Awww shit dudes, they finally announced the launch time and it's midnight eastern tomorrow. 1 day and 13 hours from now.
I GET TO START PLAYING AT 11PM MY TIME! WOO!!!
CST BestST
Cool. That means I'll get to play (ok, get to build my AspectVoid character file) while on Lunch on Friday, and then can dig into the game right after work.
I thought with Reaper, the damage of each sword attack went down, not the accuracy, unless you're talking about the chance of a 90% attack being a miss goes up, but that's gambler's fallacy.
It's not gambler's fallacy, you're taking the entire intended action as one event.
You have an 81% chance to hit two enemies, a 73% chance to hit 3, and a 65% chance to hit 4, assuming accuracy stays the same and you have a guaranteed kill on each, which you probably don't.
And as we all know, in XCOM, 65% may as well be 0%.
I disagree, just because every attack depends on the previous attack hitting (and killing) a target does not change the fact that each attack in that sequence has the exact same chance of success as every other attack in the sequence.
Okay but again, you're not saying the THIRD attack has this chance of hitting, you're saying the chance of hitting 3 attacks is this much.
When you decide to pop reaper, you probably have a course of action in mind. It's something like "go to this guy, hit him. then swing around to this guy for a hit, then this guy, and hit him."
If the first hit is guaranteed and then each hit afterward is 90%, if you've got three targets, the chances of you hitting on all three of your targets is 81%. If your course of action is four enemies, it goes down to 73%.
If you stop in the middle and say "I wonder if I'll hit the next guy" then yes, the chances of you scoring a hit are 90%, but if you're actually trying to plan out your turn instead of popping reaper and then clicking on targets until you cease to feel lucky, then the total probability of hitting all of your targets is, in fact, important.
I think we're probably nitpicking here. When I disagreed with Phyphor's comment, it was because in the way in which he worded it, it sound like he was saying the chance to hit for each separate attack went down, not that the odds of having X successful kills went down the greater the value of X (which I don't disagree with, and not just because of the chance of having a string of hits). It didn't help that there is another skill where the odds of hitting does go down until you miss or run out of ammo.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
We clearly need to sort out sides for math fight club post-release.
Aaaagh I want this already. Actually I want to see about the modding stuff more than anything. I'd love to take a shot at adding to the pool of possible events and such.
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited February 2016
Also I am so happy with the mission variety + procedural maps. It's done everything I wanted and more. I've noticed similar "tiles" but they do so much wizardry that even if their tiles are similar, they still manage to make all the maps look fresh and unique. It's such a great system and makes me so happy, especially because they avoided having scripted "story" missions in this game.
Nothing was more the antithesis of what X-COM was than a scripted map.
Yeah but I have literally 0 basis of knowledge for "can you kill" so I'm strategically omitting that part
The actual probability of your action succeeding would be
k1 * (.9 * k2) * (.9 * k3) ... * (.9 * kn) where k is your chance to kill a given enemy.
Another way to write that would be
.9^(n-1) * product(k1, kn)
I'm thinking, the safe number of attacks is 3-4, based off of three things:
1. First attack will always hit, which means as long as the first target's Hp is less than or equal to the bottom limit of the sword's damage (after factoring in armor), first attack will always kill.
2. Second attack will have a 90% chance to hit, both the attack itself and the chance of getting there, which in the words of Jake Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer, might as well be 100.
3. There is an earlier Ranger perk which pretty much every Reaper Ranger will pick up (since the other option is to Reaper what Snap Shot was to Gunslinger in EU/EW) where if you have at least one kill in a turn, the first attack against the ranger during the alien phase will always miss, even if it's psionics or explosives. That means even if you fail to kill the 3rd (because of a miss or not enough damage) as long as it's the only active enemy, your ranger is still safe.
EDIT: It's also worth noting that you do not have to use the extra action after a kill to do another sword attack, The first video I saw it in action, the guy used it to kill about 3, then used the extra action from the last kill to move into cover.
For real. I'm having people over for board games tonight, and it'd be great if the laptop was there downloading XCOM 2 instead of me watching the download this weekend.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Looking at the time, I think this game will unlock sometime midday Friday.
So I'll have the game all Friday morning and only be able to stare at it, but at least I can get some extra writing done for work...
Yeah but I have literally 0 basis of knowledge for "can you kill" so I'm strategically omitting that part
The actual probability of your action succeeding would be
k1 * (.9 * k2) * (.9 * k3) ... * (.9 * kn) where k is your chance to kill a given enemy.
Another way to write that would be
.9^(n-1) * product(k1, kn)
I'm thinking, the safe number of attacks is 3-4, based off of three things:
1. First attack will always hit, which means as long as the first target's Hp is less than or equal to the bottom limit of the sword's damage (after factoring in armor), first attack will always kill.
2. Second attack will have a 90% chance to hit, both the attack itself and the chance of getting there, which in the words of Jake Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer, might as well be 100.
3. There is an earlier Ranger perk which pretty much every Reaper Ranger will pick up (since the other option is to Reaper what Snap Shot was to Gunslinger in EU/EW) where if you have at least one kill in a turn, the first attack against the ranger during the alien phase will always miss, even if it's psionics or explosives. That means even if you fail to kill the 3rd (because of a miss or not enough damage) as long as it's the only active enemy, your ranger is still safe.
EDIT: It's also worth noting that you do not have to use the extra action after a kill to do another sword attack, The first video I saw it in action, the guy used it to kill about 3, then used the extra action from the last kill to move into cover.
Kind of like In The Zone or BulletSwarm then.
Also point 3 makes me hope that the animation for that skill taking effect is them deflecting the plasma with the sword jedi/movie samurai style.
If not, someone please mod that animation in.
0
FreiA French Prometheus UnboundDeadwoodRegistered Userregular
Yeah 11pm is basically perfect for me, by that time I will have zero distractions. Time to start planning out my squad goals.
I think we're probably nitpicking here. When I disagreed with Phyphor's comment, it was because in the way in which he worded it, it sound like he was saying the chance to hit for each separate attack went down, not that the odds of having X successful kills went down the greater the value of X (which I don't disagree with, and not just because of the chance of having a string of hits). It didn't help that there is another skill where the odds of hitting does go down until you miss or run out of ammo.
I find that things go much more smoothly when we assume people understand the gambler's fallacy (and read their posts as if that's the case) until it is blatantly proven that they don't
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
I think one of the coolest possibilities of modding for this one is going to be overloading the game with different classes and class variants. Sure, maybe you can reliably get a good campaign going when you bring back a Sharpshooter, a Specialist, a Grenadier, and a Ranger from the first mission. But what about when you bring back a Tactician, a Medic, a Ninja, and a Saboteur?
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Wait I am incorrect looking at Steam. It will unlock at 6am my time, so I will be able to play it once I get home and install it.
Then because my computer is, um, not good, probably wait another hour to begin playing :P
Yeah but I have literally 0 basis of knowledge for "can you kill" so I'm strategically omitting that part
The actual probability of your action succeeding would be
k1 * (.9 * k2) * (.9 * k3) ... * (.9 * kn) where k is your chance to kill a given enemy.
Another way to write that would be
.9^(n-1) * product(k1, kn)
I'm thinking, the safe number of attacks is 3-4, based off of three things:
1. First attack will always hit, which means as long as the first target's Hp is less than or equal to the bottom limit of the sword's damage (after factoring in armor), first attack will always kill.
2. Second attack will have a 90% chance to hit, both the attack itself and the chance of getting there, which in the words of Jake Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer, might as well be 100.
3. There is an earlier Ranger perk which pretty much every Reaper Ranger will pick up (since the other option is to Reaper what Snap Shot was to Gunslinger in EU/EW) where if you have at least one kill in a turn, the first attack against the ranger during the alien phase will always miss, even if it's psionics or explosives. That means even if you fail to kill the 3rd (because of a miss or not enough damage) as long as it's the only active enemy, your ranger is still safe.
EDIT: It's also worth noting that you do not have to use the extra action after a kill to do another sword attack, The first video I saw it in action, the guy used it to kill about 3, then used the extra action from the last kill to move into cover.
But it's not. 90% isn't 100% and 1 in 10 times you do this you will utterly fail to do anything at all. Second attack has a 90% chance yes, you have a 1 in 5 chance to screw up at this point. #3 you have a 3 in 10 chance to stop here. You get your 4th hit 2 out of 3 times.
I mean if you take "90% chance to hit, both the attack itself and the chance of getting there, which in the words of Jake Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer, might as well be 100" as true then you ought to be able to continue indefinitely!
Now, if you managed to get the first attack off that doesn't affect your chances of later attacks, it just refers to the prior probability of a chain of d10s not rolling a 1
Personally, I consider 2 the reliable number - and if you plan for 2 then you will be less exposed too
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited February 2016
Now, if you managed to get the first attack off that doesn't affect your chances of later attacks, it just refers to the prior probability of a chain of d10s not rolling a 1
It doesn't change your probability of hitting but does change the maths on killing, which changes the probability of getting successive attacks. Essentially Reaper needs to be carefully planned around the probability of killing each enemy and the order you do so based on their current HP.
Now, if you managed to get the first attack off that doesn't affect your chances of later attacks, it just refers to the prior probability of a chain of d10s not rolling a 1
It doesn't change your probability of hitting but does change the maths on killing.
At this point I think it's safe to assume there's an invisible "and then you also have to factor in how likely you are to kill each target" at the end of every post which is discussing reaper.
Now, if you managed to get the first attack off that doesn't affect your chances of later attacks, it just refers to the prior probability of a chain of d10s not rolling a 1
It doesn't change your probability of hitting but does change the maths on killing, which changes the probability of getting successive attacks. Essentially Reaper needs to be carefully planned around the probability of killing each enemy and the order you do so based on their current HP.
Yeah but that is extremely situational plus I haven't looked at the skill trees so I don't know how it would affect kill %
Yeah but I have literally 0 basis of knowledge for "can you kill" so I'm strategically omitting that part
The actual probability of your action succeeding would be
k1 * (.9 * k2) * (.9 * k3) ... * (.9 * kn) where k is your chance to kill a given enemy.
Another way to write that would be
.9^(n-1) * product(k1, kn)
I'm thinking, the safe number of attacks is 3-4, based off of three things:
1. First attack will always hit, which means as long as the first target's Hp is less than or equal to the bottom limit of the sword's damage (after factoring in armor), first attack will always kill.
2. Second attack will have a 90% chance to hit, both the attack itself and the chance of getting there, which in the words of Jake Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer, might as well be 100.
3. There is an earlier Ranger perk which pretty much every Reaper Ranger will pick up (since the other option is to Reaper what Snap Shot was to Gunslinger in EU/EW) where if you have at least one kill in a turn, the first attack against the ranger during the alien phase will always miss, even if it's psionics or explosives. That means even if you fail to kill the 3rd (because of a miss or not enough damage) as long as it's the only active enemy, your ranger is still safe.
EDIT: It's also worth noting that you do not have to use the extra action after a kill to do another sword attack, The first video I saw it in action, the guy used it to kill about 3, then used the extra action from the last kill to move into cover.
But it's not. 90% isn't 100% and 1 in 10 times you do this you will utterly fail to do anything at all. Second attack has a 90% chance yes, you have a 1 in 5 chance to screw up at this point. #3 you have a 3 in 10 chance to stop here. You get your 4th hit 2 out of 3 times.
I mean if you take "90% chance to hit, both the attack itself and the chance of getting there, which in the words of Jake Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer, might as well be 100" as true then you ought to be able to continue indefinitely!
Now, if you managed to get the first attack off that doesn't affect your chances of later attacks, it just refers to the prior probability of a chain of d10s not rolling a 1
Personally, I consider 2 the reliable number - and if you plan for 2 then you will be less exposed too
First Reaper attack always hits, full stop. It will never miss, and barring a miscalculation or bad luck with damage/dodge rolls, it will never fail to kill.
So you are pretty much guaranteed to have that second attack, which means the second attack has a 9 in 10 chance of success, not a 4 in 5, that is your odds of getting to attack #4. (again, barring not doing enough damage because of rolls/penalties)
Foefaller on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Also the other thing to remember about reaper is just because you get an attack doesn't mean you need to make another. You can use the extra move to just run away instead of attacking again, which makes it hugely versatile.
Awww shit dudes, they finally announced the launch time and it's midnight eastern tomorrow. 1 day and 13 hours from now. Time to stock up on lots of healthy things like water, whole grains, vegetables, and fruits to keep my body going, and also just an absolute massive amount of meth so I can play this game until I die.
I would like to point out that the countdown at the beginning of this thread, which I set up a few weeks ago, is still correct. 8-)
For business reasons, I must preserve the outward sign of sanity.
--Mark Twain
What it means to me is that my Reaper attack will probably be the first thing out the gate, and I'll have to do contingency planning for each subsequent kill. "OK, got him. I have enough range and damage to kill this guy, but if I whiff I'm in no cover and the sniper can't see that one. So maybe this one..."
Which sounds like a lot of fun, honestly.
And Blademaster. I wonder if we'll be able to set up to play Berzerker ping pong again? That was so much fun.
+5
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited February 2016
Well, melee enemies usually have dodge and some of them have a fun skill called parry....
Edit: Which does kind of also play into the "Sword is kind of at a disadvantage compared to the shotgun" thing from earlier. You can't parry a shotgun.
Well, melee enemies usually have dodge and some of them have a fun skill called parry....
Edit: Which does kind of also play into the "Sword is kind of at a disadvantage compared to the shotgun" thing from earlier. You can't parry a shotgun.
Well I mean you can but I don't think any of your soldiers are solar exalted in this one so
I just think its funny that folks are complaining about risk in a tactical strategy game.
It's not the risk being complained about; it's that, once again, the skill tree picks are not very well balanced, a lot of 'options' in the tactical layer are false choices and some of this stuff should have been obvious enough.
Slash attacking enemies with the sword is a big risk. That's fine, in theory, if the rewards can outweigh that risk... but they don't. Shotgunning enemies is less risky, more reliable, more likely to confirm a kill, etc. It's outright better in every scenario to use the shotgun where possible (you can always appeal to edge case scenarios, like if you're out of ammunition or for some reason need to gold move attack an enemy without activating Reaper - but then we're not really talking about risk/reward anymore).
You should never, ever pick Blademaster (at least, if current builds & chances to hit are anything to go by). It's not riskier but more potentially rewarding than Phantom; it's just outright worse.
With Love and Courage
+4
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Yeah and the sheer utility power of phantom, as demonstrated by any of the main streamers I can point to, really makes the +2 damage to swords a pretty poor choice at that tier. The "OMG I have a sword and this is awesome" feeling from Blademaster is almost becoming a trap, especially because I am noticing more and more that the best skill there is the free attack one (kinda like CCS from XCOM, but with a sword) that everyone takes. I don't see a lot of use of the other blademaster skills and it's clear there was a rapid "meta" developing about just how ridiculously good phantom is in terms of utility.
Well, melee enemies usually have dodge and some of them have a fun skill called parry....
Edit: Which does kind of also play into the "Sword is kind of at a disadvantage compared to the shotgun" thing from earlier. You can't parry a shotgun.
One of the things that is (admittedly situationally) appealing out Blademaster is the idea that I can...finish off a pod of heavily damaged enemies. Between grenades and killzone and other goodies, I can certainly picture a pod of guys at 1-2 health that my Blademaster can come through and mop up.
+3
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
I just think its funny that folks are complaining about risk in a tactical strategy game.
It's not the risk being complained about; it's that, once again, the skill tree picks are not very well balanced, a lot of 'options' in the tactical layer are false choices and some of this stuff should have been obvious enough.
Slash attacking enemies with the sword is a big risk. That's fine, in theory, if the rewards can outweigh that risk... but they don't. Shotgunning enemies is less risky, more reliable, more likely to confirm a kill, etc. It's outright better in every scenario to use the shotgun where possible (you can always appeal to edge case scenarios, like if you're out of ammunition or for some reason need to gold move attack an enemy without activating Reaper - but then we're not really talking about risk/reward anymore).
You should never, ever pick Blademaster (at least, if current builds & chances to hit are anything to go by). It's not riskier but more potentially rewarding than Phantom; it's just outright worse.
Eh. Not really. I just ran through the Ranger skill trees and both seem pretty balanced.
I think the problem is folks got it in their head that Phantom is the "shotgun" tree and Blademaster is the sword one.
However, most of the skills are made in a way that the Ranger should be using both weapons depending on the situation. With the final rank skills and maybe the +2 sword damage skill being the only real specialized ones.
To me, the complaints aren't about the skills its that the shotgun can have a 100% chance to hit and the damage ranges are the same. And even then I don't know how much the ability to dash and slash might affect this equation.
So yeah, shotguns do seem like a safer option but that could easily be fixed with some minor tweaks and isn't as dire as folks are trying to make it out to be.
I think sword 100% to hit with a -5/10/15 or whatever on the Reaper attacks would work well, and it'd wind up feeling more fair to people because whiffs would come most often when you tried to eke out just one more kill.
What it means to me is that my Reaper attack will probably be the first thing out the gate, and I'll have to do contingency planning for each subsequent kill. "OK, got him. I have enough range and damage to kill this guy, but if I whiff I'm in no cover and the sniper can't see that one. So maybe this one..."
Which sounds like a lot of fun, honestly.
And Blademaster. I wonder if we'll be able to set up to play Berzerker ping pong again? That was so much fun.
Enemy spoilers:
Noooope. No more Berzerker ping pong.
Firaxis did something with melee exclusive enemies that is kind of interesting and will no doubt be frustrating, but I love it:
They can attack you upon being activated, and attack you after dashing. No more target dummy 'Zerks or 'Lids - just like in OldCOM, they can rush in from out of the dark and make breakfast out of your guys.
I have no doubt this is going to result in some deaths / situations that just feel cheap, but I'm okay with that given the alternative of melee enemies once again being comic relief at best.
With Love and Courage
+3
SnicketysnickThe Greatest Hype Man inWesterosRegistered Userregular
From what I saw in Beagles stream, Berserkers behave like normal enemies. 'lids behaved that way in Firaxis' stream the other day though. Berserkers also roll for 3-5 damage, so maybe something is completely fucked with Beagle's version.
Posts
CST BestST
Pacific coast comes through once again. BADA-BOOM
Cool. That means I'll get to play (ok, get to build my AspectVoid character file) while on Lunch on Friday, and then can dig into the game right after work.
I think we're probably nitpicking here. When I disagreed with Phyphor's comment, it was because in the way in which he worded it, it sound like he was saying the chance to hit for each separate attack went down, not that the odds of having X successful kills went down the greater the value of X (which I don't disagree with, and not just because of the chance of having a string of hits). It didn't help that there is another skill where the odds of hitting does go down until you miss or run out of ammo.
Nothing was more the antithesis of what X-COM was than a scripted map.
I'm thinking, the safe number of attacks is 3-4, based off of three things:
1. First attack will always hit, which means as long as the first target's Hp is less than or equal to the bottom limit of the sword's damage (after factoring in armor), first attack will always kill.
2. Second attack will have a 90% chance to hit, both the attack itself and the chance of getting there, which in the words of Jake Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer, might as well be 100.
3. There is an earlier Ranger perk which pretty much every Reaper Ranger will pick up (since the other option is to Reaper what Snap Shot was to Gunslinger in EU/EW) where if you have at least one kill in a turn, the first attack against the ranger during the alien phase will always miss, even if it's psionics or explosives. That means even if you fail to kill the 3rd (because of a miss or not enough damage) as long as it's the only active enemy, your ranger is still safe.
EDIT: It's also worth noting that you do not have to use the extra action after a kill to do another sword attack, The first video I saw it in action, the guy used it to kill about 3, then used the extra action from the last kill to move into cover.
SniperGuyGaming on PSN / SniperGuy710 on Xbone Live
So I'll have the game all Friday morning and only be able to stare at it, but at least I can get some extra writing done for work...
Kind of like In The Zone or BulletSwarm then.
Also point 3 makes me hope that the animation for that skill taking effect is them deflecting the plasma with the sword jedi/movie samurai style.
If not, someone please mod that animation in.
I find that things go much more smoothly when we assume people understand the gambler's fallacy (and read their posts as if that's the case) until it is blatantly proven that they don't
Then because my computer is, um, not good, probably wait another hour to begin playing :P
But it's not. 90% isn't 100% and 1 in 10 times you do this you will utterly fail to do anything at all. Second attack has a 90% chance yes, you have a 1 in 5 chance to screw up at this point. #3 you have a 3 in 10 chance to stop here. You get your 4th hit 2 out of 3 times.
I mean if you take "90% chance to hit, both the attack itself and the chance of getting there, which in the words of Jake Solomon, Gentleman Adventurer, might as well be 100" as true then you ought to be able to continue indefinitely!
Now, if you managed to get the first attack off that doesn't affect your chances of later attacks, it just refers to the prior probability of a chain of d10s not rolling a 1
Personally, I consider 2 the reliable number - and if you plan for 2 then you will be less exposed too
It doesn't change your probability of hitting but does change the maths on killing, which changes the probability of getting successive attacks. Essentially Reaper needs to be carefully planned around the probability of killing each enemy and the order you do so based on their current HP.
At this point I think it's safe to assume there's an invisible "and then you also have to factor in how likely you are to kill each target" at the end of every post which is discussing reaper.
Yeah but that is extremely situational plus I haven't looked at the skill trees so I don't know how it would affect kill %
First Reaper attack always hits, full stop. It will never miss, and barring a miscalculation or bad luck with damage/dodge rolls, it will never fail to kill.
So you are pretty much guaranteed to have that second attack, which means the second attack has a 9 in 10 chance of success, not a 4 in 5, that is your odds of getting to attack #4. (again, barring not doing enough damage because of rolls/penalties)
I would like to point out that the countdown at the beginning of this thread, which I set up a few weeks ago, is still correct. 8-)
--Mark Twain
Which sounds like a lot of fun, honestly.
And Blademaster. I wonder if we'll be able to set up to play Berzerker ping pong again? That was so much fun.
Edit: Which does kind of also play into the "Sword is kind of at a disadvantage compared to the shotgun" thing from earlier. You can't parry a shotgun.
Well I mean you can but I don't think any of your soldiers are solar exalted in this one so
It's not the risk being complained about; it's that, once again, the skill tree picks are not very well balanced, a lot of 'options' in the tactical layer are false choices and some of this stuff should have been obvious enough.
Slash attacking enemies with the sword is a big risk. That's fine, in theory, if the rewards can outweigh that risk... but they don't. Shotgunning enemies is less risky, more reliable, more likely to confirm a kill, etc. It's outright better in every scenario to use the shotgun where possible (you can always appeal to edge case scenarios, like if you're out of ammunition or for some reason need to gold move attack an enemy without activating Reaper - but then we're not really talking about risk/reward anymore).
You should never, ever pick Blademaster (at least, if current builds & chances to hit are anything to go by). It's not riskier but more potentially rewarding than Phantom; it's just outright worse.
All ranger team, all Blademaster. Just cutting Sectopods at the knees.
Eh. Not really. I just ran through the Ranger skill trees and both seem pretty balanced.
I think the problem is folks got it in their head that Phantom is the "shotgun" tree and Blademaster is the sword one.
However, most of the skills are made in a way that the Ranger should be using both weapons depending on the situation. With the final rank skills and maybe the +2 sword damage skill being the only real specialized ones.
To me, the complaints aren't about the skills its that the shotgun can have a 100% chance to hit and the damage ranges are the same. And even then I don't know how much the ability to dash and slash might affect this equation.
So yeah, shotguns do seem like a safer option but that could easily be fixed with some minor tweaks and isn't as dire as folks are trying to make it out to be.
Enemy spoilers:
Firaxis did something with melee exclusive enemies that is kind of interesting and will no doubt be frustrating, but I love it:
They can attack you upon being activated, and attack you after dashing. No more target dummy 'Zerks or 'Lids - just like in OldCOM, they can rush in from out of the dark and make breakfast out of your guys.
I have no doubt this is going to result in some deaths / situations that just feel cheap, but I'm okay with that given the alternative of melee enemies once again being comic relief at best.
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO