Gaizokubanou

Members
  • Content count

    964
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Gaizokubanou


  1. Haha, what?

     

    more specifically it has a chance to set the ground tile your gunner is on fire (probably some wild unintended side effect of its cover/environment destroying property), and if that is on fire, your gunner then burns cause he/she was standing in fire :x

     

    I will miss how broken old mimic was when behind full cover with defense up by gremlin mark 3.

     

    And wow the performance for the game is so much better.  The base view no longer brings the game down to crawl.

     

    Edit: Firaxis said saturation fire fix was in the patch, just not in the patch note so I guess time to see if I can safely use saturation fire!


  2. This ini tweak totally works for Xcom 2 so anyone suffering from lot of seemingly random stuttering please give it a try

     

    http://steamcommunity.com/app/200510/discussions/0/846960628563773260

     

     

    Edited to add: I initially assumed I would want an EXO/WAR suit on everyone because of the heavy weapon, but I can't stress the benefit of the Grapple's free move enough.  Being able to move to flank, get a sniper in position, get in range of a Skullmine, etc., are all so incredibly valuable when you need them. 

     

    Yeah, grapple's completely free move (doesn't even cost 1 action, it is on cooldown though) is amazing on most maps cause Xcom 2 maps have lot of vertical spaces to it.

     

    Only mission I would skip out on grapple is probably the last mission which is weirdly flat compare to rest of the game.


  3. ahh yeah GTS is I think always the first that needs to be built (unless you are going for that 4 squad size achievement?), same with AWC as second building cause it gives your squad free random perk while lvling (when they get it is kinda random).

     

    Game looks beautiful but man only way for me to maintain solid 60 fps lock on 970 is on minimum! So sad :(

     

    Edit: So fucking pissed right now that another Legend Ironman has to end cause a zombie crit my grenadier from 2 tiles away, not even sure wtf happened there since when did zombies get range attacks?


  4. So legend is pretty hard.  Just had a run where I got super lucky with advanced stock from mission 2 but still, one bad move in retaliation mission and I lost my ranger (to a faceless and a bugged out floating viper) led to this spiral where right now all my non squaddies are injured for like 30 days.  The timers on legend is insane!

     

     

    Assorted stupid questions about in between missions stuff. My current situation is that the first facility is in one of the regions I have made contact with, and there is another facility in a region that I have not yet contacted. The first facility is white, and the second facility is red and has a pip below it. The avatar project has 5 pips in total (1 on the facility and 4 on the floating statue thing). I assume that I can set back the avatar project by 1 pip by attacking the second facility, but is there a way to remove the other 4 pips? Or did I fuck things up permanently by not attacking the first facility earlier (I did not pay attention whether it had pips below it or whether it used to be red)? I guess my main point is whether I should attack the facilities as soon as possible to prevent permanent increment in the doomsday clock, or just make sure that I destroy them before it reaches 12 o'clock.

     

    I finished a campaign with 4 permanent pips so I guess it's clearly possible for you to have 'screwed' yourself with un-removable pips (pips that are on the pacific icon itself and has no tie to any land based facilities).

     

    That being said, for 90% of that campaign I let the pips build up all the way to max and let the count down roll til like 2 days left to clear out blacksites while also farming for the last mission for like 6 months straight so I think ignoring those un-removable pips is a safe strategy.


  5. Man I don't agree with that at all. Shredding enemy armor is way more important than having a bonus point of armor (and explosive damage is too infrequent to prioritize). Supression and demolition are both kinda good, I wouldn't prioritize one over the other. Holo targeting is supremely useful though, it just makes the rest of your team better. If you combine that skill with a weapon upgrade that gives the grenadier a chance at a 2nd action you can sometimes holo target two enemies, and that can turn a really bad fight into a fight where suddenly you have an overwhelming advantage (personally experienced this, not just speculating here).

     

    I definitely think salvo is way beter than hail of bullets though.

     

    I'm bringing in like... 10 explosives per mission (3 x 2 for grenadiers and 4 heavy armors) around the time when 3+ armors are common so explosives that shred armors seem so plentiful so far.  Like sighting of all late game aliens died the turn they spawned good of explosive spamming.  With volatile mix all the dot grenades straight up kill anything lesser than Archon

     

    @Bjorn yeah demolition vs suppression seems weird cause both are hardly ever used.  But demolition is super awkward (chance to miss lolwut) so I would take suppression for off chance at at least having some bit of utility.

     

    as for the specialist I only have 1 lvled up running all right side and it's been great thus far but like you said left side should have its  own merits.

     

     

    The most notable advantage that the gunner tree has over the grenadier tree, it is still useful when you are out of grenades. It does happen, I've gotten into a couple of long fights where I've completely used up all my consumables. I mean look at some of those screenshots up higher in the thread. I think one of them had 40 alien kills on it?

    I usually keep one skilled gunner, and then send the rest up the explosives tree.

     

    Hmm I did go for like 50 on base defense for xp farming but haven't seen anything higher than 16 (due to zombies) so far, but I'll keep an eye out for something larger and like you keep one as machine gunner in case.

     

    BTW guys, umm stock and reapter can combo so time to see if saturation fire can proc stock cause then gg.


  6. So is right side of grenadier tree straight up inferior?  Grenadiers have pretty poor aim but more than that, you can bring so much grenades that I have yet to run a mission where I have to fight a pod without bunch of grenades to shred armor and deal aoe damage.

     

    I really want to make use of machine gunner themed grenadier but man grenade spamming is just so good.


  7. I personally ditched twin stick shooting mechanic in my own project because I wanted mobility focused combat and twin stick shines with cover or other slow and methodical combat.  Without focus on cover or highly detailed management aspect the game becomes this weird 2 solved problem where with movement you just want to avoid things and with aiming you just want to hit things.

     

    So I guess this is a way to just challenge the base of your project.  I mean if you really enjoy twin stick shooters go for it but do keep your options open and check out other methods (during prototyping).


  8. His solutions will work, but it works by removing lot of the 'progressions' so... if you really like building up a squad then it removes a chunk out of those aspects of the game.

     

    Something like this was done in LW where mod team realized defense/aim scaled so high that terrain in late game became more and more trivial... so they flattened defense/aim gain a lot and that has its ups and downs.

     

    That's neither good or bad, just different kind of game.  To stick to the analogy, it's like solving snowballing problem by replace all the snow with sand.


  9. That sounds like a recipe for trench warfare, though.

     

    I'd far rather see something that moved the game away from APM and microing towards more tactical play.  I'm thinking, for instance, of Dark Reign, where you could set fairly complex AI on units (for example, you could tell something "go raiding, come back for repair when you're at 25% health", and then you could leave it be and go pay attention to something else).  Dark Reign also had paths that were independent of units, so you could lay down (say) a couple of paths for a pincer attack, and then tell group 1 to attack move along path A, and group 2 to attack move along path B.

     

    We may ultimately want completely different games, come to that.

     

    Maybe, because I agree what I'm saying is closer to trench warfare but that's when I had most fun out of SC2... mid to late game terran vs terran with bunch of siege tanks and sensor towers, vikings constantly peeking out fight for the line of sight.

     

    The slower army movement and the efficiency of defense gave easier sense of weight and importance of positioning and I really appreciated that, and it wasn't like the trenches were unbreakable (it would actually break quite fast and violently).  There never was quite enough units with the 200 unit cap that you had completely invulnerable protection.

     

    ZvZ being the worst IMO (worse than PvP) as the matchup boiled down to the most 'gotcha' type of fighting... urgh.

     

    Marines, tanks and vikings are the simplest but also made the game the best to me.

     

    Maybe our differences are more on technical ends... like I think we both want same thing in terms of giving more emphasis to large army positioning to bring player focus on the big picture, but you want to tackle it by adding AI functionality while I want to do it via removing units and narrowing down the maps.


  10. How to make a game majestic-slow while providing early and frequent decisions is a tough design challenge.

     

    Prevent the controls and decisions from scaling up and scale the stakes of decisions up instead.

     

    My rant about game design below.

     

    Strategy game example that immediately pops into my mind for this is PDX games, where you get more land but... it rarely add to decisions that has to be made (and that is a great thing if you have enough decisions from the beginning (which their games do have)).  Like, what I do in EU4 when I'm a 2 province minor compared to 200 province empire isn't literally 100 times more, and whatever micro that is added is extremely trivial because lot about your nation functions as a whole rather than individual provinces (and those that do function on individual levels are often taken care of in simple 'check off the list' fashion)

     

    For RTS drag box selection is a good example of this but more unique units get, less adequate box + a move gets.  The 'perfect-classic-base-building-RTS' would probably have like, 3 ~ 5 unit types max so users focus on quantity instead of quality of battles, and maps/units would be designed to allow multiple discrete defend-able locales akin to main ramp in SC2 or AoE/WC3's super turret main base.

     

    SC2 would be so much better if it had half the units (and remove gimmicky stuff like sentry), units had 50% or more hp (movement speed down accordingly to balance melee) and every land paths were either divided in half or shrunk to half so you can cost effectively block more of the map than just the main ramp.


  11. It used 30 million recorded human moves and then played itself a bunch to create new moves. I don't mean to denigrate the tech, I just don't find Go to be a good example of what this new tech is good for. Watson winning Jeopardy was IMO a lot more impressive because it had to use human language. This doesn't mean Watsons tech was better, just that its accomplishment seemed greater.

     

    And that is a mere fraction of all possible moves in Go.  As for the latter... what...?

     

    Edit: more precisely, recorded moves are something like 3 / 20816819938197998469947863334486277028652245388453054842563945682092741961273801537852564845169851964390725991601562812854608988831442712971531931755773662039724706


  12. If they use tools like AlphaGo for 4X, it'll straight up play better than any human players and hence become 'inhuman'.  Also random dice roll if anything would make it easier for the AI since it now doesn't have to discover the probabilities as it had to in Go... but riadsala already explained this and I think you are ignoring how AlphaGo is different from previous chessbots that brute forced via search treeing history of chess.


  13. The tech may be really impressive, but to me it just feels like a fancier chessbot.

     

    That's my point. Go is the kind of game that machines should be better at

     

    You do understand that what you said would be completely ridiculous if it weren't for this news we are discussing?  And you are putting the significance of this AI development down at the same time???

     

    This AlphaGo is in different league from traditional chessbots that just memorized all possible game alterations or bunch of complex search trees that we see in cutting edge video games.  Sure it's still far cry from a complete intelligence, but this kind of tech is closest we ever gotten to small aspect of intelligence and here we see it besting human mind, albeit in extremely narrow field but still.

     

    Let's make this clear.  AlphaGo discovered strategies for Go that it's creators didn't know, and if it beats Lee Sedol this March, it's arguable that it uses strategies that no humans ever thought of.  Chessbots are so primitive compared to this because chessbots are more akin to recordings of all chess history.  But AlphaGo made something its creators didn't know.


  14. Yesterday Google announced that it had achieved a milestone step in AI research.  It has developed the first AI, named AlphaGo, capable of beating an expert level human player at Go beating three-time European champion Fan Hui 5-0 in a closed match.  That may not sound like much, but Go is many, MANY times more complex that Chess.  As an example, after the first round of turns in Chess there are 400 possible board positions.  In Go, after the first round of turns there are 129,960 possible board positions and it grows at an insane rate from there.  There are more total Go positions than there are atoms in the universe.  In March the AI will take on the world champion Lee Sedol in Seoul.

     

    out of everything this is probably the closest thing to worry about...

     

    @Cordeos, what...?  Go is anything but simple for traditional AI to manage.  AI in 4x games are just scripts, not remotely in the same league as AlphaGo which is far more general purpose than a set of codes written specifically for a specific game.


  15. I should mention that I specifically chose not to play it in Early Access, though I did purchase it after seeing it at PAX, so this is my first time actually playing. I guess I was expecting more of a MASSIVE CHALICE sized experience.

     

    Ahh... end game was lot faster in various phases of early access cause of few exploitable strategies...

     

    Like, the camp buffs used to last indefinitely so medium and long dungeons were actually easier and faster because you would just pop camp at start and run the entire thing with really buffed party (buffs were better too).

     

    I guess in that sense I got to taste the game before it got too drawn out, as you are probably right that it's probably too drawn out as it is.