Too much starting randomness

Post Reply
Dlareh
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:41 pm

Too much starting randomness

Post by Dlareh »

1.3+ has improved soo many things about the regular gameplay that I want to bring up what's now truly my least-favorite part of every campaign: everything before you start to scan for your first GOP. Most especially the stats and classes of the soldiers you end up with after mission 1.

I understand the ways in which Commander's Choice is overpowered (It used to be even more so when most of what you wanted were Shinobis and Specialists at the start of the game). And I almost always go for GTS as a day 1 building, regardless.

I do really want to play with NCE, as same-stat soldiers are just dull, and I'm quite onboard with having one of each of the 8 classes at the beginning.

What I'm tired of is a Sharpshooter with less than 63 rookie aim. Or a 13 mobility starting Shinobi/Assault. Or a Specialist that started with 1 hack and just enough aim that it'd be better as another class (but not enough aim for Sentinel)

Or at a group level, what seems to be my most common curse: a barracks where 7 of the starting squaddies all have < 65 rookie aim, and the lone 67-68 aim guy becomes a grenadier or assault.

It's XCOM, there's a lot of randomness. We get it. But does there need to be so much of it right at the start, before we even get to make any Commander-y decisions?

I've recently thrown up my hands and taken to playing with Commander's Choice on, but force myself to choose from the deck of 8 classes, only promote about 2 or 3 rookies from the rest of the barracks with it, then run everyone else through the GTS as soon as possible.

It's fairly strong. Not game-breakingly so... I do play on L/I after all, but yeah. I've experimented with making it less strong, by e.g. only choosing the sharpshooter and grenadier and maybe 1 other class, and having the rest of the starting 8 be random.

I just wish I didn't have to sit there at start of a campaign and feel like: "Alright, how much do I want to cheat this time?"

I wish it were just balanced so the staring situation was were less extreme in how good and bad it can be from randomness.

(Then there's those mission 1's where you get an Elite Scope and Advanced Stock, and others were you get 2 PCS Focus, but at least that evens out over the next ~10 missions. It's not as campaign-defining as your starting barracks)
Last edited by Dlareh on Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Excitement continues to build as city centers across the globe prepare for the latest incarnation of Groundhog Day.
Matlocko
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:34 am

Re: Too much starting randomness

Post by Matlocko »

Just put the low aim sharpshooter as haven advisor. Problem solved.
Jacke
Posts: 623
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:10 am

Re: Too much starting randomness

Post by Jacke »

Dlareh wrote: [ Starting barracks, soldier NCE stat distribution, and random promotions to particular soldier classes are massive RNG crap shoot. ]
Completely agree with you. Just looking at aim distribution at the start of Gatecrasher can be depressing. It can all cripple a campaign start. I've gotten to the point I wouldn't play without Commander's Choice and even buffing default stats. And I don't consider it cheating.
Matlocko wrote:Just put the low aim sharpshooter as haven advisor. Problem solved.
Until you need every soldier. Or you get a Rendezvous or Retal in that zone. Every soldier needs to pull their weight.
DerAva
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:46 am

Re: Too much starting randomness

Post by DerAva »

Given the thread title I was expecting a discussion on how the getting the first engineer and the first scientist is too random, since they are super important to get excavations and certain research going. There's a reason the base game gives these as guaranteed rewards from the first GOP/Council mission.

I don't mind the random soldier stats that much - I think people overvalue the minor differences in aim. There are multiple specs for each class and you can make (almost) any class/stat combination work. The solution is to turn of NCE.
User avatar
WanWhiteWolf
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 10:09 pm

Re: Too much starting randomness

Post by WanWhiteWolf »

DerAva wrote:Given the thread title I was expecting a discussion on how the getting the first engineer and the first scientist is too random, since they are super important to get excavations and certain research going. There's a reason the base game gives these as guaranteed rewards from the first GOP/Council mission.

I don't mind the random soldier stats that much - I think people overvalue the minor differences in aim. There are multiple specs for each class and you can make (almost) any class/stat combination work. The solution is to turn of NCE.
Was thinking the same. I think the engineer / scientist rewards are the biggest - I would call issue - on the early game. Having 5 scientist vs 1 on April is huge difference.

As for the solders stats ... I think people are over-evaluating their importance. Extra 5 aim might be nice be it rarely decides the outcome of a campaign; whereas the number of scientists in the first 2 months does.

@OP
I think 1 guy from starting squad ended up in the "A" team. Some of them die anyway and once you get trial-of-fire on a commander, you save months of training for everyone. Then you can afford making your "A" team with the solders that rolled high / solid AWG perks.
Last edited by WanWhiteWolf on Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Clibanarius
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:33 am

Re: Too much starting randomness

Post by Clibanarius »

This is a bit spergy, but I bumped up the rookie count to... 200 and then go through the list manually, select out my soldiers based on their similar stats and likeness, and ditch the rest after Sectoid Autopsy is done. You don't always get the perfect soldiers, but at least you have a wide pool with which to draw from for each class or build.
Alketi
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 3:11 pm

Re: Too much starting randomness

Post by Alketi »

I play with two and only two mods that I consider, at least partially, to be "cheating" (in a loose sense of the word.)

- Additional Icons (which lets me see which enemies have loot)
- Use My Class

I turn off Not Created Equally, so all my soldiers are the same. And, Use My Class allows me to pre-set my soldier classes in the character pool. I do this for two reasons: I hate the post-opening mission class RNG, and I envision all my characters as certain classes.

However, like you, I find the similar stats boring and want to try NCE but always don't for the two reasons above.

--> I think one compromise would be to allow the player to choose the classes of the soldiers on the opening mission immediately after the opening mission.

Then, instead of having a soldier's selection for the opening mission turn into a post-mission RNG curse, with blind sharpshooters and slow shinobis, being on the opening mission would actually be a benefit. Too bad Pavonis didn't implement it this way. Maybe there's a mod ...
Dlareh
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:41 pm

Re: Too much starting randomness

Post by Dlareh »

WanWhiteWolf wrote:
DerAva wrote:Given the thread title I was expecting a discussion on how the getting the first engineer and the first scientist is too random, since they are super important to get excavations and certain research going. There's a reason the base game gives these as guaranteed rewards from the first GOP/Council mission.

I don't mind the random soldier stats that much - I think people overvalue the minor differences in aim. There are multiple specs for each class and you can make (almost) any class/stat combination work. The solution is to turn of NCE.
Was thinking the same. I think the engineer / scientist rewards are the biggest - I would call issue - on the early game. Having 5 scientist vs 1 on April is huge difference.
This randomness I'm okay with. Yes it can change the campaign a lot, but bad results can be mitigated with strategic play -- you have the option to invest supplies in a scientist, and to do a Basic Research as your 2nd thing (after Resistance Coms, but before Modular Weapons)

Whereas, I just really, really don't like looking at my day 1 barracks and being like, "These guys are all crap, I need to immediately recruit 8 decent soldiers"
Excitement continues to build as city centers across the globe prepare for the latest incarnation of Groundhog Day.
User avatar
8wayz
Posts: 340
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 3:59 pm

Re: Too much starting randomness

Post by 8wayz »

I beg to differ - doing Basic research with 1 or no scientists takes around 20-24 days. In that time you can research two technologies.

Also, while you can recruit via the Black Market, scientists and engineers usually cost about 1 building each. That also puts you back by at least 14 days in your development.

Having average or bad soldiers does not set you back - they can still fight from day 1 onwards.

You can still make a Medic from the 1 Hack and low Aim Specialists. Just by picking Specialist it adds 40 hack, so the difference at worst between your Top Hacker and your Journeyman will be 10-11 hacking skill. You can make up later for it via hacking rewards and PCS.

That slow Assault can take the Raider path, with all those special shots.

There are ways to utilise your unconventional soldiers. The question is whether you want to put the effort in or just have full control right from the start.
Dlareh
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:41 pm

Re: Too much starting randomness

Post by Dlareh »

8wayz wrote:I beg to differ - doing Basic research with 1 or no scientists takes around 20-24 days. In that time you can research two technologies.
What a trivial observation. Yes, it's 28 days on legend. The point is those technologies you didn't research will then require less time; it's a strategic investment that eventually pays off.

As you correctly observe, it's possible to use unconventional soldiers in various roles and builds. The problem is when you have too many of them to start.
Excitement continues to build as city centers across the globe prepare for the latest incarnation of Groundhog Day.
User avatar
8wayz
Posts: 340
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 3:59 pm

Re: Too much starting randomness

Post by 8wayz »

As far as I know, the Basic Research only lessens the Scientists requirement for techs, it does not provide a bonus to research.

To expand on the true issue with RNG, the missions you get in the first month also play a very important role in defining your campaign. Doing a landed UFO in March helps a lot.

Having 8 bad soldiers picked the RNG has little impact on your campaign from a gameplay point of view. You do not lose time or opportunities in the long run, you just have sub-par soldiers.

I do not consider it cheating to use Commander''s Choice. It is your campaign and you are free to use any mods that make it more enjoyable.
As I like to try and figure out how to use quirky soldiers, I play Long War 2 without it, but I did use it in Long War 1 and it did do a great job in the long run.
hamds28
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Too much starting randomness

Post by hamds28 »

8wayz wrote:As far as I know, the Basic Research only lessens the Scientists requirement for techs, it does not provide a bonus to research.

To expand on the true issue with RNG, the missions you get in the first month also play a very important role in defining your campaign. Doing a landed UFO in March helps a lot.

Having 8 bad soldiers picked the RNG has little impact on your campaign from a gameplay point of view. You do not lose time or opportunities in the long run, you just have sub-par soldiers.

I do not consider it cheating to use Commander''s Choice. It is your campaign and you are free to use any mods that make it more enjoyable.
As I like to try and figure out how to use quirky soldiers, I play Long War 2 without it, but I did use it in Long War 1 and it did do a great job in the long run.
It provides you with one invisible scientist, both for research and gating purposes. It's good when done early.

Edit: Found the thread that did the calculations. The first Basic Research requires 5200 points to complete, each scientist provides 120 points per day. Therefore the breakeven point is 43.3 days after completing the tech, everything after that is pure profit.

Each additional repetition of Basic Research costs 2800 points more than the previous, so the second one pays off after 66 days. Probably not worth doing two in a row as by then you would be sacrificing strategic opportunities due to slow tech progression.
RookieAutopsy
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 9:35 am

Re: Too much starting randomness

Post by RookieAutopsy »

8wayz wrote:There are ways to utilise your unconventional soldiers. The question is whether you want to put the effort in or just have full control right from the start.
This is exactly why I quickly removed Commander's Choice (and love NCE and HP). I got bored of identical soldiers and now use different builds customised around their strengths and weaknesses.
foreverdead
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:01 am

Re: Too much starting randomness

Post by foreverdead »

Isn't starting randomness the whole point? Like wouldn't you just be playing the same exact game over and over? A random start means new ways to learn, adapt and challenge ourselves, right? Creates a unique narrative doesn't it?

If every start is the same, with a set build order, set soldier stats leading to mostly single builds and set starting mission rewards. Why would you ever play a second game?
sarge945
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:47 am

Re: Too much starting randomness

Post by sarge945 »

I just wish there were more ways to get your hands on Engineers and Scientists.

What would be awesome is:

a) More ways to get staff other than buying them, maybe more missions that will guarantee at least one.

b) the ability to turn haven recruits into engineers/scientists, by training them in the AWC. It would take a VERY long time and would clog up your AWC slots, so it would have an actual cost associated with it, but would be a way to get free engineers/scientists when your AWC isn't in use
foreverdead wrote:Isn't starting randomness the whole point? Like wouldn't you just be playing the same exact game over and over? A random start means new ways to learn, adapt and challenge ourselves, right? Creates a unique narrative doesn't it?
Yes and no. XCOM isn't just about randomness. The game would feel cheap and random (rather than strategic) if that were the case. The main draw of XCOM is that it gives you a lot of ways to mitigate the randomness, or play around it. With starting soldiers this can be done by speccing them into different skill trees, so it's not an issue. The big problem is it can take a very long time to get your hands on Engineers and Scientists for no real reason, and there is no real way to mitigate that randomness other than paying through the nose for them at the black market.
Jacke
Posts: 623
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:10 am

Re: Too much starting randomness

Post by Jacke »

sarge945 wrote:The main draw of XCOM is that it gives you a lot of ways to mitigate the randomness, or play around it. With starting soldiers this can be done by speccing them into different skill trees, so it's not an issue.
I still think the randomness of the soldiers, especially the tendency to have crap stats, isn't really mitigated by using particular builds. And you just can't say "Well, use them as Haven advisors." because that means you have a crap Haven advisor which will come back to bite you. I look at Xwynns playthrough where he's in late July and still is expanding his barracks because between infiltrating, wounds, and training he's often got everyone busy.

But I will grant that the randomness of getting Engineers and Scientists is worse. Having crap soldiers hurts. Not having enough Engineers and Scientists cripples. No wonder some advocate doing Basic Research in April. And I'd always thought that Engineers and Scientists were just too expensive to get at the Black Market, but now I'm not so sure.
DonCrabio
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: Too much starting randomness

Post by DonCrabio »

After 1.3 I have only one stats/class combination I can't deal with - low aim Sharpshooter. They can catch up as holobots with decent aim on high ranks because of natural SS stat progression, but leveling them up is the pain in the ***.
Dlareh
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:41 pm

Re: Too much starting randomness

Post by Dlareh »

Jacke wrote:But I will grant that the randomness of getting Engineers and Scientists is worse. Having crap soldiers hurts. Not having enough Engineers and Scientists cripples.
This is just not true in my experience. I've literally never lost a campaign due to insufficient Scientists and Engineers at the start. . You do your basic research, you buy one or two from the black market as needed, and you should be okay. It's most definitely not campaign-breaking in March, and it's not campaign breaking in April or in May in my experience. If you fall too far behind eventually it's because things are going poorly for a host of other reasons, and anyway by that point it's well after your starting situation which is what I made this thread about.

Bad soldiers is campaign-breaking, or can leave you so frustrated you don't even want to continue. I've never been so frustrated with the lack of scientists and engineers that I wanted to throw up my hands and quit a campaign. Literally never so far, and I expect it'll never happen.

Starting soldiers' stats and class matching is a crapshoot. You can survive with a barracks full of bad ones, but it's a grind and a scramble to replace them with new ones and you just feel like you're investing and muddling through with crap material. It sucks, and is a way bigger part of the game than the relatively simple strategy layer and having to invest a building or two's worth of supplies in some generic, fungible resource personnel.
Excitement continues to build as city centers across the globe prepare for the latest incarnation of Groundhog Day.
User avatar
8wayz
Posts: 340
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 3:59 pm

Re: Too much starting randomness

Post by 8wayz »

To each his own I would say.

It certainly makes a difference whether you get Laser weapons in mid April or mid May. If it is the latter, it is an unsavoury grind just to survive against the newly launched Vipers and Mutons with ballistic weapons.

Bad soldiers can be improved upon with good perk choices and better equipment. Low scientists or engineers can not be improved upon - you either solve that issue or fall hopelessly behind
Last edited by 8wayz on Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
stefan3iii
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:49 am

Re: Too much starting randomness

Post by stefan3iii »

My opinion, stats matter a lot for sharpshooters, rangers, and gunners. But all those classes are weak early game, and you can gts train good ones in April.

I think the early game rng that matters more is scientists, and getting alloys. Even if you buy 2 scientists, finding more is even better, the faster you get the hyper critical techs (weapons, exos, incendiaries, stiletto), the better. Faster tech cascades into the rest of the game, earlier coilguns or shredder cannons is a big deal. The alloys matter because it let's you avoid rendering corpses, there is usually an alloy bottleneck from the start.
Post Reply