The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Some of these [chat]s are Ostriches.
Posts
Ah I'm definitely prepared. The way I played Dark Souls 2 would make anyone just die to watch me; I'm really bad at it. But it's a solo game so it's only my own problem, and if I am ok with a glacial pace of improvement and never really learning how to do some things, then it's ok!
I'm feeling like want a game to play through instead of a more episodic game, but also not an rpg, so this is probably the one.
That's what I'm referring to, yes
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm even worse at Convoy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't recall there being some crucial psionic stat in the new XCOM? It's been a while though, maybe I'm misremembering
I do recall that psionics weren't that important. Shotgun man is best, no for brain gun
I think 2 is vastly mechanically better and it definitely uses the psiops facility to just train up a rookie
i am obviously very good still at this game
There is not a psionic stat in xcom2; you make a psionic person by putting any rookie in the psi chamber
the stat that varies from person to person is 'combat intelligence', which determines how much xp they get from going on missions
there's also presumably a hidden stat determining compatibility with their fellow soldiers
ah everyone I lived with including me was in the 'beat the game a million times on a million ships' category
and yes, you develop best practices to mitigate the effects of rng, as you do with any game with a lot of randomness
I beat classic ironman with a bunch of dummies for the most part. Because they lived, and that's the most crucial qualification
My feelings on this are basically rooted in a CompSci/Maths/Game Theory question of whether something has a solution or not. The more discrete and deterministic the game, the more it becomes an explicitly solvable puzzle. The less, the more it's strategy that reflects the sort of plays you like making (targeted aggression on high priority targets, general defence across your units while taking shots at what you safely can, more classic strategies like oblique offensives against formation, etc.).
I'm pretty sure that in the XCOM reboot
If they keep getting sniped, welp.
edit: just thought I should share that with y'all
Advance Wars is a marvelous game against a human opponent who might make varied, unusual decisions. Extremely good. But XCOM is just total garbage for PvP. All those random hit %s decoupled from the careful systems of campaign battles produce swingy nonsense and total matchup domination based on team comp.
Put this claim down, flip it and reverse it
That greenland must be to scale with other places on a map
greenland is a size lying bastard
making greenland appear large on a map should be punishable by 10 years hard labor in the gulag
I have beaten FTL with every model of every ship. I would not call it a very good example of a game that you can win consistently. Some ships can win consistently because they start with everything you need until the midgame or later and you don't need to hedge any bets because you can kill every ship you meet. If you are given the tools required (a few lasers or teleporter) from the start you're set, but if you're firing missiles or don't start with shields you need luck upon luck to get out of the starting hole you're in before you just die or run out of resources
Also, second best OST (after Drake's)
That's better, but I wouldn't have known that without looking under the hood at a wiki just now, and the game sure does make it feel like Gifted is set when a character is first generated and is deterministic from there.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
What's your secret?
Because I could never figure out what the trick was.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Always get a teleporter, always go full lasers, screw drones unless you start with them and have the recovery mod. Learn to do and always prefer boarding actions for the extra resources. Shields to lv 4 -> dodge to 45 -> max weapon energy, cloak > mind control > hacking
Damn really? Would not have thought that.
Still remember that battle theme. Good shit.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
the latter that become too much like the former often makes one lose interest - a predictable foe is a very dull one.
but for a lot of strategy games, who gives a shit? Look at my city! look at the map, look how it is in pretty colours!
The thing I don’t like about Pathfinder Kingmaker and a bunch of other DND games is setting up buffs before encounters, which is fiddly and tedious when you know a buff-worthy encounter is about to start and then occasionally punishing when you get ambushed and have to save scum
Also the possibility of always having buffs up just in case is too obnoxious to even contemplate
I don't wanna play spreadsheet wars, I wanna have my first artillery unit pop out as your stupid siege towers and spearmen appear on the horizon. I want to see your certainty of victory turn to ash in your mouth.
Also I like smaller parties because I prefer to micro my characters, but microing a bunch of characters is tedious
Kind of like how I only like Civ type games when they enable tall play
Bear with me
It's been a long time; teleporter strategies were definitely good and foolproof; otherwise I think I just focused on specific types of weapons that I considered good, and also I avoided certain random encounters consistently/never risked it. Hm also there was some particular way I explored/chose routes, but I am not sure!
Learning which encounters to just straight up avoid was very helpful and boarding and teleporting gives a strong advantage.
The end boss can still be just totes insane and impossible sometimes though.
100% chance of success
to get ahead
go home
and play video games
8-)