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.
DMR’s are fine. No complaints there, Aim assist doesn’t help much in that class. There’s a definite difference in people using aim assist on SMG and not. I’ve got almost 2k hours in game and it’s really, really obvious when there’s aim assist abuse vs not. Doesn’t matter which weapon. Zero bloom vs some bloom on full auto. Rapid no-miss taps with DMR, etc. You really rarely encounter this stuff in big map modes like Rush or Conquest, it’s nowhere near as obvious thanks to the greater distances, but I play a fair bit of TDM and people abusing the aim assist feature stand out like sore thumbs.
I play on pc so aim assist isn’t really something I encounter a lot outside obvious cheaters, but aim assist in general isn’t something that should exists outside of singleplayer imo.
I tried to do an online check-in for a flight some time ago. After cursing the airline, all software developers, all of society and all the gods for about 30 minutes, I realized that I had to allow popups for the site.
I’ve been replaying Skyrim since I got the Special Edition on sale few days ago. The loading screen goes away so fast that I can’t enjoy any tips on information that it shows. The technology has come a long way.
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.
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
Actually no. Mostly, but some actions affect the PRNG and when loading saves they haven’t remembered to reset the effect of those, so the results can change a bit between loads. It has been a while, so I don’t remember the specifics. But you can abuse this property to get out of really tough spots by gaming the PRNG across loads.
Way too close for even a bullpup rifle. 65% is honestly pretty good if he’s already at point-blank range by the time brain impulse to fire the trigger is sent.
I think the game is meant to abstract away simultaneous actions. So it’s like the alien and you are moving at the same time, not like hitting a stationary target next to you.
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 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.
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 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…
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 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
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
I’m Battle for Wesnoth, after clearing a map it showed a statistic about how lucky you’d been in your dice rolls. Which really meant how often you’d rerun dice rolls by saving and loading. When it said something like “370% above average luck”, I realized that, oh shit, the game knows?!
Save scumming is such a staple of modern XCOM that it’s actually a toggle. Just like when I was save scumming in fire emblem, you can probably just mutate the seed differently by taking different actions before attacking 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.
lemmy.world
Najnowsze