|
Angry Diplomat posted:That's an impossible argument, because we have already established that Remote Start - an explosive skill - is the best ability in the game, which can be extrapolated to mean that explosive items are always inherently better than items that do not explode. It is always best to bring as many explosions as possible everywhere. If this backfires, it is because ADVENT had better explosives, which you should reverse-engineer, mass-produce, and bring everywhere. this is why Fuse is the best psionic skill
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Danaru posted:What are you even talking about, the only other thread I've seen you post in is the Rimworld thread where you started arguing with "me" about stuff I didnt say
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
I hate you all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:i might be getting you confused with someone else in the horror games thread, then, my bad. the rimworld thread you engaged me on some weird poo poo too though, using pretty much exactly the same tactic of picking out a couple of words and trying to turn it into some sick burn out of left field. still not clear on what the deal with that is, but yeah, kindly knock it off. Alright dude Captain Foo posted:this is why Fuse is the best psionic skill Even if it's not the strongest, I love Fuse because it's just so loving rude. Either by blowing up a nade on their belt or making their friend explode, it's such a douchey thing to do  I'm also precisely the kind of person who throws grenades at Advent on my way out of a mission. It doesnt do much but it feels good
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
Let’s 👏 settle 👏 this 👏 the 👏 usual 👏 way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
Bogart posted:Let’s 👏 settle 👏 this 👏 the 👏 usual 👏 way. haha i got rid of that poo poo in the OP when long war finally died the death it deserved
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
what are the good new xcoms
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
Have you ever heard of epic game store exclusive phoenix point
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
Tollymain posted:what are the good new xcoms I know it's a fool's errarnd to ask this in a thread where people are arguing whether RNG can be fully accounted for: but what's the verdict on Mutant Year Zero: Road to Eden? Worth $20 or should I just do another XCOM 2 run?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
Tollymain posted:what are the good new xcoms Phantom Doctrine is pretty rough and clunky, but it's a pretty fun "XCOM except you're spies in the cold war" game
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
PhoenixFlaccus posted:I know it's a fool's errarnd to ask this in a thread where people are arguing whether RNG can be fully accounted for: but what's the verdict on Mutant Year Zero: Road to Eden? Worth $20 or should I just do another XCOM 2 run? I played about three hours and my conclusion is that it's a tedious and bad and the story is dull.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
Hello everyone. I am soulmata, the aforementioned friend of Coolguye. He invited me to stop in and explain some things, and perhaps shed some light on why I hold certain opinions. A little background first: * Coolguye got me into the original XCOM sometime around 2003 or so. Since then, I pretty much made it my #1 series of all time for sheer hours consumed, and I consider the series one of the best of all time. * For XCOM2, I have around 1000 hours into it, compared to XCOM2012, where I have about 2500 hours, but I still consider myself a decent player of XCOM2. I would rank myself around Beaglerush level but lower than some other of the top-tier dudes, mostly because I am not as impulsive as Beaglerush but don't have quite the sheer dominance of AI control that some of the other guys do. Now, for this run specifically that seems to have triggered an argument... * It was started because I was giving some advice to a newer player, and mentioned that a no-deaths Ironman run was possible with practice and not all that much RNG. A redditor challenged my assertion, saying that anyone who *ever* claims they have done a L/I run with no deaths and no mission losses is an ALT+F4er - AKA someone who cheats at Ironman. I got a bit annoyed at that because I felt he was being uppity. So over the course of 3 days I put together a run that did exactly that, finishing a L/I campaign with no deaths and I think 1 or 2 mission losses, just to prove him wrong - I only took screenshots though, and I sent him some of the screenshots. But I realized that he could easily still assert I was cheating. So I took it a step further and over the course of, I think, 3-4 days, did a Legend/Ironman/Grim Horizon run with no soldier deaths and no mission losses. Now, to ME, this wasn't a particularly ambitious achievement, because I've done it before, and I think it's a lot simpler than most people make it to be. And the reason for that might be what stirs up the most controversy... * XCOM2 is not nearly as RNG dependent as people make it out to be. Most actions you take, and most actions the AI take, can be deterministic, or will only follow a few set paths, rather than being anywhere truly random. AI patrol paths, AI decision making, damage rolls, and many other behaviors, are things that can be entirely discrete and not left to chance at all. Really, the only things that really come down to RNG are the in-mission seed (which is basically your to-hit table) and the missions rolled monthly. The latter doesn't really matter for most runs, and the former is more impactful the less skilled a player is, or the less patient they are. Now I'll try to remember all the points I see above raised about my particular playstyle and address them 1) Coolguye mentioned the run absolutely required I get a Reaper to CPL on Gatecrasher, and that the run depended on it. That's not entirely accurate - it's more that I wanted to guarantee I got Squad Size 1 before the first Retaliation Having access to Remote Start (which I'll address later) is a nice bonus, but ultimately Squad Size 1 was the goal, and it was not for the reason you might think - extra firepower - but specifically so that I could start gaining XP faster on a bigger roster. I have done a L/I/GH run with a Templar start, a Skirmisher start, and with Lost & Abandoned enabled, aka "vanilla start". Some of them I might have had a single death or a mission lost here or there, but really, the only thing that really matters for Gatecrasher is that you don't get anyone KILLED, and the Reaper is ideal for that because you get a guaranteed pod-wipe with the Claymore. 2) Someone mentioned that taking a Reaper before Squad Size 1 is dumb or otherwise sub-optimal because you are missing the firepower. I'm not saying this to be rude or snarky, but I think that's coming from a different level of play, maybe someone who doesn't play L/I much or perhaps someone who just prefers a different playstyle. The reason I say this is that early on, an extra shot per round is not really optimal, due to the compounding factor of low aim. I would not at all want a 4th Squaddie vs a Reaper for slot 4, because a 69% shot means that "31% of the time, this character accomplished nothing". Their single grenade isn't going to help much either. Now this is where I also get further into the RNG argument - and why I stand by my conviction that XCOM2 is nowhere near as RNG-heavy as people really think. But anyway, for the specific case of "Slot #4 is not optimal for Reaper", I think is misguided, because the Reaper includes a set of features that bypass RNG, which is what totally abusing and breaking XCOM2 is about. 3) I started the above-mentioned campaign just to prove a point to some random jerk on the Internet. I didn't do it to prove perfect play or make any other statement. I didn't do it to teach others or even because I wanted to show off. I wanted, quite specifically, to rub the victory in some snarky idiot's face, because he claimed it couldn't be done. That a bunch of other people liked the run and I was able to spread some XCOM2 love was just a nice bonus. Now, on to the "RNG vs Reaper vs XCOM2 vs whatever other arguments..." 1) I fully assert Reaper is the most powerful soldier in the game, to the point where it is insanely overpowered, particularly when you are looking at where you are dependent on RNG or not. The Reaper has a suite of abilities that simply ignore RNG - and perhaps even more importantly - defy some of the very basic tactical components the game ships with. XCOM2 missions are heavily based around the concept you need to move aggressively, and they give you Concealment as a way to make you brave and feel capable of doing that. The Reaper removes the core "risk" component Firaxis put into the game, by completely breaking their concealment mechanic. It was never intended that you should be able to wipe out an entire pod, from concealment, without using a single consumable item, then have your squad continue on their merry (and very concealed) way. No other class does this, and the only item that even comes close is the Proximity Mine, which is a late-game item with limited utility. It's hard to even explain how broken the Reaper is, except that I tried to prove it with my campaign above. That single Reaper carried the entire game up until my psiguy busts out of his glass prison with all psi techniques downloaded to his positronic brain, and temporarily supplants the Reaper as "p. strong". Of course this is an opinion. But I think it's one you'll find consistently shared - and it principally revolves around the fact the AI cannot deal with being damaged while the squad is concealed. 2) That 4th gun early on is a waste, because a 75% shot is a waste. The early game is about explosives, shotguns, & blades. You will notice that ALL my Rangers take Blademaster - turning them into Tiny Templars - and Rangers eventually supplant my Reaper for DPS. You will see from mid-game onward, the Rangers are doing cleanup, usually after either a SPARK or Reaper opens, because they're the easiest way to get a 100% shot. The "RNG" behind single shot actions is deceptive - you can probably prove it mathematically, if you're a giant math nerd, but it goes something like this - would you take a 50% shot if failing meant someone getting killed or wounded? Or would you hunker down and try for a better one, or open up with some explosives? Now what about 65%? 75%, 80%, or 90%? Well, when it comes to stacking the odds in your favor, a 50% shot is to a 75% shot as a 90% shot is to 95%, and 95% to 97%. Those tiny failures add up, and again mean you are playing into the game's deceptive RNG. The plethora of talents that avoid that RNG are what you keep in your pocket. If I'm going to take that risky 80% shot, it's going to be the first thing I do, and it's only going to happen if I'm ready to go with a 100% Plan B or I've got no better option. Remote Start, Shotguns, Claymores, Rockets, Grenades, Grenade Launchers, all these other tools that remove the dice roll entirely - those are what should build the core of your early game. OK, that was kind of long winded and I think I lost track of my original point. What I was really trying to assert is: XCOM is really not that RNG dependent, unless you choose to play that way, and the Reaper is ridiculously OP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 01:42
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Templars will absolutely carry your early game, and healing faster is very nice if you're struggling on the tactical layer. Even if they're not optimal, they're not bad for first dipping your toes into Legendary. My counter to this: * Templars are the worst choice for early game Legendary/Ironman, because it breaks one of the most important rules: controlling the terms of engagement. The Templar trades the benefit of a 100% to-hit for the risk of multi-pod engagement, and the latter is much more dangerous, especially when you can achieve the former in many other ways - most specifically with the Ranger's shotgun, which will out-DPS a Templar while still getting you that critical 100% to-hit in the early game. If you happen to have perfect scouting (through a sitrep or an early Reaper rush), however, you can make the argument the other way, as the Templar has some other fantastic utility , especially with AI abuse and their ability to Parry. Overall, however, the Templar is more dangerous than it is helpful for a less-skilled player, because they're more likely to get themselves in a multi-pod situation - and anecdotally, the majority of deaths or even squadwipes happen not from attrition, but because you revealed a 2nd or 3rd pod. If you struggling with the tactical game, the Templar is a bad choice, IMO. It's meant for someone who is more skilled switching to a super-aggressive playstyle. * Reapers, on the other hand, are one of the strongest choices (I'd rank it Reaper -> No HQ start -> Skirmisher -> Templar for tactical, and Skirmisher -> Reaper -> Templar -> No HQ start for Strategic) for the tactical game, because they give you the benefit of perfect scouting and 100% to-hit, and give you much greater control over the terms of engagement. Simply not being seen is the most powerful tool an early XCOM squad has, and the Reaper gives you that. Now, being completely passive with your Reaper can certainly backfire, especially on timed missions, but the Reaper doesn't need to stay hidden forever - they need to stay hidden long enough for you to get good intel on the rest of the squad compositions and their locations, and then they need to open up strong for you with a claymore or a flanking shot. The fact the Reaper can give you unlimited 100% flanking shots per mission (provided they get the kill), as well as a 5-damage AOE that later expands to 8 damage and 16 damage AOE, without breaking concealment, is totally unfair to the AI.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
Fangz posted:A reaper needs 5 kills on gatecrasher to make corporal. In the first mission soul got: You make some fair points here, but the issue is you're throwing them at Gatecrasher, which is just a wash mission at this point. I eschew typical tactics just to get it over with, because I'd played it so many hundreds of times and the risk of failure is 0. If you watch any of the missions immediately afterward, you see a substantial change in the way I play. Gatecrasher is just a fun warmup and the last time you can ignore tactics for a long time. If I wanted to play Gatecrasher with less RNG involved, it's only slightly different, but I've done it before. Basically, you change the pod order, and you do the Officer pod 1st, opening with a grenade, and your Reaper takes the flanking shot on the Officer with Rookies 2 & 3 using grenades to finish off the surviving ADVENT. That leaves you with either 1 or 0 grenades left, and 1 Claymore. The Claymore is then saved for the 2nd ADVENT pod, whom you need to keep out of LOS of your Rookies, and then Sectoid pod comes last - and is usually done by having a grenade thrown at the ADVENT if you have it, otherwise you gotta go for the height bonus or the flanking shot, and then trolling the Sectoid. The Sectoid virtually never (but not always) uses his beam pistol as the 1st or 2nd move he makes - he'll almost always make a Zombie followed by a Mindspin, which is 2 entire turns for your entire squad to unload on him, including the 100% to-hit Reaper at close range. The above method I would say has a closer to 80% or higher chance of getting out of GC without any injuries. I don't use it much because it makes the mission take 3x as long, and I'd rather just reroll and go the faster route.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
Did you seriously spend ten dollars just to yell at us about who is the best XCOM 2 class
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 02:04
|
|
|
Hello Danarooster, nice to meet you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
many good and long and correct posts itt by this cool new guy also welcome to SA enjoy your stay, you seem a sperg so you will fit in well here
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
Nice to meet you too, and congrats on winning a crazy tough XCOM 2 challenge, I'm having enough trouble on Commander (although I'm at Plasma/Warden armour so I'm not losing anyone anymore at least waiting for my boyfriend to mail my control er back so I can play more since I bought it on PS4 before I got my new modern computer  ).I like to frequent PYF and you already spent ten bucks so you should check out some of the content over there. Games/LP is good too obviously but definitely branch out, there's good stuff all over SA
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 02:20
|
|
|
Danaru posted:Did you seriously spend ten dollars just to yell at us about who is the best XCOM 2 class that is objectively the best way to spend ten dollars though
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 03:06
|
|
|
I guess it says a lot about how weird I am that I enjoyed that comprehensive breakdown of the Reaper's merits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
Mate, you're posting in a nearly 1100 page thread about a years old video game. If we didnt like that kind of chatter we wouldn't be here. Unless you're Dan. Dan just like getting drunk and killing templars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
lmao i can’t believe someone spent  to assert that reapers are the best hero unit
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 04:18
|
|
|
TK-42-1 posted:lmao i can’t believe someone spent Wait, is there another reason you reg'd? poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 04:20
|
|
|
I appreciate the effort post
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 04:31
|
|
|
In my experience Legendary (and XCOM 2 in general) is all about the first month. If you have a perfect first month and get the snowball going, you have to really gently caress up in order to lose. That's why I like the Skirmisher, it can really dominate that first month. The notion that you need a Reaper specifically because of Gatecrasher is a little funny since it's the first mission in the game. If you gently caress it up, just restart. I'll admit I'm not an expert though, I don't play Legendary anymore because it's loving long and dull. Having to sweat every engagement and exploit every mechanic to reduce RNG just turns the game into Professor Layton With Guns. Playing on Commander+ allows for a looser, more aggressive style.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 06:15
|
|
|
Vengarr posted:In my experience Legendary (and XCOM 2 in general) is all about the first month. If you have a perfect first month and get the snowball going, you have to really gently caress up in order to lose. That's why I like the Skirmisher, it can really dominate that first month. The notion that you need a Reaper specifically because of Gatecrasher is a little funny since it's the first mission in the game. If you gently caress it up, just restart. I agree that Legend is mostly about the first month. There are a few other difficulty spikes that can make or break your campaign, though - especially an early UFO hunt or a bad roll on month 2 missions. There's another aspect on Legend, though, which is research, and if you miss important breakpoints you could end up under-teched when Sectopods hit the field, which can result in getting people killed. I generally figure that once I hit Tier 2, I'm probably pretty safe, but anything prior to tier 2 I need to be a lot more careful of. I didn't say, however, and I don't think anyone did, that I needed a Reaper specifically for Gatecrasher. The Reaper is the easiest way to get a CPL promotion in GC, which leads to Remote Start, which leads to an early SGT, which leads to Squad Size 1 before the first retaliation, which makes for an easier first Chosen kill... it's all part of a general snowball strategy. No particular step is absolutely required. It's just part of a strategy that has multiple layers building off each other. It's easy to shuffle things around or change out one thing for another. It's the Reapers extra Plot Armor in her ridiculous OP 1-tile detection radius, Remote-Start-Triggering-Claymore-Pod-Destroying antics that make her VIP Month #1. But yes - if you can tough out the first month on L/I, you have a good chance of finishing the campaign. It just has more Gotchas than a Commander campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 06:52
|
|
|
What kind of soldier is Professor Layton
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 07:13
|
|
|
TK-42-1 posted:lmao i can’t believe someone spent Yeah it's a pretty good rundown, even if everybody already knew.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 07:45
|
|
|
I'll admit, I didn't really look at it in the context of "I'll feed everything to the faction hero early to get a head start on the snowball". If you do that then you're going to skip the really awkward section where you only have three other troopers and the reaper isn't quite pulling their weight, and I fully agree that the reaper is the best one once they get going. Thanks for chiming in with the effortposts!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 07:50
|
|
|
Shine posted:I remember when that light bulb went off for me. Gave her a battle scanner to chuck into the middle of the map, and just sprinted to place charges. Reapers are dope. I just got an "Oooooh" moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 08:22
|
|
|
i think the skirmisher is the best class because the reaper and the templar can't looney tunes pull a dude into a 100% guaranteed 5 man overwatch murder festival or the even better adjacent ranger bladestorm deathtrap
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 08:31
|
|
|
Thanks for the posts soulmata. I agree with you that XCOM is less RNG than most people think, once you know all the quirks. An experienced player should be able to win Legendary Ironman reliably. I still think there's substantial RNG in going from that to taking no deaths at all though - clearly not enough to make it impossible, but to the extent that I'd bet against you if you said you're gonna do it and you have one go to do it. To be fair though that's not a playstyle I go for at all, in general I think XCOM is more fun if you are prepared to take a few knocks. (In fact I think that people casually playing in the expectation of losing nobody is where the game falls down a bit, too often you hear of people complaining that they a campaign because they happened to mess up one turn, and usually it comes down to having a super fragile squad setup instead of usual practices like rotating in rookies, etc.)
Fangz fucked around with this message at 11:24 on Jun 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 11:20
|
|
|
Counterpoint: Vipers are the best.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 12:14
|
|
|
Vib Rib posted:Counterpoint: Vipers are the best.  Vipers do not have Remote Start. Therefore-
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 12:19
|
|
|
Unpopular opinion: legendary sucks and shouldn't be used as a metric for what's good and not. Marathon was a bad setting in ew and trying to force it on me in 2 was bogus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 12:54
|
|
|
Angry Diplomat posted:
therefore you aren't playing with enough mods
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 13:09
|
|
|
I for one have enjoyed reading this debate, and while Coolguye's sheer vehemence on the subject is a tiny bit unsavoury, I find soulmata's big effortposts very well crafted and informative, and am in agreement that the special soldier class known as "Reapers" are indeed dope as poo poo, because holy gently caress just look at how good they blow poo poo up, GOD drat
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 13:40
|
|
|
Now I want an edited version of soulmata's run so I can learn. I'm kind of steamrolling Commander difficulty so I want to step up to Legendary but I'm concerned it might be too frustrating. So watching a few learning videos would be interesting. I watched Beagle a lot but he's not really explaining the ropes (sometimes he does).
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 14:00
|
|
|
Even without remote start, the spicy-rear end combo of whipping a claymore at someone's feet then hitting it with a rocket is always a favourite of mine, especially against our weak to explosions/weak to reapers Chosen Assassin 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 14:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Nordick posted:the special soldier class known as "Reapers" are indeed dope as poo poo, because holy gently caress just look at how good they blow poo poo up, GOD drat You. I like you
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 14:01
|
|