|
Yeah, having the knowledge that XCOM can and will be an absolute dick to you is what makes facing new things for the first time so especially exhilarating. I still remember my first time invading the alien base in XCOM EU and feeling legitimately terrified, it was wonderful.
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 08:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
Sorry but we’ve been telling you not to do things with the last move of the turn for all of the LP! And you finally had some real consequences to it so I don’t know why you’re so surprised! I can think of two more occasions when that will really bite you in the rear end. Also you are underestimating the bolt caster it can and will gently caress up enemies. Like that time emi ran away instead of standing still and killing a faceless with a reload. Also too bad on misclicking with znorelag. I’d have totally reloaded that. And been fine if you had.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 09:16
|
|
|
Nordick posted:No it is not. Don't be a dick just because I don't rim the game after it takes a dump. The problem isn't the capabilities of the codices, it's that they're triggered by player action with, as far as I can tell, no foreshadowing nor reason to expect anything remotely similar. The game has pulled a broadsword out of a 3 inch pocket and is berating you for not expecting it, even after all previous weaponry has fit physically in the multi-pocket allegorical coat. It's kaizo difficulty. It's the invisible block's strategy game equivalent. It's trial-and-error gameplay except you don't get to try again. (I mean, you can literally restart the mission, sure, but at that point the problem shifts to wasting 30 minutes of the player's time.) That's bad design. It can certainly be funny design. It can even be fun and enjoyable to play — god knows it's satisfying as hell to thumb your nose at the devs. But it's still bad. Here's Ron Gilbert explaining it much better than me, though he's speaking more specifically about adventure games: https://web.archive.org/web/20100227183317/http://grumpygamer.com/2152210 E: I will say that if the intent is actually to teach the player that the game will do this in the future, then scrap all of my words because it's a drat good lesson. Jen X fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Feb 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 09:22
|
|
|
That was a great mission (to watch). This game is a meatgrinder, casualties are to be expected. That is why you train rookies to join the team. Just wait until you lose your best Colonel on a mission, that will sting. The despair you feel when the game drops some bullshit situation in your lap is partly countered by elation when you pull off a seemingly impossible success. Xcom 2 is a bit of a rollercoaster like that. By success I mean having some survivors limp home at the end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 09:30
|
|
|
Affi posted:
Znorelag could have potentially been saved if you'd used Aid Protocol on him. It wouldn't necessarily have saved him, but it would have given you better odds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 09:38
|
|
|
Affi posted:Sorry but we’ve been telling you not to do things with the last move of the turn for all of the LP! I think this is a bit unfair. They cleared the rest of the enemies first thinking (with reason) that if something happened they wouldn't want other enemies around, and with a four person squad and no real way to keep the officer helpless for a turn there was no good way to start the fight with a bunch of actions. Probably the game is expecting larger squad sizes at this point, though. GeneX posted:E: I will say that if the intent is actually to teach the player that the game will do this in the future, then scrap all of my words because it's a drat good lesson. I believe the Codex is hard coded to use the weapon disabling ability as its first action, which does no immediate damage (note that it didn't fire despite having an easy flank shot to take), so pretty much a way to teach the player, yeah. Even if you activate it as your last action it normally wouldn't do anything but leave you in a more difficult spot on the next turn.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 09:45
|
|
|
Bremen posted:I believe the Codex is hard coded to use the weapon disabling ability as its first action, which does no immediate damage (note that it didn't fire despite having an easy flank shot to take), so pretty much a way to teach the player, yeah. Even if you activate it as your last action it normally wouldn't do anything but leave you in a more difficult spot on the next turn. Okay I guess I, uh, gave the devs less credit than they deserved. Oops. My bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 09:47
|
|
|
GeneX posted:Okay I guess I, uh, gave the devs less credit than they deserved. Well, I mean, if you hate surprises ruining your day there's plenty more ahead of us that would meet your criteria. Some enemy types have pretty nasty tricks that you'll generally only find out about from getting burned by them (or reading a guide). This last mission just ended up going much worse than it (usually) does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 09:51
|
|
|
Bremen posted:Well, I mean, if you hate surprises ruining your day there's plenty more ahead of us that would meet your criteria. Some enemy types have pretty nasty tricks that you'll generally only find out about from getting burned by them (or reading a guide). This last mission just ended up going much worse than it (usually) does. Nah, it was more the inability to approach the situation tactically that I found an issue, not the idea of the game punishing you for not adapting quickly enough or not playing cautiously/intelligently. I fully expect Nat and Tea's aversion to using any kind of formation or overwatch-backed scouting to bite them in the butt, for instance, even if the exact nature thereof isn't something I can really guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 10:01
|
|
|
Bremen posted:I think this is a bit unfair. They cleared the rest of the enemies first thinking (with reason) that if something happened they wouldn't want other enemies around, and with a four person squad and no real way to keep the officer helpless for a turn there was no good way to start the fight with a bunch of actions. Probably the game is expecting larger squad sizes at this point, though. You're right it was a bit unfair maybe. It's a real kick in the balls moment and nat20 did the mission real well given the circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 10:16
|
|
|
I'll just note that facing (and overcoming) unfair enemy has been a part of the series ever since the OG X-COM games; it's a game mechanic connected to the narrative of facing seemingly insurmountable odds. And yeah, Codices are dicks and probably my least favorite enemy in the game. But there are ways of fighting them and it mostly comes down to prioritizing the bastards whenever they show up. You'll eventually be able to one-shot them too. anilEhilated fucked around with this message at 10:46 on Feb 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 10:32
|
|
|
Also, don't you guys still have that enhanced stock dealie that guarantees 2 damage, even on a miss? Seems like you could have used that a couple of times this mission.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 10:56
|
|
|
XCOM 2 is a game that absolutely delights in pulling the rug from under you. It doesn't want you to win, and it has a formidable array of cheap shots and bullshit moves, that it can and will pull on you. That's what makes it the emotional roller coaster ride that it is, and you know, you can take it or leave it. I love the game for how intense it is, but I have also hit alt-f4 on it several times just for being such an rear end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 11:40
|
|
|
Man, I'm playing through WotC with the DLC for the first time, and my god have I just had a rug pull the Archon alien leader, that gets a reaction after every loving move! Still,  and no-one died by some miracle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 12:17
|
|
|
tarbrush posted:Man, I'm playing through WotC with the DLC for the first time, and my god have I just had a rug pull the Archon alien leader, that gets a reaction after every loving move! Still, Yeah. I think nat20 will have an aneurysm if he ever runs across them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 13:01
|
|
|
So uh, as I suspected there's a lot to discuss here and a lot of really good discussion that's been had. When we conclude the LP which seemingly could be next session or could be in ten weeks when we triumphantly win the game, who the hell knows? I'll do a detailed breakdown with Tea about this stuff, the same way we did with MM11. But for the moment, is this (The Codex showing up when you hack a dude) good design? No, it's horrible design. There's near nothing to warn you what's going to happen when you hack the guy. Imagine if we'd done it on the first advent officer we'd seen in the previous mission, we'd have activated a codex and activated another pack alongside it. That's absolutely ludicrous and basically just encourages a player to brutally save scum, which strongly takes away from the intensity of the game itself. If the XCOM experience is actually losing soldiers then the game wants you to within reason, at least attempt to iron man, but if absolutely out of nowhere RNG bullshit just owns you then you're less likely to accept it. It's the same way people absolutely hated the reinforcement design in Fire Emblem Awakening because there was no sign that they'd show on a lot of maps and they could move and attack on the same turn they came in. From my chat with Tea afterwards, if we weren't doing the LP I'm pretty sure he'd have dropped the game at that point. Does that matter? I don't think so? As many point out, this is the XCOM experience and some people honestly enjoy that. Bad design decisions can still be enjoyable. I Wanna Be The Guy is a game built entirely around frustrating and bad design and it was a game that grew far beyond the popularity it had any right to have, because that poo poo is appealing. Going against odds like this is something that's inherently fun and part of the reason you play games like this in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 14:29
|
|
GeneX posted:Okay I guess I, uh, gave the devs less credit than they deserved. I think it all depends on expectations. Darkest Dungeon tells you immediately that the game is "about making the best out of a bad situation" and that you will lose people; XCOM doesn't, but I believe it's mostly cause the name of the game itself acts as a disclaimer. New XCOM has toned down the "this is bullshit" dial quite a lot, usually giving you some way to react to the unexpected BS. That said "your soldiers are a resource and not a measure of success" is a mantra that is still somewhat alive in New XCOM too, although the loss of soldiers is less frequent and more usually tied to errors or unexpected events. The subtitle "Enemy Unknown" is by far the best this series has ever had because it's exactly what is says on the tin. The reason I've liked XCOM2 less than the previous one is cause it shifts the tone and the agency of the XCOM organization a lot from "we are being invaded by an enemy whose powers we don't comprehend" to "We are the ones with the upper hand" - even if you should be the underdog: you have concealment, you are the one calling the shots and the aliens are reacting to what you do, instead of the other way around...So it feels more jarring when the balance of power is reversed, while it felt more natural in the first game (and in the old ones). To give you an idea of how "unfair" old XCOM was, the first time you encounter aliens with Mind Control abilities you don't know: 1) That this ability exists; 2) That it doesn't require LOS; 3) That there are several aliens with that power at the same time. And you are going to run into that, blind, with a squad of high tier soldiers. With the immediate result that, while approaching the downed alien craft, without any evident cause/effect aside from a "mind controlled!" popup, your crackshot rocketeer will suddenly turn 180° and kill half your high-experience squad with a single rocket, triggering panic cascades and so on; then on the following round, another one or two of your dudes will go berserk and start shooting at everything that moves. This was, ofc, bs; but at the same time, it made for a memorable game experience, since you knew from the beginning that you were fighting a losing fight against a superior enemy that was just toying with you - you simply didn't know what to expect at first with everything new...then you would "science the poo poo out of it", reverse engineer it somehow and kick those aliens asses. You would then be lulled into a false sense of security until the next big "THIS IS BS" MOMENT. TL;DR: XCOM2 is bad at setting expectations if you are not already familiar with the game universe since, from a gameplay perspective, it gives you the idea that you'll be fighting a somewhat "fair" fight (and actually you are the aggressor and the one with the cool surprises most of the time), so that when stuff more in line with the previous/old XCOM happens, the surprise is waaay more jarring. Old XCOM (and XCOM1 to a degree) clearly shows you as the underdog from the start and tells you that the aliens will be unfair, so when bs happens you are bound to expect it and it doesn't feel this bad. That Italian Guy fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Feb 16, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 14:41
|
|
|
Also I could have saved snorlax through the misclick if I'd thought to combat protocol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
I feel like XCOM2 does a pretty good job of showing what an underdog you are with all the talk of rickety old systems, the lack of uniforms, the scars on Bradford etc. There's a few times when it escalates without warning, but honestly the codex is not the worst escalation the game will throw at you hello Sectopod. But that fits, you're trying to overthrow a world government powered by alien tech.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
Natural 20 posted:So uh, as I suspected there's a lot to discuss here and a lot of really good discussion that's been had. What I think you're missing is that the game expects the occasional "abandon the mission and run for your lives!" response, and even a TPK is survivable. This game is descended from a title where you could send 14 elite troops out on a mission only to have a UFO pop up and shoot it dwn, killing everybody. Modern XCOM is far more gentle than the original. Although I will say that the Codex is not entirely unforeshadowed. You see one at them end of the tutorial.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:What I think you're missing is that the game expects the occasional "abandon the mission and run for your lives!" response, and even a TPK is survivable. This game is descended from a title where you could send 14 elite troops out on a mission only to have a UFO pop up and shoot it dwn, killing everybody. Modern XCOM is far more gentle than the original. I went into XCOM 2 blind after playing Enemy Unknown/Within, and I thought the Codex was reasonably foreseeable because that's how Enemy Unknown worked. Hitting a big plot milestone almost always meant something horribly nasty would pop up in response. Hit the alien base, sectoid commanders start appearing. Finish the hyperwave scanner, the Overseer starts wrecking your monthly scores unless you already kitted out with plasma firestorms. Shoot down the Overseer, hello sectopods and ethereals. That experience lead to me having a funny feeling about the skulljack an officer objective in this game, and that caution bore out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 15:39
|
|
|
Yeah, if there is an UFO/XCOM constant, it's constant escalation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 15:44
|
|
tarbrush posted:I feel like XCOM2 does a pretty good job of showing what an underdog you are with all the talk of rickety old systems, the lack of uniforms, the scars on Bradford etc. I mean, thematically the resistance is the scrappy underdog that is hiding from a superior enemy. Normal game-play-wise, though the story is reversed: YOU are the aggressor, YOU have concealment and strike from the shadows, YOU have the cool gadgets and weapons. While XCOM1 terror missions were "evil mastermind trying to separate XCOM from its founding members", XCOM2 retaliations feel more like "Enemy with enormous resources lashes out blindly at smart but smaller opponent". You are the Road Runner to the Alien's Wile E. Coyote. The aliens still have tricks up their sleeves and the game still throws you a few curve balls, but most of the time you are the one in control and you just need to solve the puzzle. This was also true for new XCOM1, to be honest, but I think this is amplified in XCOM2 by the amount of gear and character abilities you unlock. EDIT: to be clear, all these considerations should be read under the "XCOM2 compared to XCOM1 and old XCOM"optics. That Italian Guy fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Feb 16, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
To be a bit reassuring to Nat and Tea, while I agree with folks who say that this isn't the most BS moment in the game, it is CLOSE to the most BS. New aliens are always going to be scary; you don't know what they do, almost all of them have some ability to throw a cascading monkey wrench where later strategy becomes "don't let them do that if you can help it, and if not you know what it does so you can minimize the threat," and by definition the first time you encounter them will be when you're least equipped to handle them, but that's something you can generally encounter in more controlled terms (aside from your own mistakes like scouting with the last guy, or just bad luck where a pod with one wanders into view while fighting other folks, but that's basic XCOM frustration not some unit-specific BS). So while some are nasty I rate the Codex higher. The one that worries me are the Alien Rulers. If this nearly made you quit, those guys might do it. So be forewarned that they are BS, everybody knows they're BS, and even though it's a fun kind of BS in some ways if someone says they didn't nearly ragequit the first time they fought one they're either lying or went in already knowing the BS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
Re: Alien rulers, I have literally no compunctions about spoiling myself on enemies I didn't want or intend to be in the LP to begin with. When they show we will be prepared.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
Natural 20 posted:No, it's horrible design. There's near nothing to warn you what's going to happen when you hack the guy. Imagine if we'd done it on the first advent officer we'd seen in the previous mission, we'd have activated a codex and activated another pack alongside it. That's absolutely ludicrous and basically just encourages a player to brutally save scum, which strongly takes away from the intensity of the game itself. If the XCOM experience is actually losing soldiers then the game wants you to within reason, at least attempt to iron man, but if absolutely out of nowhere RNG bullshit just owns you then you're less likely to accept it. That's basically what you did end up with, since you got the two faceless too, and that plus a bunch of other unfortunate luck only cost you the one soldier. It's also worth noting that your squad is much, much weaker than the game expects you to be at this point - you needed the proving ground building to even build the skulljack, and that's unlocked through research, while the building that gives you larger squad sizes was available from the start. I'm not trying to turn this into "this is your fault" or anything - just pointing out that your situation was so much worse than the one most players end up facing, and you still were able to handle it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
I'd say XCOM2 was probably designed with the assumption that people have played XCOM1, considering its more complicated classes and enemies. What this means is that while their tactical game is solid, Nat and Tea are prioritizing different items, skills and researches than most people who've played the prior game, for example their lack of healing and the fact that they haven't even started teching for armor and weapons that'll improve survivablity. It definitely makes things interesting to watch!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
Mordja posted:I'd say XCOM2 was probably designed with the assumption that people have played XCOM1, considering its more complicated classes and enemies. What this means is that while their tactical game is solid, Nat and Tea are prioritizing different items, skills and researches than most people who've played the prior game, for example their lack of healing and the fact that they haven't even started teching for armor and weapons that'll improve survivablity. It definitely makes things interesting to watch! This brings up a fair point. XCOM has a lot of strategy around how to use your resources; you have limited scientists/supplies/etc, and have to choose between various priorities: 1) Increasing income. This would be things like contacting more regions, and gives you more resources in the future. 2) Strengthening your tactical game. This would be larger squads, better weapons, etc. 3) Progressing the plot. You can't wait forever on this, but it doesn't necessarily help with 1 or 2 either. So far they seem to be prioritizing 3, which is making the game more challenging, and that's probably less obvious to someone who's never played an X-Com game before. Bremen fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Feb 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
Bremen posted:That's basically what you did end up with, since you got the two faceless too, and that plus a bunch of other unfortunate luck only cost you the one soldier. It's also worth noting that your squad is much, much weaker than the game expects you to be at this point - you needed the proving ground building to even build the skulljack, and that's unlocked through research, while the building that gives you larger squad sizes was available from the start. I mean this leads to even more problems with the design of the game overall. If squad size is so important why is the tactics school even an option to begin with at all? It oddly brings me to World of Warcraft of all things. Back in the early days of WoW you had talent trees where you picked up a talent point every level and put it into the tree, progressively unlocking more stuff as you went. The thing was, there were some talents that were just vastly better than others in all situations, so what had effectively been created were 'trap' choices, where a player could make a choice but doing so incorrectly would permanently disadvantage them. Over time, game design for that game has evolved and the broad consensus is that people being trapped into bad choices is probably a bad thing overall because it's unsatisfying for people who get it correct since everyone just looks it up online and screws those that don't. As far as I've been told by friends etc. when we chose to get the Psy upgrade technology over enhanced weapons or armour we screwed ourselves over in a way similar to our failure to get the tactics school early. Unlike the latter, where we did conceptually know that squad size would be good, here we have no avenue to understand the importance of certain technologies weighed against each other. So we're just randomly firing stuff off and hoping to get a good return. If a game wants a player to evaluate the value of multiple resources against each other it needs to actually provide the player the real means for the assessment of the value of the outcomes that these resources buy. Otherwise you just kinda pray to RNG. Even when you do so, having one thing be drastically better than the other at the same cost is still problematic because, especially early on, it's difficult for players to assess the value of outcomes against each other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
Natural 20 posted:I mean this leads to even more problems with the design of the game overall. If squad size is so important why is the tactics school even an option to begin with at all? I don't think it's any dirty secret that it's possible make sub-optimal strategic decisions, just like one can make poor tactical decisions - consider how much better you're doing in the combat missions now. That's why there are difficulty levels; a player who already knows all the tech, buildings, etc, would play at a higher difficulty level because they can make more insightful strategic choices. It's not even as simple as "x is better than y" - even a veteran player might decide to go for psionics over lasers if they're confident in their current abilities and want something with a more distant payoff, for instance. It's a meaningful decision, not an automatic one. Squad size is important, but it's also not secret - the description of the building said larger squads, you noted it said larger squads in commentary, and you don't need to know the gritty details of x-com to know that having 5 soldiers instead of 4 would mean 25% more firepower. When planning a second building you even talked about that in the commentary, admitted that it was a big benefit, but decided you were doing well enough you didn't need more soldiers - it was a strategic choice, and not a blind one. Going psionics instead of another research path isn't a horrible choice either, it just hasn't paid off for you yet. For what it's worth, I was happy to see you go psionics, I think they're a lot of fun and not a bad choice. Similarly, I don't feel larger squads are a "must have" choice either, though they definitely make things easier. It's kind of a pileup of three things - bad luck, prioritizing plot development over power increases, and the fact that one of the staples of X-Com games is "advancing the plot can make the game harder" (sort of like going to a higher level area in WoW, to use the same terminology). You didn't have that last bit, but someone who'd played the first game would have, and since you're on the "I've played the first game" difficulty the game was probably balanced around it. Bremen fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Feb 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
In my opinion this last video was the most interesting to watch from this LP yet. - You played relatively quickly, without too much analysis of what is the perfect move. In some past videos, it seemed as if you were almost scared to act.  - There was plot progress. Despite panicking for a few turns at first, you stopped running and got your nerve back. It was especially interesting to see how you both reacted differently. - Soldiers died, that's unfortunate but like others said, the developers expect this to happen. Besides, that just means we get to see other submitted characters in action. Personally, I'm following the LP to see how you handle the curveballs the game throws at you and not to watch perfectly executed missions. Natural 20 posted:As far as I've been told by friends etc. when we chose to get the Psy upgrade technology over enhanced weapons or armour we screwed ourselves over in a way similar to our failure to get the tactics school early. Unlike the latter, where we did conceptually know that squad size would be good, here we have no avenue to understand the importance of certain technologies weighed against each other. So we're just randomly firing stuff off and hoping to get a good return.  order.There will always be someone saying you're playing it wrong. Just go with what feels right to you. It's the best way to keep the LP uniquely yours.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
Y'all not grabbing "get an extra dude" immediately, then getting burned for not having 2 more moves each turn, is very much not the game's fault but I would agree that "get better at X or Y" when you have no possible way to know what X or Y even are is poorly handled and probably another instance of the game expecting you to have played the previous one without, y'know, giving you the option to actually confirm that that said I doubt research is vital in the way that extra healing/killing/vision/overwatch/sacrificial bait is, if only because you're very good at mitigating risk already I'm sure a) psionics will give you fun options and b) no one's irreplaceable yet, so more people dying early on, before they've had a lot of experience sunk into them, isn't that much of an issue beyond sentimentals Jen X fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Feb 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
You’re very good at this game for your level of knowledge. You’ve made one strategic mistake but most of your tactical decisions are on point. I think you can still do this. I can see three things that needs to be done for you to turn it completely around. (While keeping up with your excellent tactical play) 1. Guerilla tactics school and bigger squad (Before spending money on making a psy lab) 2. Weapons research 3. Speccing a specialist for the medic role And number four If alien rulers show up just allow yourself to savescum. Number five Get the axe and freeze bomb because they are just as good as the bolt caster None of these really spoil much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
GeneX posted:no one's irreplaceable yet, so more people dying early on, before they've had a lot of experience sunk into them, isn't that much of an issue beyond sentimentals Getting sentimental over your soldiers even when you know you shouldn't is one of the best things about XCOM. I once got attached to an NPC rookie from a special scenario in XCOM1, who never would have joined the party even if he'd lived. He was just one of a few throwaway NPCs the game gives you in that mission for a little extra firepower, but goddamn he was the Rookie of Steel. One turn, I expected him to die but he just stared down a charging chryssalid, and killed it with his overwatch shot. He managed to kill something else along the way too, and was the last of the NPC rookies standing, but he couldn't last to the end. I was very sad when he died.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:Getting sentimental over your soldiers even when you know you shouldn't is one of the best things about XCOM. ok, fair, losing funky kong would be almost worse than losing the game overall but still my point is that casualties have been very limited and no one vital has died
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
I'm unsure if talking about enemies the LP'ers haven't encountered yet is considered mechanics discussion. But in case they are, some posters might want to edit their posts.Natural 20 posted:...
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:Getting sentimental over your soldiers even when you know you shouldn't is one of the best things about XCOM. There's a mod that lets you keep the NPCs from that mission if they get enough experience to promote :P
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
GeneX posted:ok, fair, losing funky kong would be almost worse than losing the game overall Yeah, Funky is wonderful and that would be a goddamn tragedy As for Ma though, she's had a good long life, and always bravely faces her death head on 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
Bremen posted:There's a mod that lets you keep the NPCs from that mission if they get enough experience to promote :P ! I will look into this if I bother going back to playing XCOM1 again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
Pea posted:I'm unsure if talking about enemies the LP'ers haven't encountered yet is considered mechanics discussion. But in case they are, some posters might want to edit their posts. Unless it's an alien ruler where all bets are off and we do not care how we are spoiled, this still does apply. I don't think I've seen anything other than the stuff about the rulers, but I'm keeping an eye out to try to avoid spoiling myself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 00:29
|
|