I’m gonna take this opportunity to plug Phoenix Point, an XCOM clone by the original creators of XCOM. It’s definitely not as polished as XCOM EU and XCOM 2, but its targeting system feels a lot less bullshit: you get to manually aim with two concentric circular reticles. There’s a 100% chance that all projectiles fired will land within the outer reticle, and a 50% chance of any projectile fired to land within the inner one. Though this does mean that you’ll never miss a properly aimed point blank shot from one tile away.
Besides that, there’s also a lot more to do in the geoscape section of the game than in XCOM 2.
and then there’s Fallout 3 & NV, where low skill points in Small Guns makes bullets bend away from the crosshair
i’m missing ARMA here
Take Battlefield’s, but add a few more arcs as the bullet bounces.
If I may? A classic:
Needs one for Halo where the bullet does go to the target but it doesn’t originate from the weapon barrel. lol
Eh, Battlefield has crazy bloom (their version of deviation) on most guns except the SMG. The kind where you can stand 6 feet in front of a player and full auto a magazine at them and only hit them once or twice. Been an issue with BF forever. Even the SMGs suck with increasing range. Unfortunately there’s a glut of players exploiting Aim Assist with hardware, so far too many laser beam kills at 60+ meters with full auto tiny guns.
Meanwhile cod is a straight line at 500+ meters with an smg
Well yes, SMG means Sniper-Mega-Gun
For every 100 shots you take with a 99% chance to hit you will miss around once. I think the max hit chance was capped at 95% from memory too but I could be wrong.
I’m still re loading that save though.
The max cap is 100% but the game uses floating point numbers while only showing the player a whole number after rounding up. A 100% chance to hit is anywhere between 99.5% and 100%.
There are mods that just make the UI show the actual percentage to hit.
i don’t know how xcom does it, but if you are reloading a save, it is possible that you are always using the same random number generator, so the results would not change
Random seed is how xcom (and any other program) does it.
I think that was an option you could enable for your playthrough where it would use a consistent seed. You could get around it still by taking a different action first to use up the bad roll before trying again though.
At least in war of the chosen, the seeds for the round are static. Idk if there was a way to turn it off, but by default they used it to nerf save scumming. So if you know you’re going to miss and you want to bother with save scumming you can at least try a different tactic instead of going over and over hoping to eventually hit.
Honestly, just get a mod that buffs your hit chance like the rest of us sore losers lol
“Save scum” is an optional Second Wave option; you can opt in or out either way. I think by default it preserves the RNG on reload.
I want to say the devs admitted that they increased the reported chance to hit in the first nu xcom because people refused to take a sixty or seventy percent shot.
End result? No 95 will ever hit.
Made worse in nu xcom because shooting generally ends your turn and leaves you open to retaliation - sixty percent shot implies forty percent chance of death, and death of an experienced trooper is extremely bad. Old xcom, you could duck out of cover, take a shot, and duck back in, so “bad” chances to hit aren’t such a problem.
Which leads to my other part of the problem with nu xcom. The original, you could load fourteen dipshits into the skyranger and they could all take their 14% shots; if half of them came back alive, then it’s promotions all round. A meat grinder for sure, but the loss of a couple of soldiers isn’t a disaster - your fault for sending your most experienced guys first through the door if it is. The new one requires exceedingly cautious play and luck. Nothing like as bad as Phoenix Point, of course, but spoiled it a bit for me.
Tactics is choosing who to send in first. Strategy is being able to recover if that goes wrong. Nu Xcom is all tactics and not enough strategy.
I kind of like the nu XCOM approach though and I get the reason for the change. It’s way less accessible when every turn around and step deducts time units and you have to do the math in your head before moving so you don’t end up stuck in the open with no time to shoot. (Forgetting the cost of turning a guy or crouching leaving me unable to shoot has cost me a fair number of chumps). There are a lot of skills in WotC and LWotC that still let you move shoot move too.
That said Xenonauts 2 is a good split of the difference for both of them
I go back and forth on it, but the main difference was that nu xcom was made in a way that learned from the mistakes of olde. Like you said, we all just sacrificed hundreds of newbies to the RNG gods until we had enough veterans for the important missions. Same with only ever attacking when we were more or less safe from consequences. It led to a very weird approach where it was increasingly obvious xcom (the org) only cared about the “named units” and screw everyone else. And any relation between that and real world militaries is purely coincidental.
Nu xcom was made with that in mind. There was a focused effort on making each individual soldier “matter”. It was less “Oh no, we got lit up like a landing boat on D-Day. Ah well, grab their gear” and more “Shit. That sniper has 1 HP left. I need to protect her so that I have her later”. Which… turned basically anything that wasn’t a terror mission into a giant mess of overwatch hell. And that is why nu-2 had the god awful turn counts (and 1’s DLC added the resource that expires).
And I would very much argue the opposite regarding your tactics/strategy distinction. nu is all about thinking about the long game. Because that Assaulter that just got got? That might mean you are sending rookies in a desperate attempt to not lose a nation. Which means it becomes all about how you play “on the ground” to survive.
I forget what game it was, but I remember a REALLY good interview with a developer for one of the modern squad games who talked about this (I want to say it was on 3 Moves Ahead?). He was completely aware of how so many games in the genre were about fielding five snipers and one sacrificial grunt. And that is what led to various special abilities and so forth to make every single class viable outside of the scripted missions where you are fighting a god damned panzerklein in a single room with no cover.
All that said: Fuck nu xcom for its cover system. It is so fricking annoying to figure out if the angle to an enemy means I want to have west or north cover…
The expansion was wild. Initially the cenobites-alike trio mopped the floor with my guys but I got to a place where my team was made of demigods.
Are we pretending this wasn’t an issue in the previous XCOM: Enemy Unknown? Or is it just that much worse in 2?
Also I don’t know which of these is the most ridiculous. Maybe R6.
Shoutout to the original STALKER games for having good ballistics.
Part of the issue is there’s a disconnect from what’s being shown and what’s already happened. So, XCOM, and I think XCOM2 (it’s been a while since I played both) create a table with “random” values on map load. This means, you can 100% save scum the shit out any encounter because cause and effect will always be the same, it’s not a live “dice roll”. Part of this sucks, because what happened is hidden from the player. Something like BG3, you can see “Oh, I swung, rolled a 3, and these modifiers, my total was 14 and they have an AC of 15”. Also, some games help by using a pseudo-random where the probability of something happening, actually increases over time. Example would be Dota2, where something like bash, shows a given percent, but it’s actually on a scale. Each attack changes the % chance the next bash may happen, eventually getting to a point it’s nearly a guarantee. This type of random is often used to make the game feel more fun for the player (to nudge the numbers one way or the other). However, with a pre-seeded table, this likely isn’t happening.
Then you add the visual component. Point blank range, it’ll say “99%” and you miss. Or the number will seem low, despite point blank range. And you have the visual of the %.
So you add those together, the game likely not helping the player and just using a pre-seeded table plus the visuals with the human notion of really only remembering the extremes and you get the overall feeling of “game not fair”. You made 10 shots in a row with only 30% chance, but you only remember the single 99% chance you missed
That’s probably the best explanation I’ve seen, thanks.
It’s never really been an “issue”. The rolls have always been accurate, and the XCOM devs have even said in XCOM 2 they gave an invisible “buff” on hit chances on some difficulties.
The problem is we as people assume that something like 90% is a guarantee, and a miss in XCOM always feels so much worse, especially when they changed from time units to just a flat “do a shot, hit or miss them all” approach. So even though statistically you’re going to miss 1 of every 10 on a 90% shot, when it happens twice it’s “bullshit”. But that’s just odds man, gamblers fallacy is real.
deleted by creator
Is Stalker 2 worse, do you know? Thinking of getting it.
I haven’t tried it yet, that’s why I didn’t mention it. Hopefully it’s the same!
