Please rethink this!

dario_gaston
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 3:32 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by dario_gaston »

I agree on the "stop using RNG to nerf". I am sure that absolutely every pro-nerf will be happy enough with a damage nerf.
Not only the RNG nerf kind of completely ruins the point of flame grenades, but it also pushes the game even farther in a direction I am not liking: plain cover destroying + shots. The battle strategy is getting oversimplified; fuck options, fuck finding different but equally effective squad compositions. It's every time more about rocketing enemy cover and then having 3 rangers shoot everybody.
Jacke
Posts: 623
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:10 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Jacke »

LordYanaek wrote:I've stated this several times before but RNG based balance is the worst sort of balance because it doesn't really balance anything, it just makes a mess of your tactics.

If fire grenades are OP currently (i agree to that) changing them to 75% chance to set an enemy on fire won't make them 25% weaker and "balanced". It will make them overpowered 75% of the time and underpowered 25% of the time. This is not entirely true because of their AoE effect but generally speaking that's how RNG "balancing" works, it doesn't balance anything, just turns something that was OP to something that is OP sometimes!
Completely agree with you, LordYanaek. That's a great way of expressing what I've felt is wrong with a number of recent changes.

This is like adding a aim factor to some grenades that XCOM can do nothing to improve except in some cases an expensive tech and PG project in the future.

Instead of variable chance to affect, what about having variable outcome? This can apply to Flashbangs as well, replacing the resistance roll of higher level aliens to them.

Instead of fire shutting down certain skills, how about adding a large aim penalty? And have the variability in the amount of aim penalty. That way, the grenade always does something (which has been a key principle of grenades so far), but whether that something is enough depends on the target and ADVENT's improvement over the campaign.
wobuffet
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:09 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by wobuffet »

dario_gaston wrote:Not only the RNG nerf kind of completely ruins the point of flame grenades, but it also pushes the game even farther in a direction I am not liking: plain cover destroying + shots. The battle strategy is getting oversimplified...
Agree with this.

1.3's debuffs to Disorient, Poison, and even Smoke Grenades tilted the game back toward vanilla XCOM2's "destroy cover, shoot shoot shoot" style of play, and this change would exacerbate this.

I think the best approach would be
(1) balance a wide variety of individual/crowd control options (flashbangs/incendiary/etc., suppression, smoke grenades for defense, ammo types that can disorient/poison/etc., soldier abilities like Iron Curtain) against each other, and
(2) make alien abilities/attacks less powerful, so up to a few hits can be reasonably sustained every battle (less damage from alien guns, nothing crazy like incendiaries(!) for ADVENT, more powerful ablative/armor for XCOM).

Right now the only reasonable strategy is often "destroy cover and murder everything – or bust (lose soldiers with high probability)".
We need to make sometimes playing defensively (i.e., not always alpha striking* every activated enemy) more viable.

* alpha striking = killing, stunning, or enflaming enemies before they can take any (non-reflex) actions
NovaFlame
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:05 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by NovaFlame »

LordYanaek wrote:I've stated this several times before but RNG based balance is the worst sort of balance because it doesn't really balance anything, it just makes a mess of your tactics.
If fire grenades are OP currently (i agree to that) changing them to 75% chance to set an enemy on fire won't make them 25% weaker and "balanced". It will make them overpowered 75% of the time and underpowered 25% of the time.
DerAva wrote:The in my opinion bad thing in this case is the fixed percentage that can't be modified, once again removing player agency in favor of pure RNG. It's the Flashbang nerf all over again... Make us think, force us to make trade offs, don't make us roll the dice.
Agreed 100%, to the point that I signed up just to post this.

Sure, having to adapt when you occasionally miss key shots is a key part of the XCOM experience. But another, often-overlooked part of that is that the player can adapt their tactics and work to tilt the RNG in their favor, rather than being completely at its mercy. Furthermore, grenades in particular have always focused on reliability as their key selling point - grenades don't miss, can't be dodged, and can generally be counted on when you really, really need to get something done NOW. This incendiary nerf, and 1.3's flashbang resistance, run entirely counter to that concept. When flashbang resistance happened, I edited out the randomness in the .ini files, because adding a random factor to flashbangs just isn't a good idea. Instead, I gave 100% resistance to certain high-tier enemies (avatar, gatekeeper, sectoid commander, muton elite) and 0% to everything else. Still accomplishes a similar goal, still retains a similar level of challenge, but now the player doesn't have to blindly stake their squads' lives on a bunch of coin flips that they have no way to influence.

This incendiary nerf poses a similar issue. Instead of making it a pure roll of the dice that removes player agency and randomly alternates between underpowered and overpowered, add some trade-off costs.
  • Reduce the base damage - incendiaries do a lot of damage. That said, this shouldn't be the primary focus of the nerf, because damage isn't the main reason people use incendiaries. As others have said, you could remove the base damage entirely and it would still be a strong item.
  • Move it further down the tech tree - Officer corpses are plentiful early on (essentially every corpse-retrieval mission is all but guaranteed to include one or more officers), and their autopsy can (or rather, must) be done very early. As a result, you can spam out stupid numbers of incendiaries as soon as you get a proving grounds up. Try swapping its place in the tech tree with, say, the tactical vest. Not only would this delay the incendiary spam (as Mutons are reasonably rare in the first couple of months), it would also be a helpful buff to the tac vest, which is woefully overshadowed by other vest options at the moment.
  • Add infiltration penalties - this adds an ongoing "cost" to every time players deploy an incendiary, rather than a one-time cost for a grenade that they can then bring on a huge number of missions for free.
  • Increase weight to 2 - this is my favorite option. It selectively punishes the "grenadier loaded down with 8 incendiaries" cheese, while still allowing squads to include an incendiary or two as a panic button.
But whatever you do, please don't just turn incendiaries into another boring roll of the dice.
User avatar
SirensCry
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:47 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by SirensCry »

I would agree with most of the OP opinion. But id rather recommend each one to make the adjustments they like for the game THEY like.

Remember this is a Proyect/vision of the awesome team at Pavonis. You can offer feedback, and im sure its appreciated, but plain complaining certain aspects its no use.

Dont get me wrong, im not saying its bad to do so! But its no use.

The mod is already HIGHLY customizable, just ask for the modification you want to add/remove to make your game enjoyable and im pretty sure anyone on the forums would help.

Its what i do and im pretty happy with my 100% fire, not-blind snap shot snipers, precise rockets and 100% sword attacks.

Here :

Xcomgamedata_weapondata.ini , Line 77. There you have the fire grenade/bomb properties. Mod it away!.

Sirens.

Pd : This is for 1.3
dario_gaston
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 3:32 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by dario_gaston »

SirensCry wrote: id rather recommend each one to make the adjustments they like for the game THEY like.
That's a two sided sword -"nerf it yourself"- :p; but I get the point.
Manifest
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:30 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Manifest »

I don't think nerfing everything about grenadiers was the right answer. Nerfing both the Advanced Grenade Launcher and the Fire/Flash Grenades is a little insane.
User avatar
SirensCry
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:47 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by SirensCry »

dario_gaston wrote:That's a two sided sword -"nerf it yourself"- :p; but I get the point.
Hahaha true, true. My scarse english betrays me when i try to elaborate complex ideas lol. But indeed im glad the point made it through =D

Sirens.


Pd : Still +1 to try and add complexity by innovation/variety, not more RNGesus.
Noober
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Noober »

Xcomgamedata_weapondata.ini , Line 77. There you have the fire grenade/bomb properties.

THIS!
Thank you SirensCry very much!
Thank everyone who answer this topic!

I still hope the devs stop nerfing every control options we have as this way the only answer to the mid-late game will be to kill everything in the turn of their spam or take casualities and that is definitely not the way I want to play it.

Give us, regular players, a reasonable way to effectively defend against 90+ aim M3 and there will be not much point in nerfing fire.
Right now we see an opposite approach - all defensive options were nerfed (PSI is a rare exeption but for how long?) and all aliens - buffed at the same time.

I undestand that balance between chalange and frustration is a very thin thing and sure - everyone has its own view on this.
For me it's already a little been past in 1.4 on tactical layer with so much MEC and so many nerf to control/defend abilities.

And that's why PSI looks like OP now. Sure. But they are OP compare to other classes in their current state! For example if I have the option to chose between the new PSI and the old gunner - I still prefer the old gunner all the way.

So please don't fo further this way!
DonCrabio
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by DonCrabio »

Players will use most effective and reliable tools to get things done, with continuous nerfs to crowd control abilities reliability players will have no choice, but to switch to another tactics. Or stop playing, because no effective tools left at all.

Now I thinking about Assault Ark Thrower, 100% chance to stun is too good. Let's make it 75%, so this last reliable thing will get in line. :D

And Stasis! This is too OP!
Noober
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Noober »

NO!!!
Why did you tell them about the arc-thrower!
:o
DonCrabio
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by DonCrabio »

To be serious, levels of ridiculousness reachable for Ark Thrower far beyond fire grenades capabilities. Activated 20 things simultaneously - no problem, just Run&Gun to flank most of things and shut them all down with 100% chance.
RookieAutopsy
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 9:35 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by RookieAutopsy »

No! Just seen this in the patch notes:

* Arc thrower now has a chance to stun the user on a miss.
gimrah
Long War 2 Crew
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:25 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by gimrah »

The issue was that grenadiers are pretty weak except as incendiary mules, when they were OP.

The buffs to gas and biggest booms is aimed at making other grenade types competitive.

We thought about reducing incendiary damage but it was the guaranteed "I won't even have to think about that enemy" that was deemed to be the stronger (and less interesting) aspect of incendiaries. By introducing some risk, you have to plan your turn differently in case it doesn't burn.

As to comments re balancing through RNG, it seems fair enough to me given all of XCom is based on managing risk.
llll BlackFlag
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 4:12 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by llll BlackFlag »

I agree with pretty much everyone that RNG grenades do nothing to enhance the game. The most reasonable nerf in my opinion is increasing infiltration time and/or item weight for incendiaries, as well as changing the damage. 1-2 base damage with 1-2 burning damage seems fair to me given there is a 100% chance to burn enemies.
Noober
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Noober »

[*]By introducing some risk, you have to plan your turn differently in case it doesn't burn.

In case of M3 Muton don't burn we may only hunker and prey for the luck as there is no other way to reliably disable it and this guy definitely not come alone. And just to remind - there are also MEC which all immune to fire. As well as zerkers/chryss/codex.

Just set it to 0 dmg and give us a turn to deal with it's team - that's all I ask.

Yes grenadier is flash/fire/frag mull. But that's how its class calls after all !
It will not be even remotely close to shooty clasees with new +2-3 aim progression and that +1 damage to BB means too little past early game - it's the support class aftert all - controll not to kill.
Lack of control is what make any other grenades useless. Disable/stop ayys from using it's ability reliably is actually matter, cover destruction after all, but not pure dmg to my thinking.

[*]As to comments re balancing through RNG, it seems fair enough to me given all of XCom is based on managing risk.

To manage a risk you need a reliable tools. But when the tool itself become unreliable what could be managed with it ?
We will just multiply RNG instaed of manage it.
Last edited by Noober on Thu Jun 29, 2017 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Psieye
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:27 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Psieye »

gimrah wrote: As to comments re balancing through RNG, it seems fair enough to me given all of XCom is based on managing risk.
There are 2 separate complaints about "balance by RNG":
1) "There is RNG at all"
2) "The RNG is static and cannot be influenced by player action"

The former want an oasis of certainty in a game of RNG. The latter want more active options to manage the risk. Not sure what would be appropriate for the latter, I'm sure they don't want a strategic solution. Maybe something tactical like "incendiaries have increased chance to burn in confined spaces - e.g. +8% per direction of adjacent high cover".
Last edited by Psieye on Thu Jun 29, 2017 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My three 8-man GOp squad Commander campaigns:
1st
2nd
3rd
RookieAutopsy
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 9:35 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by RookieAutopsy »

A zero-damage incapacitating fire grenade is both a) non-sensical b) a flashbang
User avatar
SirensCry
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:47 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by SirensCry »

As to comments re balancing through RNG, it seems fair enough to me given all of XCom is based on managing risk.
I dont get that phrase, It is fair to you to use RNG as a balance tool, or is fair the opinion of this post to not use it?

If its the former, could you develop on the point? The general opinion of this thread is that we could try and exploit other sources for challenges, plenty of ideas for options to choose for, too.

Thank you.

Sirens.
Noober
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Noober »

flash does not disalble and has much more radius
and with launcher nerf fire now is mostly hard disable for one target while flash - a group ability cancel.
it seems right to me - all has it's own role
NovaFlame
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:05 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by NovaFlame »

gimrah wrote:The issue was that grenadiers are pretty weak except as incendiary mules, when they were OP.

The buffs to gas and biggest booms is aimed at making other grenade types competitive.
I like the idea of making the various grenade types competitive with one another, but I feel like you're just slapping a quick patch on the superficial symptoms of the problem, rather than fixing the underlying issue. People still won't use gas or acid grenades 99% of the time, simply because those grenades don't disable enemies in a meaningful way. Applying poison to debuff enemy aim and mobility is a nice idea, but it won't compete meaningfully with flashbangs no matter how much you buff the damage and radius, because it doesn't shut down enemy abilities.

That's really the underlying issue here. An overwhelming percentage of LW2's enemy types have grenades, grabs, psi powers, or other abilities that you simply cannot afford to leave unchecked, because if used, they're essentially a death sentence for one or more soldiers. As a result, players are left with two choices: extremely aggressive tactics focused on killing every enemy as soon as it gets sight of you, or heavy reliance on disabling tools such as flashbangs, incendiaries, arcthrowers, etc. And the more you nerf the latter, the more it starts to look like there's only one valid way to play the game. I can't speak for other players, but I like having more freedom than that. So I really hope the more fundamental issue gets addressed, rather than simply swinging the nerf bat at whatever tools players are currently using to cope with it.
Noober
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Noober »

100% agree!
Noober
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Noober »

Let's make a shot list of bio targets whom should be dealt with first on activation:

1. Rocketeer - cause os mass cover destruction
2. Snake - cause bind/grab and then KO from other ayss
3. Lancer - cause incouncesness (I never choose reviwal protocol at LCPL)
4. M2+ Grenadier - cause of fire grenade (even past nerf)
4a. M2 Sectoid - cause of mass reanimate
5. M2-3 Mutton (if not alone as combatives work only once per turn)

So... they ALL should be RELIABLY restrict from using the ABILITIES.
But now how?
Psieye
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:27 am

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by Psieye »

Perhaps the most fundamental question that people are assuming they know the answer to: "is the player expected to lose high-level soldiers in the lategame?"
Noober wrote: But now how?
Why are you listing enemies that are 100% vulnerable to flashbang in a thread about the incendiary nerf?
My three 8-man GOp squad Commander campaigns:
1st
2nd
3rd
NovaFlame
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:05 pm

Re: Please rethink this!

Post by NovaFlame »

I wouldn't necessarily put stun lancers in the "need to be controlled" camp. They're dangerous and annoying, but having one unit stunned for a turn is far less lethal than getting grabbed, having your cover destroyed by a grenade, or getting mind controlled (all of which can easily end with the unfortunate victim eating a full enemy turn worth of flanking shots). So the main disable targets are things with grenades (grenadiers, all mutons, high-tier troopers), rocketeers, snakes, almost anything with psi powers (the basic sectoid is arguably an exception, as mindspin tends to have a very low chance to mind control, and disorient/panic can be worked around), and flankers (commando, shock trooper, codex) - that last group is notable for being almost the only serious threats that can actually be countered by poison, though I think the codex's teleport is still unaffected. One could argue that melee enemies in general are serious threats as well, especially the cover-destroying ones, but they tend to have more predictable AI and usually don't take cover, making them relative easy kills.
Post Reply