instead of erasing it the wall of text, guess i'll just keep it.. and the wall of text actually said something else differently, but this short version get to the point faster.
Here's the short version:
10 soldier cap = more/tougher aliens. 4 soldier cap = less/easier aliens. That's all.
Last edited by timewatch; 05-08-2012 at 02:34 AM.
hold the presses ,he said in the interview he just finished the game but hey it was ön normal dif" not clasic and he lost 22 soldiers ,ifi remember corectly
you have a good point there sir ,and good example ,+1 for you
You're still committing the same errors in logic, and you're also contradicting yourself.
Coordinating ten people over four might not be "challenging" it might just be tedious. That's subjective. I know I found it the latter. Beyond the spot-and-snipe method, or perhaps getting them off the skyranger that was the only coordination I ever felt I had to pump into it. Otherwise, they were pretty much self-contained units of TUs.
True if you lose one person in four that's twenty five percent of your combat effectiveness, but you can't call for an additional ten people and call it harder. Not really, not on any level. In point of fact, I found the more people I have in the original the easier it is, because you can stay functional for so long.
It's obvious from interviews that the developers have no qualms about TPK'ing you if you mess up. Solmon stated that he doesn't expect you to win every mission. That's my problem with this statement of yours. You assume that more people equals easier game, and this is a logical error because they're not naturally linked. It's not like two plus two equals four. Stating that this is fact is a false corollary. More than that though, you think the new game is going to be too easy, but then you spend paragraphs detailing percentages that in theory should make the game harder.
Your fallacy is thinking that more soldiers automatically brings all the poor mechanics from the original game with it. Having more soldiers does not have to mean that everyone has squad sight, for example. Having more soldiers also does not have to mean the devs would have to be incapable of creating total party kills.
And here I thought timewatch was trying to do just the opposite.You assume that more people equals easier game, and this is a logical error because they're not naturally linked.
You're right that they're not naturally linked, but I've seen you make the argument about big squads being "able to impose their will on the battlefield with impunity" several times. Doesn't it fall in the same category?
---
The argument timewatch puts forth (as I understand it) is basically this (yes, I made it with paint and it doesn't even attempt to have correct proportions etc):
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/3...msoldiers2.jpg
When the first soldier dies, the squad won't have as much strength anymore so the next soldier is likely to die faster than the first. The time the first soldier dies is assumed to happen earlier when there are more units on the map (including enemies). Total strength of the squad over the duration of the mission (in other words, difficulty) is represented by the area of the bars.
I don't actually agree with this as the shape such graphs take is entirely dependant on the balancing of the game. They can be made to favour either option depending on the expected average time of first death.
If that's not what you meant timewatch, apologies.
---
tl;dr - Squad size for a game still in development does not have to have anything to do with difficulty. Difficulty is a balancing decision and devs were either unable or unwilling to balance the game around a bigger squad. Increasing squad size after the balancing has already been done (ie. after the game is released/not considering possible mods) will in all probability make the game easier, while decreasing your squad size will make things harder.
awsome chart
Yea, JS lost 22 soldiers on Normal difficulty - being that he knows the game inside and out, I'd say the game is pretty tough. A first time player, you could assume, would lose twice as many?
Also, b/c units are designed to work together, especially the support class, if you lose 1 of your 4 squadmates, it like losing more than 25% combat effectiveness. So having 1 guy left isn't like being 25%, that last guy will never have someone providing suppression fire for him, or be in overwatch. Also his Will stat will be diminished making him more likey to panic! - and hunker down will only save you for so long. Yes, having one guy left is more like one guy left of a ten man squad, 10% effective.
But this applies to higher soldier numbers too then.. if those 10 soldiers are also designed to work in a group, 1 out of 10 left probably has 3% effectiveness
Well I meant comparing it with the original xcom.
Having 1 of 4 in the new xcom is like having 1 of 10 from the old.
If you have 1 guy left:
...and he's a Support class, ok you can't find a sniper rifle and camp somewhere, and you can't pick up a rocket launcher and take out that beserker.
...and he's a Heavy class, you won't have smoke grenades and you won't have a medkit to heal with.
Ect ect, you get my point, those things you could do in the original, soldiers were more of a one man team.
Sure... I can picture how my grenadier with high throwing and good str, would handle a long range rifle with his 41 base accuracy... In theory, they could pick any tool on the battlefield, but you also were specializing troops... The closest thing I could get, is that heavy weapon support could handle decently on the sniper spot and maybe assault, as I had them all with high bravery, high str, and above average accuracy (you do not want a misfire from a rocket launcher into your team members...), but a good HW material was very rare... In fact my commander was a HW guy... good snipers are also rare, but being able to have an aimed shot on laser rifle on 80-90%... that's a feature one can't pass, especially if you manage to get that sniper into a good firing spot... those guys though were in the back and they would bolt into the dropship, if things were becoming very hot (twice, I almost had a full Team Kill on night terror missions... early game...)
That chart is spot on! Its exactly what I meant.
I do anticipate this game be easier though, because I just imagine how original xcom will play if it was made for 4 cap. That game will just be simpler with less things going on, less aliens and corners to search for, and maps would likely be smaller. I've actually played a game already like that, ufo after series. Though that game does have lots aliens in some maps, but humans are also super strong later on.
I haven't played xcom:eu so I really don't know its true difficulty, but generally speaking, games with more things going on is harder than games with less things going on.
----------------------------------
I actually got the idea for that chart from playing tftd superhuman difficulty. That game is so hard, I'm save scumming through the base/terror missions. What happens was, every now and then one of those flying brain things or a lobsterman or big jelly would move up to my guy and melee him to death. I keep thinking if the aliens are kept at the same difficulty and the soldiers are reduced to 4 cap, then my soldiers wouldn't have die. They would just be injured (because they need to balance the game for a 4 cap) and kill the attacker next round. But my soldiers did die and I have nothing to attack back with unless I have another soldier close by to retaliate. That's where the idea for that chart came from.
Although now that I think about it, if they did reduce to 4 cap for original xcom, there might be less aliens but make them stronger too. And those aliens would still one shot my soldier. Is that what you mean, Being?
Last edited by timewatch; 05-08-2012 at 02:15 PM.
That chart is next to useless. There's no data, no nothing. It's just a picture. No one's going to convince me with that sorry excuse for a visual representation of data.
I don't think the game is going to be easier, if it turns out to even be easier, just because they throw in less people. I've played XCOM with four and six people and it's doable. If it does become easier it will probably be because of cover. I see cover as a clear factor in how squishy or not your people are. There's not indication that fewer people equals easier game.
I find xcom boring. Not from the gameplay or anything, but from the severe lack of modernization. I don't care about graphics, but I am used to certain modern gameplay caveats.
Its been a long time since I last played x-com so I don't have specific examples... But I do remember that the biggest obstacle to enjoying x-com (aside from the fact my copy didn't have a manual at the time, this was before x-com was put on steam and other sites) was the GUI. The GUI was terrible, I found time units annoying as I had to calculate EVERY LITTLE ACTION down to a T just to ensure I could crouch, or turn a different direction. I also found later on, that using large amounts of soldiers was necessary but unwieldy.
I love x-com, but because I came to the game later than most I just can't forgive it for some of its conventions.
It wasn't meant to have any data or to convince anyone of the difficulty the new XCOM will have... it's a visual aid to understanding the argument timewatch is making. And I specifically said that
But thanks anyway.I don't actually agree with this as the shape such graphs take is entirely dependant on the balancing of the game. They can be made to favour either option <harder/easier>
Quoting myself, yeah I already know that balancing affect that chart. Also thanks anyway to both of you.
The chart is nevertheless, very helpful in showing that at any given time, a 4 cap game always have more soldiers available than a 10 cap game. That's assuming 4cap game has stronger soldiers that won't die as fast; I guess I thought that detail was already obvious.
It's not obvious because it's assumed. That doesn't make it true, and the two are not inclusive of one another. There's a dull and trite saying about assuming.
Being: I get that your trying to show something with that, but for the life of me it's not clicking with me. It's too messy or doesn't show any (for me) real information.
From the same earlier post...
Thanks Being for the new game, post old quotes as reply to Indiku.
inkidu powerr
Increase the squad size?! Why would we do that? If we increased the squad size we would have to increase the number of aliens to make the game more challenging. If we did that we would have to have increased the map sizes or make it so the game generated larger map sizes randomly. and if we did that we would have the old game except with better graphics! That would be just silly.
+10 for you god sir
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote