I think that's what leads to one of its strengths. It doesn't hand hold you every step of the way. It makes the player think about their choices before doing them. If they don't, then the consequences are usually severe.
I think that's what leads to one of its strengths. It doesn't hand hold you every step of the way. It makes the player think about their choices before doing them. If they don't, then the consequences are usually severe.
Oh sure, but you're getting confused between not hand holding and the tutorial doing a really crappy job of explaining the meta-game.
My first classic run I lost because of 'bad choices' where I had no information as to what was important or what sort of goals I should be reaching for. If it's hand holding to tell the player 'by the way a pretty safe start is X Y and Z' then I want hand holding.
+2
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited December 2012
Yeah. Its a very trial-and-error based game. Which isn't too bad since its short enough for you to replay but it also could do a much better job of explaining some of its mechanics than it does.
I think that's what leads to one of its strengths. It doesn't hand hold you every step of the way. It makes the player think about their choices before doing them. If they don't, then the consequences are usually severe.
Oh sure, but you're getting confused between not hand holding and the tutorial doing a really crappy job of explaining the meta-game.
My first classic run I lost because of 'bad choices' where I had no information as to what was important or what sort of goals I should be reaching for. If it's hand holding to tell the player 'by the way a pretty safe start is X Y and Z' then I want hand holding.
I think at that point the meta-game wouldn't be very meta. It's a bit of a catch-22. You either layout a foundation for the player and then leave little reason for them to deviate, or you give them just enough to let them try to figure it out on their own at the expense of them possibly getting a game over.
The overall tutorial itself isn't very good I'll give you that. It actually just shackles the player in order to teach them the bare basics.
Edit: The loading screen tips actually give a lot of helpful information such as launching satellites at the end of the month as opposed to right away.
I think that's what leads to one of its strengths. It doesn't hand hold you every step of the way. It makes the player think about their choices before doing them. If they don't, then the consequences are usually severe.
Oh sure, but you're getting confused between not hand holding and the tutorial doing a really crappy job of explaining the meta-game.
My first classic run I lost because of 'bad choices' where I had no information as to what was important or what sort of goals I should be reaching for. If it's hand holding to tell the player 'by the way a pretty safe start is X Y and Z' then I want hand holding.
I think at that point the meta-game wouldn't be very meta. It's a bit of a catch-22. You either layout a foundation for the player and then leave little reason for them to deviate, or you give them just enough to let them try to figure it out on their own at the expense of them possibly getting a game over.
The overall tutorial itself isn't very good I'll give you that. It actually just shackles the player in order to teach them the bare basics.
Well actually I'd argue the issue with XCOM's meta game is that there isn't much deviation to be had full stop.
You build satilites or you die
You research guns and armour in a linear pattern.
Labs are crap
Engineers are great
There's so many pretty much strict 'rules' to playing optimally mentioned in this thread and no one has EVER said 'well actually I love going lab heavy'.
This is because the meta games doesn't really allow for deviance. You're right in that if the game told you these openings it'd remove the trial and error but the issue is that there is trail and fail or following the rules and living.
I think that's what leads to one of its strengths. It doesn't hand hold you every step of the way. It makes the player think about their choices before doing them. If they don't, then the consequences are usually severe.
Oh sure, but you're getting confused between not hand holding and the tutorial doing a really crappy job of explaining the meta-game.
My first classic run I lost because of 'bad choices' where I had no information as to what was important or what sort of goals I should be reaching for. If it's hand holding to tell the player 'by the way a pretty safe start is X Y and Z' then I want hand holding.
I think at that point the meta-game wouldn't be very meta. It's a bit of a catch-22. You either layout a foundation for the player and then leave little reason for them to deviate, or you give them just enough to let them try to figure it out on their own at the expense of them possibly getting a game over.
The overall tutorial itself isn't very good I'll give you that. It actually just shackles the player in order to teach them the bare basics.
Well actually I'd argue the issue with XCOM's meta game is that there isn't much deviation to be had full stop.
You build satilites or you die
You research guns and armour in a linear pattern.
Labs are crap
Engineers are great
There's so many pretty much strict 'rules' to playing optimally mentioned in this thread and no one has EVER said 'well actually I love going lab heavy'.
This is because the meta games doesn't really allow for deviance. You're right in that if the game told you these openings it'd remove the trial and error but the issue is that there is trail and fail or following the rules and living.
That's why I wouldn't recommend classic to newbies. Normal let's you get by with a lot of errors. Classic is more or less a byproduct of the original game. You either play by the rules or lose. It sucks it's like that, but I figure if you chose classic you know what you're getting into.
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
Yeah, I really think using by-product of the original as the justification for it being very singular in progression kinda sucks. They could have had more variety and methods to deal with things (maybe you could spend money on propaganda to calm continents in a burst as well as satilites) but oh well.
For my current C/I play-through I started with my base in Asia. I like the ability to cheaply get increase squad size. I haven't done the math, but I wonder if they Africa cash bonus is greater in the first two months compared to savings from Asia. Once you hit plasma weapons I feel that I am resource limited not cash limited, so that makes Africa's bonus less useful.
Yeah, I really think using by-product of the original as the justification for it being very singular in progression kinda sucks. They could have had more variety and methods to deal with things (maybe you could spend money on propaganda to calm continents in a burst as well as satilites) but oh well.
I have no basis for this, but maybe Firaxis didn't want to deviate too much after the very negative reaction to the other XCOM game. Granted, that wasn't even remotely close in any fashion to the original. However, they probably felt that rocking the boat anymore with fans wasn't a good business idea.
For my current C/I play-through I started with my base in Asia. I like the ability to cheaply get increase squad size. I haven't done the math, but I wonder if they Africa cash bonus is greater in the first two months compared to savings from Asia. Once you hit plasma weapons I feel that I am resource limited not cash limited, so that makes Africa's bonus less useful.
Capturing or mind controlling enemies is an easy way to get plasma weapons. As for the bonus itself, the cost of satellites is what probably makes Africa more useful overall. After a couple of months, no bonus is really more helpful than the other (though North America could prove useful). Except South America which is really useless no matter what.
There's nothing explicitly wrong with them, it's just that everything else you can build is so much more important. Things that rank above building labs: building satellites, building satellite uplinks, getting engineers (either via mission or workshop) to aid in the building of satellites and uplinks, getting ample base power (preferably from a steam vent). If you're good on all 4 of those things and have any credits laying around then a lab isn't a bad idea. Before then, you should be getting research bonuses (instead of labs) by bringing in different species alive.
Oh, building the officer training school and, at least, increasing your squad size to 6 is also more important than lab building. I personally would rank foundry upgrades higher, too, as I like for my snipers (since I never take snapshot) to be effective pistoleers in case the shit hits the fan as they're moving into position.
The research bonuses from autopsies/interrogations is really what makes labs pointless. You'll get so many ways to cut down on time from basic research that investing in labs is a waste of money and space.
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Okay, I guess I'll start a new game on Classic, then. Didn't know that thing about the labs. Did figure out the Satellite thing on my own, but I like money, so I immediately started to build some.
0
FreiA French Prometheus UnboundDeadwoodRegistered Userregular
edited December 2012
Keep in mind that the people saying "IT'S NOT REAL XCOM IF IT'S NOT CLASSIC" are just kind of nostalgia tripping. if you don't want to play on classic, you don't have to. do what's fun for you. I play on classic but I don't feel there's a need to make people on the internet do it also. kind of a weird thing to do.
I'm worse at classic, but I like it better than normal because on normal it feels like the game is on your side. On normal it feels like it's slanted towards to aliens which makes more sense to me. I mean, they came in their spaceships with their fancy plasma weapons. It should be difficult to win, and normal just doesn't capture that feeling.
also capturing aliens alive is kinda hard to me. getting right up in their faces and having a shock fail (along with the two gunners covering her) has cost me an assault class or two. any tips to make that process a little less risky?
also capturing aliens alive is kinda hard to me. getting right up in their faces and having a shock fail (along with the two gunners covering her) has cost me an assault class or two. any tips to make that process a little less risky?
Disabling shot from a sniper so that they can't return fire. I also like to soften the target by using pistols so that the enemies health is less than 3.
Never attempt a take down unless you are 99% sure that you can deal with the problem if the shock fails.
Anything less is asking for butt hurt pain.
+2
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
I'd say that anybody with even a middling amount of experience with vidja games should just go straight for Classic. Not because I think making the game hard is the only "real" way to play, but because the lower difficulty settings are pretty easy. The game seriously is way better with at least some challenge to it, even if that challenge only really lasts until you've got the hang of the game and then mow everything down. I'd played the original plenty and found Classic to actually be pretty easy; once you start getting your tech up, casualties drop enormously, to the point where I lost maybe 2 people the entire last half of the game to things that were legitimately game-related and not bug stuff.
At the very least, play the game on the setting below Classic if you aren't confident in your own abilities. Any difficulty lower than that and losing would actually be pretty hard, which removes a big chunk of tension and enjoyment from the game.
See, that's the thing. It's all relative to people. You might think normal is a cakewalk but others might actually find it fairly difficult. My two cents on this is if you're new to strategy games, play it on normal. You're going to do the tutorial anyway, so you're going to lose all but one soldier on the first mission. I'm not sure if you really want that on classic much less being restricted on base choices.
Classic is pretty dang hard as someone who plays video games but never an XCOM. I will probably keep it up because I like games with that kind of roguelike mentality of getting a little bit farther with each new game. But if you just want to play it and move on with your life, I bet normal is challenging enough to keep you engaged.
On a side note, is there some trick to targeting with explosives (grenades)? Its awful with the mouse.
Classic is pretty dang hard as someone who plays video games but never an XCOM. I will probably keep it up because I like games with that kind of roguelike mentality of getting a little bit farther with each new game. But if you just want to play it and move on with your life, I bet normal is challenging enough to keep you engaged.
On a side note, is there some trick to targeting with explosives (grenades)? Its awful with the mouse.
See, that's the thing. It's all relative to people. You might think normal is a cakewalk but others might actually find it fairly difficult. My two cents on this is if you're new to strategy games, play it on normal. You're going to do the tutorial anyway, so you're going to lose all but one soldier on the first mission. I'm not sure if you really want that on classic much less being restricted on base choices.
But normal teaches bad habits.
Fun fact: On normal, the odds listed aren't the odds. The "real" odds on normal are what you, as a human being, would more or less assume the odds would be. IE, slanted heavily in your favor. Normal heavily restricts the AI, limits alien advancement, and discourages the tactics that keep you alive on classic.
I mean, classic will kick your ass a little either way, but it's worse if you start with normal.
scherbchenAsgard (it is dead)Registered Userregular
are you seriously telling me that ye olde control issue is back with the DLC in mission 2? well, it ain't as bad as it has been but it is back to wonky-town that's for sure.
The thing that I dislike the most about XCOM is that there isn't any way to go into 'sandbox' mode. If you choose to just not cap the outsider so you can just do end-game missions against the toughest enemies, you'll just flat-out lose because you'll be unable to deploy any satellites while the aliens are still raising panic everywhere.
If you could just track & shoot down the fucking mission-spawning UFOs like you could in the old games, this wouldn't be problem. If you could just build multiple skyrangers and engage every possible mission, this wouldn't be a problem. But for some reason Firaxis wanted to shoehorn in the death spiral.
The Ender on
With Love and Courage
0
scherbchenAsgard (it is dead)Registered Userregular
well, I prolonged one of my C/I games for an extra year without losing additional countries. you just "sandbox" later is all. as in, after the overseer ufo with full sat coverage.
See, that's the thing. It's all relative to people. You might think normal is a cakewalk but others might actually find it fairly difficult. My two cents on this is if you're new to strategy games, play it on normal. You're going to do the tutorial anyway, so you're going to lose all but one soldier on the first mission. I'm not sure if you really want that on classic much less being restricted on base choices.
But normal teaches bad habits.
Fun fact: On normal, the odds listed aren't the odds. The "real" odds on normal are what you, as a human being, would more or less assume the odds would be. IE, slanted heavily in your favor. Normal heavily restricts the AI, limits alien advancement, and discourages the tactics that keep you alive on classic.
I mean, classic will kick your ass a little either way, but it's worse if you start with normal.
I think you're selling the player short. While it is true that the AI is shackled quite a bit, it also does not let up on punishing reckless tactics. At the same time, the buff to enemy units is quite significant that even without the AI increase it would be a harder game overall on classic for a newcomer. On top of that, if someone were to make multiple saves anyway then starting on classic would be pointless.
That's why I would recommend doing it on normal. They'll learn the ropes and realize the proper tactics on both ends of gameplay. Then when they move on to classic (with ironman on), they'll at least have a sense of what they need to accomplish. Plus, why screw yourself over by having the tutorial on in classic?
I am still hoping that Firaxis will use their X-pack opportunity to buff up the meta game on the strategy layer and tech tree to make it a little less one dimensional.
I started on normal and it wasn't a good intro for classic. Since the numbers are fudged in the player's favor behind the scenes, I didn't realize how critical full cover and hunker down were. I also didn't have a problem triggering multiple groups of enemies on normal, since the massaged odds make it unlikely to result in a TPK (unlike classic, where that can go down really easily, to say nothing of impossible).
That said, do whatever is fun. Fun is even more important than satellites.
The thing that I dislike the most about XCOM is that there isn't any way to go into 'sandbox' mode. If you choose to just not cap the outsider so you can just do end-game missions against the toughest enemies, you'll just flat-out lose because you'll be unable to deploy any satellites while the aliens are still raising panic everywhere.
If you could just track & shoot down the fucking mission-spawning UFOs like you could in the old games, this wouldn't be problem. If you could just build multiple skyrangers and engage every possible mission, this wouldn't be a problem. But for some reason Firaxis wanted to shoehorn in the death spiral.
You can prolong the game as long as you want. Once you have full satellite coverage, panic levels are never going to rise unless you either fail a crucial mission (terror missions) or ignore a crucial mission (terror missions, spotted UFO's which you do not shoot down). 2 x Firestorms with fusion lances can shoot down anything without any boosts (1 could probably do battleships with a single boost).
In my typical games, I extend the game all the way until I have researched everything and have every asset available.
See, that's the thing. It's all relative to people. You might think normal is a cakewalk but others might actually find it fairly difficult. My two cents on this is if you're new to strategy games, play it on normal. You're going to do the tutorial anyway, so you're going to lose all but one soldier on the first mission. I'm not sure if you really want that on classic much less being restricted on base choices.
But normal teaches bad habits.
Fun fact: On normal, the odds listed aren't the odds. The "real" odds on normal are what you, as a human being, would more or less assume the odds would be. IE, slanted heavily in your favor. Normal heavily restricts the AI, limits alien advancement, and discourages the tactics that keep you alive on classic.
I mean, classic will kick your ass a little either way, but it's worse if you start with normal.
I think you're selling the player short. While it is true that the AI is shackled quite a bit, it also does not let up on punishing reckless tactics. At the same time, the buff to enemy units is quite significant that even without the AI increase it would be a harder game overall on classic for a newcomer. On top of that, if someone were to make multiple saves anyway then starting on classic would be pointless.
That's why I would recommend doing it on normal. They'll learn the ropes and realize the proper tactics on both ends of gameplay. Then when they move on to classic (with ironman on), they'll at least have a sense of what they need to accomplish. Plus, why screw yourself over by having the tutorial on in classic?
Why use the tutorial at all? Seriously, the thing is worse than useless.
The buff on classic is substantial, but the AI shackling and the odds bit are enough to teach bad habits on their own. Ran normal a couple of times when I just wanted to see how it was, and you don't need half the tactics you do on classic.
Meanwhile, the game glitches enough that ironman has better than fifty fifty on screwing you over at some point. Classic provides reasonable kick even if you allow for a couple reloads now and again.
Normal teaches you to avoid grenades, take those low odds shots, that you can tech up at any pace you like, and more. Bad idea.
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Also, at what point should I assault the alien base? Because the first time I tried as soon as I could and completely wiped. And those disc things. I don't have to tase one, do I?
Nah, cyberdisks aren't capturable. They are, however, an object lesson in why HEAT ammo is fucking rad. As far as the base, I usually hold on to the mission to tech up, and to use as a panic control valve (when you beat the base, global panic reduces by 2).
Posts
Oh sure, but you're getting confused between not hand holding and the tutorial doing a really crappy job of explaining the meta-game.
My first classic run I lost because of 'bad choices' where I had no information as to what was important or what sort of goals I should be reaching for. If it's hand holding to tell the player 'by the way a pretty safe start is X Y and Z' then I want hand holding.
But that's most games these days.
1) Explaining that satilites are like band aids for the global HP that is panic, and you're going to need a lot of band aids
2) telling me some initial tech options.
I think at that point the meta-game wouldn't be very meta. It's a bit of a catch-22. You either layout a foundation for the player and then leave little reason for them to deviate, or you give them just enough to let them try to figure it out on their own at the expense of them possibly getting a game over.
The overall tutorial itself isn't very good I'll give you that. It actually just shackles the player in order to teach them the bare basics.
Edit: The loading screen tips actually give a lot of helpful information such as launching satellites at the end of the month as opposed to right away.
Well actually I'd argue the issue with XCOM's meta game is that there isn't much deviation to be had full stop.
You build satilites or you die
You research guns and armour in a linear pattern.
Labs are crap
Engineers are great
There's so many pretty much strict 'rules' to playing optimally mentioned in this thread and no one has EVER said 'well actually I love going lab heavy'.
This is because the meta games doesn't really allow for deviance. You're right in that if the game told you these openings it'd remove the trial and error but the issue is that there is trail and fail or following the rules and living.
That's why I wouldn't recommend classic to newbies. Normal let's you get by with a lot of errors. Classic is more or less a byproduct of the original game. You either play by the rules or lose. It sucks it's like that, but I figure if you chose classic you know what you're getting into.
Can't say that's really good game design.
I have no basis for this, but maybe Firaxis didn't want to deviate too much after the very negative reaction to the other XCOM game. Granted, that wasn't even remotely close in any fashion to the original. However, they probably felt that rocking the boat anymore with fans wasn't a good business idea.
Capturing or mind controlling enemies is an easy way to get plasma weapons. As for the bonus itself, the cost of satellites is what probably makes Africa more useful overall. After a couple of months, no bonus is really more helpful than the other (though North America could prove useful). Except South America which is really useless no matter what.
Oh, building the officer training school and, at least, increasing your squad size to 6 is also more important than lab building. I personally would rank foundry upgrades higher, too, as I like for my snipers (since I never take snapshot) to be effective pistoleers in case the shit hits the fan as they're moving into position.
Disabling shot from a sniper so that they can't return fire. I also like to soften the target by using pistols so that the enemies health is less than 3.
Anything less is asking for butt hurt pain.
At the very least, play the game on the setting below Classic if you aren't confident in your own abilities. Any difficulty lower than that and losing would actually be pretty hard, which removes a big chunk of tension and enjoyment from the game.
On a side note, is there some trick to targeting with explosives (grenades)? Its awful with the mouse.
I zoom out which makes it easier to control.
But normal teaches bad habits.
Fun fact: On normal, the odds listed aren't the odds. The "real" odds on normal are what you, as a human being, would more or less assume the odds would be. IE, slanted heavily in your favor. Normal heavily restricts the AI, limits alien advancement, and discourages the tactics that keep you alive on classic.
I mean, classic will kick your ass a little either way, but it's worse if you start with normal.
Why I fear the ocean.
I still lost Europe though.
I haven't played for months and that was my first game. I should start playing again on something more difficult. And lose Europe again.
If you could just track & shoot down the fucking mission-spawning UFOs like you could in the old games, this wouldn't be problem. If you could just build multiple skyrangers and engage every possible mission, this wouldn't be a problem. But for some reason Firaxis wanted to shoehorn in the death spiral.
I think you're selling the player short. While it is true that the AI is shackled quite a bit, it also does not let up on punishing reckless tactics. At the same time, the buff to enemy units is quite significant that even without the AI increase it would be a harder game overall on classic for a newcomer. On top of that, if someone were to make multiple saves anyway then starting on classic would be pointless.
That's why I would recommend doing it on normal. They'll learn the ropes and realize the proper tactics on both ends of gameplay. Then when they move on to classic (with ironman on), they'll at least have a sense of what they need to accomplish. Plus, why screw yourself over by having the tutorial on in classic?
That said, do whatever is fun. Fun is even more important than satellites.
You can prolong the game as long as you want. Once you have full satellite coverage, panic levels are never going to rise unless you either fail a crucial mission (terror missions) or ignore a crucial mission (terror missions, spotted UFO's which you do not shoot down). 2 x Firestorms with fusion lances can shoot down anything without any boosts (1 could probably do battleships with a single boost).
In my typical games, I extend the game all the way until I have researched everything and have every asset available.
Some of them carry weapons you can use (after appropriate research). So I guess save money by stealing 'em?
Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Why use the tutorial at all? Seriously, the thing is worse than useless.
The buff on classic is substantial, but the AI shackling and the odds bit are enough to teach bad habits on their own. Ran normal a couple of times when I just wanted to see how it was, and you don't need half the tactics you do on classic.
Meanwhile, the game glitches enough that ironman has better than fifty fifty on screwing you over at some point. Classic provides reasonable kick even if you allow for a couple reloads now and again.
Normal teaches you to avoid grenades, take those low odds shots, that you can tech up at any pace you like, and more. Bad idea.
Why I fear the ocean.