6 man squad cap POLL

[Clayton Cross]

Please excuse the really long post it is for clarity sake.

I could be wrong, I am trying to translate other people’s minds and clarify my poor explanation.

Originally Posted by Tarofex
For me part of the charm of XCOM was sending in 12+ operatives, suffering 3 casualties, and deciding to live with it rather than spend the time on a do-over. If you are handling situations with 6 guys there are 3 scenarios I see:
1) The missions will be very small to match the squad size. (That would make me sad)

Edited for clarity: Maps will be smaller because of you are limiting enemys (equal or less number) and you intend to keep the action up.

Originally Posted by Inkidu
There's no indication of this. I've taken out squads of ten or twelve with six people, and in the new game that's four groups of three aliens, which would totally be doable.

Edited for clarity: Lots of aliens ok, because you can spread out groups and target 6 against 4 over and over (am I wrong? )

Originally Posted by Clayton Cross
So your saying the original game is not correctly balance... that does not justify breaking the balance in this game. We are saying we want to have aliens superior and your saying you don't mind fighting week aliens. Opinion can't be argued, its just our preference.

Edited for clarity: Aliens are too stupid to group up and attack you so you can use superior numbers and they are apparently not dangerous enough to make any kills in a you 6, them 4 fight to overcome that. (Dumb AI is does not balance the map, and Aliens strength does not balance your 2 man advantage.)

Originally Posted by Inkidu
Don't put words in my mouth. <- I don’t think I did but I was not very clear.
His argument is that because he has less people means that there has to be less aliens. This is not true. It's a false corollary. There's more to game balance than pound-for-pound ratings. The aliens have superior tech, in fact one of the best ways to win in the original without relying on the spot=and-snipe method is to actually rush the aliens and get them in the open. Also, proxy mines can provide early-warning and butt covering. The tank can also be useful. <- This I know but it’s not the point I was arguing. (admittedly not very clearly)

What you said here is right literally correct, however the in this game it did not seem make since without a reasonable balancer of some kind, which I did not see until today when I saw the confirmation of armed civilians. That changes everything. If they are indeed used as a balancer then and justification for alien disorganization then I can now see that. (I still want smarter AI)

I think the second thing does need to go to the spin-off thread, but I just don't like that error in logic.

I brought it back here, your quote too because it may help to end several arguments that keep resurfacing.

For the the third thing, they're putting in an iron-man mode.

If that’s what classic mode is I am all for it!

The below is a re-post from another thread, but I believe it is relevant and I didn't want to retype it. lol

I'm implying that the the developers put more focus on team-based tactics and position over individual unit strength, and that's pretty much what they're saying. Plus, starting positions for both side are randomly generated, and the aliens have at least enough AI in this game to patrol so there's not reason you can't create the good old pincer movement on some aliens. You don't have to directly buff the units, you can put focus on things like effective use of cover and position. I think that's what the developers are doing.

While I do think the aliens should also make effective use of cover and position as well....

What you said plus:

Another one I noticed that has been brought up several times...
GS: So there will be missions where you'll go into an alien base and extract a hostage?
JS: Well, not that specifically, but something like that, yeah. Cases of hostage extraction, VIP rescue, things like that.

Plus the addition of civilian military from various countries.

Out lines that you will be playing a pumped up "special purpose" not the main force. So yes your more buffed up than the original solders and be more hardy as they say. The point to there approach is your not really the force fighting the war, your the support unit taking care of critical objectives while the main military forces of the word are engaging them directly. This means the civilian military will take the place of the "rookies" and over stock soldier. So knowing this I know have to agree with you Inkidu that they can leave dangerous aliens and out number you while maintaining ..some of the alien fear factor. Even though the this does not entirely reflect the original game, it is fare better then I thought until I saw confirmation of the armed civilians. I believe it still reduces fear factor because their not your men and you don't get the I lost 12-14 of MY guys, however the scale and balance issues can be controlled with out making the soldier drastically hardy. The only hurdle for scale left is really the Devs drive for continuous action. They will tend to decrease map size to increase your time fighting over searching and positioning.

I still like 10-14 better than 4-6, however I would say that where I used to be 100% against it, this solution is do-able. Now I am only 60-75% against it on the grounds that I would prefer to feel like the tip of the spear instead of the sneaky knife to the kidney. I understand the move and it makes more since in some ways, but they could have made it a 10-14 primary assault unit because now it does not make since for Xcom units to be the primary force for the end of the game this way. You don't send special Ops to take the enemy stronghold, they lay the ground work for the primary force to do that. But I do understand that in Xcom you were never then bulk earth defense. You did feel like it though and you were an assault force not a small covert strike team.

The X-com game I want has me attacking the "Spartan Aliens" at "Thermopylae" with mass numbers and fearing for my life each turn because I know they might win. (Should have more of a horror survival feel than an action one) But that is a personal preference not a game play design issue.

[DazzD]

It's too hard to answer the OP with out playing the game first. The more we see, the more I think 4-6 will be fine. If the game is all balanced up for 4-6 and then we can take 10-12 then the whole thing goes out of whack. I always liked the Apoc way of doing things. If I went raiding a corporation with 4-6 soldiers the map would be tight and there was enough enemies for a challenge. If I went in with 20 soldiers there would be a much bigger map and way more enemies to fight. It changed to suit the squad I was sending and was always a good fight.

If the missions are small with 4-6 soldiers it might be on par. If there's a massive downed UFO (which Jake recently confirmed) I am not sure if 4-6 will be enough. It will make for some pretty epic missions with the whole squad limping home... If they even make it! So with out playing it, I vote 4-6 will be enough.

[AlphaCent]

I'm with the developers on this one.

Tactical squads in RL are generally less than 7 people. 6 is perfect IMO.

-Sniper
-Heavy
-Assault
-Support
-Canon fodder/additional assault unit
-Specialty unit/tank

6 is more than enough, so i fully support it.

[ste-V]

I still think that having less men/women with specialization adds more field tactics to the game.
if you have 15 soldiers, and lose the first five, you would still have all the "classes" available theoretically twice in the field.
if you have only up to 6 and lose half of your squad, you'd have to adapt really quickly (because you're missing vital classes) to the situation (change your tactics) in order to get a win on that map. maybe temproraily retreat to better cover or better oversight.

also, JS said there'll be multiple alien types in certain maps. lets take 4 squaddies against 5 alien types in one map. the aliens (as it seems now) spawn in groups of around 3. that makes around 15 individual aliens to pop. with the introduction of the really aggressive floaters, this sounds pretty tense to me already.

so i doubt that there will be a shortage of tactics with less crew, rather vice versa every move you'll make will be critical and will decide between victory or loss (retreat)...

then again, you'll have objectives! imagine a "you have so many turns to complete that submission"-mission or "reach this in so many turns"... you'd be made to hurry to a certain point, with alot of diversions in between. there's a lot of potential tension is this game already with 4-6 men IMO. additionally, they'll always have the possibility to add DLCs with bigger maps that might require bigger squads. so i doubt that anything past 6+ (maybe 6-10) is completely off the table for FiAx.

[katscan]

Just remember for maybe 1/3 of the game, you will be running around with FOUR units. So don't get all excited talking about what you are going to do with 6.

But the more this game develops the more I think 6 will be good. I certainly think I will be more attached to developing and customizing 6 units than I would 12.

[AlphaCent]

4 is minimum yes. 6 is optimum.

In my late Apocalypse playtroughs i had only squads of 4 per mission. It made the game so much interesting. You'd have to SWAT your way around instead of just storming an area with soldiers and mowing down everything. You can have immensely more fun with grenades in a small group.

[BCD917]

I'm with the developers on this one.

Tactical squads in RL are generally less than 7 people. 6 is perfect IMO.

-Sniper
-Heavy
-Assault
-Support
-Canon fodder/additional assault unit
-Specialty unit/tank

6 is more than enough, so i fully support it.

Based on what facts.

Outside of a 4-man Recon team, the Canadian Military uses an 8-man section as its smallest unit. And Recon is meant to sneak and peak, not combat. Also, an 8 man assault section would not have Heavy Weapons as these are platoon weapons and generally require a 2-3 man crew for each weapon; or Snipers for that matter. They would be an Att/Det, which would mean more than 8 men if they were to be included.

I cannot speak for other Countries, but I have never heard of a 6-man squad in RL for any military force.

[Gazz]

I have never heard of a 6-man squad in RL for any military force.

Me neither, but then again... I haven't heard of any existing military force built specifically for fighting UFOs and aliens.

[b15h09]

Me neither, but then again... I haven't heard of any existing military force built specifically for fighting UFOs and aliens.

Of course you haven't heard of them. >.>

[BCD917]

Me neither, but then again... I haven't heard of any existing military force built specifically for fighting UFOs and aliens.

Alphacent is the one who stated 6-man squads are standard in RL (Real Life?), this is what I am responding to. As far I as know, this is an untrue statement, and this is based on personal experience.

The game has decided on 4-6, I won't deny I don't like it, but I will accept it... till I mod it.

And again, even though this is a game, and we are fighting Aliens, why would we change our formation makeup, unless it is proven to be ineffective? It is plain nonsense.

[DP1982SK]

4 is a single, so called fireteam, or opertional unit. But it's not a strike team... In any given areay you have at least 2 such teams operating in proximity... so if one gets under heavy fire, the others can support and secure flanks or even move into a position to lift that heavy fire from the team in troubles.

Team of 4 can be a recon and recon only...

[Clayton Cross]

It's too hard to answer the OP with out playing the game first. The more we see, the more I think 4-6 will be fine. If the game is all balanced up for 4-6 and then we can take 10-12 then the whole thing goes out of whack. I always liked the Apoc way of doing things. If I went raiding a corporation with 4-6 soldiers the map would be tight and there was enough enemies for a challenge. If I went in with 20 soldiers there would be a much bigger map and way more enemies to fight. It changed to suit the squad I was sending and was always a good fight.

If the missions are small with 4-6 soldiers it might be on par. If there's a massive downed UFO (which Jake recently confirmed) I am not sure if 4-6 will be enough. It will make for some pretty epic missions with the whole squad limping home... If they even make it! So with out playing it, I vote 4-6 will be enough.

4-6 should be fine for insertion missions and they are apparently going to "buff your team" with support from armed civilians and "vanilla" military on missions where you would have no chance do to the scale of the fight. This allows for a non-player controlled equalizer and makes 4-6 possible because NPC support becomes your cannon fodder like when you had 24 and you sent the rookies in first do draw fire and a take the early falls until you could isolate and destroy aliens with your good units. While I will miss controlling a large squad, all the controls required to balance sides with out overpowering your unit are there. It just a matter of how well they implemented it. At the end of the game you should be very powerful with all the upgrades and research but at the same time I think you will be fighting Chyssalid and Ethereals so... I imagine you will need to be.

[Inkidu]

I honestly have just given up on this. I expect it to be gamey and I just don't give a damn. I don't think it will make them super-soldiers, and if it strips away the "cannon-fodder" buffer I'm all for it.

[Clayton Cross]

I honestly have just given up on this. I expect it to be gamey and I just don't give a damn. I don't think it will make them super-soldiers, and if it strips away the "cannon-fodder" buffer I'm all for it.

My above "large post" mostly agrees with what you said in general looking back at your post you were accurate in pointing to the flaws of the arguments against 4-6 man units causing imbalance you just didn't explain how it could be done. Armed civilians/vanilla military will allow for balance without making the X-com soldier in to super soldiers but it will not get ride of "cannon-fodder" it just puts it in as NPC control instead of your own. So again you are correct in the since it is stripping away fodder from your having to mange them.

Not sure why you are "giving up" after the arguments against 4-6 man have been defeated except personal preference which is an opinion that can't be argued. I would say more accurately your point is proven your option is decided and your done, lol. Am I wrong?

[Clayton Cross]

4 is a single, so called fireteam, or opertional unit. But it's not a strike team... In any given areay you have at least 2 such teams operating in proximity... so if one gets under heavy fire, the others can support and secure flanks or even move into a position to lift that heavy fire from the team in troubles.

Team of 4 can be a recon and recon only...

A 4-6 man strike team is often used by seals and other extraction units if I am not mistaken, however they would normally be used for strategic operations and recon only, not an actual assault force to take down a base or destroy and army. But with "vanilla" military in the game you could join and support an assault force while you have specific tactical targets. (assassinate the leader, destroy command post, assist in the elimination of enemy force). Game play wise it can be balanced this way.

Don't get me wrong I am in favor of a 14 man assault squad, instead of a 4-6 man fire-team but I have to say with "vanilla" military in the game it is do able and it actually makes since. You just have to get over the idea that you are not the primary assault force, your the tactical strike team tipping the battle so they can win, and for me that is hard. In a way it make mores since because if your playing a full scale invasion you should be fighting with battalions not squads and that would be more along the line of Starcraft and out of X-com territory. (I think a 14 man assault squad also makes since against larger targets, but I think they will use NPC support to make that happen in order to reduce player controlled variables and make missions more balanced so you don't get overpowered or stomped, preventing play style of choosing 4-6 vs 10-14 to be the variable for difficulty instead of choosing to play the game on a harder mode.)

Discussed in more depth here.
http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...-6-man-unit%29

[rharris]

I totally Agree... I hope they keep alien bases on. but with just with a sqaud of six??! I liked having a large squad I could "rotate" so when it came to bases, I could take my whole squad and have a fighting chance. it should be up to us on how many we want to take... this is the only one part that really waoories me about this game..!

[DP1982SK]

4-6 strike team can operate alone on sabotage/infiltrate and secure/assasinate part of a mission, but I'll refer you to the quite known operation - eliminationtion of bin Laden. You had at least two drop teams and presumably only one got to infiltrate the mansion while the other(s) were on a stand by/cover mission in case of things becoming hot.

Again, we are talking here about a situation when it was pulled off by a technologically superior power with a good intelligence feed (this time).

I'm excited by seeing regular militaries going vs. alien invaders and our team being the specialsts that can tip the balance, but I assume that only a part of the game will be like that.

I admit I have fun with 6 men squad in other games that do it (JA, Fallout Tactics, the other UFO series), but in those games you do not have that much of your troops lethality. In F:T your soldiers can survive a point blank shotgun fire... in JA you also do not die from one/two shots like it was in UFO:EU

As you said, I'll just have to settle with the idea of this game having a slightly different flavor than the original. I'm quite sure that I'll enjoy it once I'll get used to it.

[rharris]

Guys, thank you for the read. I understand a lot more on how the game will now work... however, I still feel that smaller squads (6) will still take away from the game play, even with the "World's soldiers" as fodder for me, only 6 squad member’s is pulling a larger part of the gameplay away than we can fathom at the minute....

Let’s go back to the original. I loved the way I could stuff the Sky Ranger with as many Men as equipment as explosives as humanly possible, landing like I’ve just hit Sword beach and running head long into fire! Or a few men, lightly armed for a landing in the night like the Burma Jungle… even if it is to catch ONE Alien, I didn’t know which one it was? Did you?!

I have a military background and I assure you... The US/British/Ghurkha/Chinese, in fact ANY force in the world (SAS/SEAL/SBS/Ranger) would NOT send 4 guys to deal with a threat they did not know anything about... there would be at least 12, in three sticks... granted. I want that same option, that’s all.

Having more squad member’s offers more dimensions to the game play.

1) If I want to take just 2 squad member’s, just shadows executing aliens and never seen... (Or Advisors the World Armies if they go that path) then I can...

2) What about taking a team of 6 long range weapons specialist that will strike fear into the enemies’ hearts and spread panic and confusion before deciding to spread brain?

3) but if I want to take 12 Anvil Chinned, Cigar-smoking G.I.'s later, who want to take photos smiling next to the deceased after strong-arming them into death, pushing the "Worlds Armies" out the way whilst doing it laughing through there nicotine stained teeth, I should be allowed too..

It’s the expansiveness that I love about it. Please don’t take that away. I want to be in full control of the team I have, not be limited.

[rharris]

Never? I'm sure there will be a bunch of people who will continue to push the subject even after the game is out.

Personally, I'm convinced. My work with the six-man-game and Mr. Solomon's explanation of the move-action, equipment, and ability mechanics in the Rock, Paper, Shotgun interview makes 4-6 people make a heck of a lot of sense.

I'm not happy, i think its taking away options that I think are an integral part of the game.

[Inkidu]

I'm not happy, i think its taking away options that I think are an integral part of the game.

If they were really that important a six-man game in the original would be practically impossible. It's not. I agree that they're taking away the option, but numbers aren't all that important if you don't desire the majority of them to be bullet and psionic absorbers.

I'd rather them restrict me then give me too much than it be a complete curb-stomp battle. It's a fine balance to strike, and I don't think many people grasp just how tricky it was.

[PaladinSL]

While I see the desire to create atmosphere by limiting the option of sending in an entire platoon of infantry to hammer the entire city flat, I have to say, some of my best moments in the original game, were spent imagining stories and interactions between the troops in my skyranger teams, this was made vastly more fun by having a small group of core characters plus a few sections worth of interchangeable cannon fodder, it also meant that when I had the 50+ troops to get one of my characters to commander that I felt I had truly done something to earn that rank for him (buying 49 other troops and leaving them sit there i found to always be a distasteful option, i liked to equip them all and get them all cycled through combat teams.)

Realistically, Firaxis will do what they want to do here, but if I were to make the call, maybe have an open game version with tweaked difficulty and higher enemy numbers for the raging gunfight types and a regular game mode for the small-squad tactical types, doesn't have to be a re-write, doesn't have to change any story, model or sound elements, just a quick change of the numbers in a box and you're there.

This, I believe would also make balancing for any multiplayer modding efforts (UFO:The two sides is still on my desktop and the only thing better than the original game for me and I desperately await to be created for this re-imagining) much easier as I found myself ALWAYS needing large numbers to take a human intellect down.

[rharris]

QUOTE=Inkidu;1536562]If they were really that important a six-man game in the original would be practically impossible. It's not. I agree that they're taking away the option, but numbers aren't all that important if you don't desire the majority of them to be bullet and psionic absorbers.

Even JS said that he played the game like this, sending a rookie out with a pistol to absorb/use as fodder.
one man out of a Six man squad is a lot, especially with the class divisions that we will have. I'd rather the choice of taking 4 or 10, thats all I'm asking for and by the looks of the poll, Over half do....

[Lochar]

if you have 15 soldiers, and lose the first five, you would still have all the "classes" available theoretically twice in the field.
if you have only up to 6 and lose half of your squad, you'd have to adapt really quickly (because you're missing vital classes) to the situation (change your tactics) in order to get a win on that map. maybe temproraily retreat to better cover or better oversight.

This would be my main concern for 6 man squads, the casualty factor. With larger squads you could lose a few and still win, with 4-6 , how many could you afford to lose before you lost any chance of finishing a mission?

Also what I havent heard yet is how large your base pool of soldiers will be? Do we get replacements only if we get a trooper killed? Say your into your mid to end game and you take 2 casualties on a really tough mission, are you going to have to have rookies take over when I am sure the aliens are now ramped up in difficulty as well? Or will they be expecting people to save every 15 minutes and just reloading a bad situation?

I just hope they might have some training room for extra troops to be able to fill in for any losses. I mean soliders can be sent to medical for injuries, will just lessen the 6 man or will we be able to sub?

[Inkidu]

This would be my main concern for 6 man squads, the casualty factor. With larger squads you could lose a few and still win, with 4-6 , how many could you afford to lose before you lost any chance of finishing a mission?

Also what I havent heard yet is how large your base pool of soldiers will be? Do we get replacements only if we get a trooper killed? Say your into your mid to end game and you take 2 casualties on a really tough mission, are you going to have to have rookies take over when I am sure the aliens are now ramped up in difficulty as well? Or will they be expecting people to save every 15 minutes and just reloading a bad situation?
un
I just hope they might have some training room for extra troops to be able to fill in for any losses. I mean soliders can be sent to medical for injuries, will just lessen the 6 man or will we be able to sub?

I theory one person could win it for you. This is hared to say because it varies from person to person, as does the will to iron-man it. I think that has less to d with game design. If you can just lose five people outright and be okay with it... I consider that an unnecessary thing at best and a shortfall of game design at worst. It's not even meaningful sacrifice, they're just there to provide a buffer. I want impacting losses personally.

As for the later game, I really don't see it. Even in the original I was cycling out dead vets for newbs. Are they at a disadvantage? Yes. Do they still kill aliens? Yes. It's not like the newbs don't get armor and weaponry beyond terran.

[rharris]

I theory one person could win it for you. This is hared to say because it varies from person to person, as does the will to iron-man it. I think that has less to d with game design. If you can just lose five people outright and be okay with it... I consider that an unnecessary thing at best and a shortfall of game design at worst. It's not even meaningful sacrifice, they're just there to provide a buffer. I want impacting losses personally.

As for the later game, I really don't see it. Even in the original I was cycling out dead vets for newbs. Are they at a disadvantage? Yes. Do they still kill aliens? Yes. It's not like the newbs don't get armor and weaponry beyond terran.

I think this is taking away from the game and that is my main concern. I agree with Lochar. there are too many uncertainties with having a smaller squad. I want the Option to play it the way I WANT IT, not be capped into someones else's way of playing it, thats what I loved about the original.

If you start limiting Paramaters of the game, you are limiting ones experience of the game.... and i want to make this point...
In Every Thread and 90% of the people in the Threads (and there are even threads for this...) has recalled/spoke about every different way this game CAN be played....That has come from the Gamers Imagination we all put ourselves in it BECAUSE IT WAS A STORY WE WROTE, However we wanted.. Cutting down on options will enviatably cut gamers imagination and THAT is why this game is a classic.... AND JS, YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK!!

[Gazz]

Cutting down on options will enviatably cut gamers imagination

In an exaggerated meaning - sure.
It's also a game balance issue.

In the original game, the devs also "cut down your options" to engage a particular UFO with 12 interceptors simultaneously.
Since only a handful could engage simultaneously, there was actually a certain amount of risk.
Had you been able to always send a dozen interceptors with "starter gear", you could have annihilated everything with very little risk.

Game balance usually means not handing the player an automatic win and "allowed" force levels are a critical item with every sandbox style game where the player has many options.

[Inkidu]

I think this is taking away from the game and that is my main concern. I agree with Lochar. there are too many uncertainties with having a smaller squad. I want the Option to play it the way I WANT IT, not be capped into someones else's way of playing it, thats what I loved about the original.

If you start limiting Paramaters of the game, you are limiting ones experience of the game.... and i want to make this point...
In Every Thread and 90% of the people in the Threads (and there are even threads for this...) has recalled/spoke about every different way this game CAN be played....That has come from the Gamers Imagination we all put ourselves in it BECAUSE IT WAS A STORY WE WROTE, However we wanted.. Cutting down on options will enviatably cut gamers imagination and THAT is why this game is a classic.... AND JS, YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK!!

Sixty-four percent of interknnet statistics are made up out of nowhere.

A.) The data in this poll is old.
B.) I personally find this poll set up in a misleading way. Mainly because the second option provides an overlap with the first.
C.) The older the XCOM fan is the more likely they tend to vote for larger squads.

But generally because you've got a 113 votes here.

30% are actually happy with six.
50% want the mid range
and the remaining twenty or so want large squads.

That's this thread alone, and the others are older and probably more unreliable. Are they probably taking away an option? Well... yeah... but look at the options they're putting in to play the game. No one does that. You're getting perks, situational bonuses, more armor with more abilities, most likely more weapons.

With all this there main reason for stripping down how many people you can field is because it would be a curb-stomp battle. Even the best modern AI falls to the Zerg rush. I also think smaller numbers are easier to deal with when you're trying to coordinate attacks. 15 guys was fine when you mainly moved them with regard to each soldier's unique stats and not as a team.

I'm for teamwork even if I lose out on one particular way to play the game. I think they added a couple of new ones.

[katscan]

You're getting perks, situational bonuses, more armor with more abilities, most likely more weapons.

Yea, but most of that stuff is unwanted ! Its like taking away your steak from your dinner and replacing it with peas and carrots, saying "Look ! You now have TWO pieces of food !" Yea, but the meal now sucks !

Perks might be okay, but they put in so many that it is starting to look like World of Com-craft. Especially once they start treating perks like pure buffs/debuffs from a gameplay mechanic standpoint. Along the same lines, abilities are also fine, but they cross the gamey threshold when only a support class soldier can figure out how to throw a smoke grenade. Class locking most weapons is also pretty stupid.. fine, some can be locked (sniper rifle) but a shotgun ?? When more weapons are locked than unlocked, thats just lame.

[Alucardex]

Yea, but most of that stuff is unwanted ! Its like taking away your steak from your dinner and replacing it with peas and carrots, saying "Look ! You now have TWO pieces of food !" Yea, but the meal now sucks !

Perks might be okay, but they put in so many that it is starting to look like World of Com-craft. Especially once they start treating perks like pure buffs/debuffs from a gameplay mechanic standpoint. Along the same lines, abilities are also fine, but they cross the gamey threshold when only a support class soldier can figure out how to throw a smoke grenade. Class locking most weapons is also pretty stupid.. fine, some can be locked (sniper rifle) but a shotgun ?? When more weapons are locked than unlocked, thats just lame.

Ok first thing: I'd rather have some good peas and carrots then a steak.
What do I want to say with that? Tastes are different.

You said those changes were unwanted.
So did you actually ask every single gamer interested in this game? No you just stated you personal opinion as fact.
Don't get me wrong I respect your opinion, but that doesn't mean that I have to share it.
Also why exactly is everyone blaming World of Warcaft for perks and stuff?
All the mechanics in the new Xcom are as old as gaming itself, hell most of this stuff is borrowed from tabletop games so you might as well compare it to Warhammer 40k.

[katscan]

Don't get me wrong I respect your opinion, but that doesn't mean that I have to share it.

Also why exactly is everyone blaming World of Warcaft for perks and stuff?

First of all, let me mess with your mind by saying that I actually DO agree with you ! I think reducing the number of squad members, while adding things to make them even more personalized will greatly improve the game. So NO, you don't disagree with me. You actually AGREE with me ! Adding abilities will make the game MORE interesting. And I know you AGREE with ME that class locked weapons (in general) are just stupid. I was just arguing because I disagreed with the general statement of taking something away and giving you more as a good thing...and posting the pitfalls.

Regarding perks, we can start a whole thread about this.. but they start bordering on gamey when suppressive fire CANNOT do damage. That's simply a WoW debuff style formula. The distinction is in the term 'needlessly'. Tabletop games and other older games (as a generalization) do not often oversimplify these things, unless it is critical to the medium itself. Again, back to suppression, games like WoW (and now XComEU) *needlessly* oversimplify this to an on/off feature that is activated by a single button press, with little regard to anything else that is occurring on the map/field. There is no need for suppression to have been reduced to a debuff. It is very possible to simulate true suppression from fire (games like BattleFront: Normandy, Shock Force, etc) have been doing it effectively for years.

So thats where the WoW commentary comes from.

[Alucardex]

First of all, let me mess with your mind by saying that I actually DO agree with you ! I think reducing the number of squad members, while adding things to make them even more personalized will greatly improve the game. So NO, you don't disagree with me. You actually AGREE with me ! Adding abilities will make the game MORE interesting. And I know you AGREE with ME that class locked weapons (in general) are just stupid. I was just arguing because I disagreed with the general statement of taking something away and giving you more as a good thing...and posting the pitfalls.

Regarding perks, we can start a whole thread about this.. but they start bordering on gamey when suppressive fire CANNOT do damage. That's simply a WoW debuff style formula. The distinction is in the term 'needlessly'. Tabletop games and other older games (as a generalization) do not often oversimplify these things, unless it is critical to the medium itself. Again, back to suppression, games like WoW (and now XComEU) *needlessly* oversimplify this to an on/off feature that is activated by a single button press, with little regard to anything else that is occurring on the map/field. There is no need for suppression to have been reduced to a debuff. It is very possible to simulate true suppression from fire (games like BattleFront: Normandy, Shock Force, etc) have been doing it effectively for years.

So thats where the WoW commentary comes from.

Yeah I just get annoyed when everyone starts comparing games to WoW.
It's not even the same genre, so why use that game as a comparison when there are literally hundreds of other games with those elements?

About the Suppresion fire: I'm gonna give the developers the benefit of the doubt here. Maybe it turned out too strong when it actually did deal damage, or maybe you could somehow exploit it.
Fact is they probably tried out many different variations and thought this one worked out the best ,so I wouldn't judge them before having tried the game myself.

And about the class-locked weapons:
This is actually a side-effect of classes themselves.
Yeah they could allow every class to wield every weapon, but that would kinda ruin their whole system because it blurs the line between each individual class.

[katscan]

Yea.. The thing is, I absolutely LOVE firaxis. Each of their games is always really really fun and has immense replayability. So even with all the belly aching I do, I cannot deny that their game balancing and play testing is top notch, and I'm sure this will be one of my favorite games.

[Alucardex]

I know what you mean. There are some decisions I personally don't like too much, but I can clearly see where they are coming from. They are not changing things around just to make it easier or whatever. They clearly have a well thought out design and while I could argue with some details I'm 100% ok with their intentions.

[Inkidu]

Yea, but most of that stuff is unwanted ! Its like taking away your steak from your dinner and replacing it with peas and carrots, saying "Look ! You now have TWO pieces of food !" Yea, but the meal now sucks !

Perks might be okay, but they put in so many that it is starting to look like World of Com-craft. Especially once they start treating perks like pure buffs/debuffs from a gameplay mechanic standpoint. Along the same lines, abilities are also fine, but they cross the gamey threshold when only a support class soldier can figure out how to throw a smoke grenade. Class locking most weapons is also pretty stupid.. fine, some can be locked (sniper rifle) but a shotgun ?? When more weapons are locked than unlocked, thats just lame.

Dude, they're all buffs and debuffs because it's all stat driven and it all causes effects A.I. routines. That's how games work. It just depends on how heavy a curtain they want to put on it. The original XCom was just random, but you could game that system too. People have done it.

To the analogy. I look at is as the original being a meal from a buffet. It's great, there's plenty of it, but it's not too refined and you're never going to eat all of it, because you don't like all of it. I like the more refined approach of an actual meal with a small amount of steak that's probably been marinated and aged, peas, and carrots. Not as robust, but perhaps providing a better, more refined tooth.

[BCD917]

Ok first thing: I'd rather have some good peas and carrots then a steak.
What do I want to say with that? Tastes are different.

But would you still want it listed as a Steak Dinner (sans Steak) and pay $30+ dollars for just peas and carrots. No matter how good peas and carrots are, they ain't the same value as a steak dinner.

[katscan]

Dude, they're all buffs and debuffs because it's all stat driven and it all causes effects A.I. routines. That's how games work. It just depends on how heavy a curtain they want to put on it. The original XCom was just random, but you could game that system too. People have done it.

To the analogy. I look at is as the original being a meal from a buffet. It's great, there's plenty of it, but it's not too refined and you're never going to eat all of it, because you don't like all of it. I like the more refined approach of an actual meal with a small amount of steak that's probably been marinated and aged, peas, and carrots. Not as robust, but perhaps providing a better, more refined tooth.

Yea, but sort of as you alluded to, there is a huge difference between a WoW single click of a button debuff and a calculated ability/effect (as in the case of suppression). While some may incorrectly think it silly, randomization definitely needs to be a component in games because they are unable to model all the variables involved in a system, and a single shot taken under the same conditions will yield differing results each time due to system entropy. The original Xcom was perhaps too far towards the random side of the scale, but I now fear going too far to the other (predicatable buff/debuff) side of the equation.

[BCD917]

To the analogy. I look at is as the original being a meal from a buffet. It's great, there's plenty of it, but it's not too refined and you're never going to eat all of it, because you don't like all of it. I like the more refined approach of an actual meal with a small amount of steak that's probably been marinated and aged, peas, and carrots. Not as robust, but perhaps providing a better, more refined tooth.

I look at it more like the quote from Demolition Man "Taco Bell was the only restaurant to survive the Franchise Wars. Now all restaurants are Taco Bell."

[Being]

To the analogy. I look at is as the original being a meal from a buffet. It's great, there's plenty of it, but it's not too refined and you're never going to eat all of it, because you don't like all of it. I like the more refined approach of an actual meal with a small amount of steak that's probably been marinated and aged, peas, and carrots. Not as robust, but perhaps providing a better, more refined tooth.

I have to agree that a refined, well made meal is a LOT better even if there's less mass of food on the plate. So long as it's not carrots and peas instead of a steak, because I like steak a lot more. Even a poorly made steak beats well made carrots and peas.

Give me a refined, well made meal with steak on it. If you have to, sacrifice the carrots and peas!

I think food analogies are perfect for discussing matters of taste

[Inkidu]

I have to agree that a refined, well made meal is a LOT better even if there's less mass of food on the plate. So long as it's not carrots and peas instead of a steak, because I like steak a lot more. Even a poorly made steak beats well made carrots and peas.

Give me a refined, well made meal with steak on it. If you have to, sacrifice the carrots and peas!

I think food analogies are perfect for discussing matters of taste

Now go to the flogging chamber for such a horrendous pun. D:<

It was a good pun though.

[rharris]

To the analogy. I look at is as the original being a meal from a buffet. It's great, there's plenty of it, but it's not too refined and you're never going to eat all of it, because you don't like all of it. I like the more refined approach of an actual meal with a small amount of steak that's probably been marinated and aged, peas, and carrots. Not as robust, but perhaps providing a better, more refined tooth.

I like this.... This is exactly what I think and I agree with a lot of the guys on here. I'm happy with the Buffet, i think there could have been more of something and less of something else, but not everybody goes to the buffet and has the same things again, (or the second time round, I awlays go round twice, please dont judge me...) Thats why I want the vareity, I may have the chicken first time, and then, I might want to try the Pork Pie the second. Thats all I want, If I want more Chicken (or Steak), I should be able to have more, or bread for that matter... the choice should be mine/ours to stack up and enjoy, Thats all I want.