Socratatus: I`m afraid Xcom 2 still wins in my book. I had my issues with combat in that game, but nothing ever as bad as with this, mostly ammo count, the limitation in equipment you can carry (one grenade?) and not being able to pick up fallen items. It`s pretty much the same in this game.

In Xcom 2 they can miss or you could induce them to miss. Improving technology always helped. Of course standing in an open area meant you were dead which makes sense, but if you had cover, distance or moved fast there was a chance they might miss. It all actually made sense. Yes, people whined about the RNG because they don`t like things they can`t control, but I simply looked at it from the pov of reality and maths don`t lie- 85% chance to hit is not a guaranteed chance to hit. 99% chance to hit is not guaranteed. it will ALWAYS feel bad when you miss on a 90% chance to hit, even if it`s fair to both sides.

Remember these were ALIENS with an added advantage of better tech, a least at the start, unlike Doctrine which are all Humans.

And yes, i`ve sometimes said, "How can you miss on 90% chance to hit?" But that`s just natural HUMAN frustration. You know it`s right, but as Humans we don`t like losing. I recognise that so i don`t whine it away like they have with Phantom menace (lol, I mean Doctrine) and now ruined the whole shoot mechanic.

Devs need to understand that just because some people get annoyed with a realistic mechanic like RNG doesn`t mean we all want it removed completely. Having some frustration is part of a good game; but just give the Player an intuitive reason (ie realism) why it`s frustrating and he`ll handle it.

Why do you think Xcom, despite it`s RNG is SO successful. It frustrates a little with misses, but people still love the suspense and challenge and they intutively know this happens in reality, despite those loudest minority who would whine it away and kill the game. Firaxis understands this.

I remeber another Dev House that made a UFO Xcom type game. They got rid of anyone actually dying - the game was horrible because there was no investment in your people. Y`see we don`t want our people to die, but there must be that chance or the game loses any thrill, suspense or feeling of reality. Just reload if you can`t handle it. The same principle with RNG which is why I was rather disappointed when I heard the Devs really don`t want it.

Even stealth worked very well, although Phantom`s is also good. So no, Xcom2 is still the best and I find myself wanting to install and run that every time Phantom`s uses its weird combat mechanic on me.

And I loved the customisation options which allowed me to really make individual people- Phantom Doctrine is sadly light on that. Also, nothing sexy for the ladies, I hope they add more options later, but that`s besides the point and a different issue.

Anyway, I`m only talking about the combat; I do like the strategic side of the game.

squid830: and really bizarre things such as agents requiring transport for most jobs except tactical missions (agents on a plane cannot be selected, but agents in a city on the other end of the world instantly get there? That makes no sense).

Socratatus: Yea, that confused me, I`d send people to it for the attack, but then someone else appeared? I wasn`t sure what was going on. Makes it hard to be sure who`s actually going on the mission. I just thought maybe I was being dense until I saw people like you mention it.

squid830: Since base assaults appear to unfortunately just consist of an instant action (leading to lost agents and compromised ID, plus forced relocation costs to a marginally better location) - it would be great if proper "base assaults" against your HQ could become part of the game some time in the future.

squid830: Not the most important thing to add - especially since it's possible to avoid them entirely - but it would be nice. And it would (IMO) be the only mission where combat from the get-go makes sense.

squid830: BTW I'm already liking this more than XCOM2, despite issues raised - the stealth mechanic is already way better than XCOM2's, except for the lack of waypoints in PD.

F4LL0UT: Yes, base assaults are actually something we wanted to do all along but had to scrap in favour of more important content. As far as I'm concerned they are a solid contender for something we might add in the future.

squid830: Not the most important thing to add - especially since it's possible to avoid them entirely - but it would be nice. And it would (IMO) be the only mission where combat from the get-go makes sense.

squid830: but many little strange UI choices which make things more convoluted than necessary, and really bizarre things such as agents requiring transport for most jobs except tactical missions (agents on a plane cannot be selected, but agents in a city on the other end of the world instantly get there? That makes no sense).

squid830: On a semi-related note, I'm pleasantly surprised to not only see two patches out already, but those patches have also made their way to GOG already. Not to mention the devs actually communicating on GOG forums. They obviously care about their game and respect their customers, which is often quite rare these days (even from smaller studios).

squid830: BTW quick question related to this: is the frequency of ambushes related to how close the agent's ID is to being compromised? Or is it completely unrelated? If the latter, what does affect it, if anything? I assume your overall danger level only factors in to assaults on home base, and doesn't directly affect ambush chances? Or does it?

squid830: I like how you guys are trying new things out, and although part of me rails against the "dumbing down" that Firaxis has pioneered, over time I've come to enjoy the 2AP/1FP type of gameplay which you also use as a base.

squid830: Naturally, new things may end up being anything from awesome to terrible - and even good ideas may require getting used to. So when you have as many new/different ideas/approaches in one game as you have, you're bound to get some negative feedback.

squid830: My pet peeve here (already detailed elsewhere) is the way agents are transported/selected for missions, and the lack of consistency there.

F4LL0UT: Ambush frequency should be related to each agent's heat, yes. There have been some changes to the system that I have not been able to keep track of, though. Will have to take another look at this.

F4LL0UT: Well, XCOM actually only has a 2 AP system, the AP/FP system (the exact number of which actually changes as characters improve) is actually one of our attempts to reduce the "dumbing down" in this genre and make things slightly more complex without sacrificing the accessibility and clarity of the standards that the XCOM reboot introduced.

F4LL0UT: Anyway, our goal is continue to improve the game until the consensus is that the game is da shit.

Socratatus: I`m afraid Xcom 2 still wins in my book. I had my issues with combat in that game, but nothing ever as bad as with this, mostly ammo count, the limitation in equipment you can carry (one grenade?) and not being able to pick up fallen items. It`s pretty much the same in this game.

In Xcom 2 they can miss or you could induce them to miss. Improving technology always helped. Of course standing in an open area meant you were dead which makes sense, but if you had cover, distance or moved fast there was a chance they might miss. It all actually made sense. Yes, people whined about the RNG because they don`t like things they can`t control, but I simply looked at it from the pov of reality and maths don`t lie- 85% chance to hit is not a guaranteed chance to hit. 99% chance to hit is not guaranteed. it will ALWAYS feel bad when you miss on a 90% chance to hit, even if it`s fair to both sides.

Remember these were ALIENS with an added advantage of better tech, a least at the start, unlike Doctrine which are all Humans.

And yes, i`ve sometimes said, "How can you miss on 90% chance to hit?" But that`s just natural HUMAN frustration. You know it`s right, but as Humans we don`t like losing. I recognise that so i don`t whine it away like they have with Phantom menace (lol, I mean Doctrine) and now ruined the whole shoot mechanic.

Devs need to understand that just because some people get annoyed with a realistic mechanic like RNG doesn`t mean we all want it removed completely. Having some frustration is part of a good game; but just give the Player an intuitive reason (ie realism) why it`s frustrating and he`ll handle it.

Why do you think Xcom, despite it`s RNG is SO successful. It frustrates a little with misses, but people still love the suspense and challenge and they intutively know this happens in reality, despite those loudest minority who would whine it away and kill the game. Firaxis understands this.

I remeber another Dev House that made a UFO Xcom type game. They got rid of anyone actually dying - the game was horrible because there was no investment in your people. Y`see we don`t want our people to die, but there must be that chance or the game loses any thrill, suspense or feeling of reality. Just reload if you can`t handle it. The same principle with RNG which is why I was rather disappointed when I heard the Devs really don`t want it.

Even stealth worked very well, although Phantom`s is also good. So no, Xcom2 is still the best and I find myself wanting to install and run that every time Phantom`s uses its weird combat mechanic on me.

And I loved the customisation options which allowed me to really make individual people- Phantom Doctrine is sadly light on that. Also, nothing sexy for the ladies, I hope they add more options later, but that`s besides the point and a different issue.

Anyway, I`m only talking about the combat; I do like the strategic side of the game.

hollibolli1970: And most of the very vocal minority keeps forgetting that Xcom always cheats in favour of the player, unless you play on legend.

hollibolli1970: Anyways, i stopped playing because the combat is not good. Doctrines combat shows very clear, that rng is the better solution by far. I will see what the devs will do about it, how they improve the combat. I will not refund, because i believe the game has great potential. But for now i wait for patches.

Socratatus: Really? I suspected that, but wasn`t sure.
Socratatus: Went to shoot a guy with a pistol. It said it should 100 damage. Great, I thought, fired and it did -3. Then my people were wiped out. I guess this had something to do with the enemy being in cover and awareness?

Too much weird stuf that don`t make sense. Also I don`t like dodge- you don`t dodge bullets, even when you think you have. A bullet either hits or misses.

hollibolli1970: Yes, it is true. Miss too many times in a row for example, and the game gives you aim assist and makes sure the next shot hits, regardless the shot percentage shown.

hollibolli1970: Regarding dodge, Xcom has dodge too...cough, bloody vipers, cough. Even Xcom troops can dodge, but i agree Doctrines combat is wierd and for me the weakest part of the game.

hollibolli1970: Yes, it is true. Miss too many times in a row for example, and the game gives you aim assist and makes sure the next shot hits, regardless the shot percentage shown.

Regarding dodge, Xcom has dodge too...cough, bloody vipers, cough. Even Xcom troops can dodge, but i agree Doctrines combat is wierd and for me the weakest part of the game.