Who's preordering X-COM?

[thespyder]

Originally Posted by tydas

I would say yes, it seems console sales are disappointing...not sure about pc sales though..

From everything that I have read, the PC arena is actually doing better than the consoles at the moment. Not sure if they are doing 'Good' but at least better. And rightly so (IMHO).

[JamesV]

Yea, I'm just playing on normal for now, trying to learn the game. Took a squad sight sniper with an Archangel armor, and in open levels it was pretty devastating. In the larger alien ships, not as great, but still pretty good.

Going to try pairing that sniper with a ghost armor support (for extra movement) or two, and see if I can kill things before they do their initial move.

[thespyder]

yeah, I finished my first run through on Normal. Now I am going back and trying at Classic/Ironman. let me tell you that the difficulty level in early stages of the game is significantly punishing and unforgiving. I almost want to say that the game needs a little bit of balancing. because the beginning is pretty hard. and the end gets fairly easy. or is that just my perceptions?

[Martimus]

I found the game infinitely easier than the original on normal. I never lost a mission, nor was I ever in danger of losing on ironman. I lost quite a few soldiers and had to make adjustments to my strategy on the fly, but the cliff of a learning curve that the first game had just didn't exist in this game. They did a good job of teaching you the gameplay mechanics as you needed them.

[thespyder]

Originally Posted by Martimus

I found the game infinitely easier than the original on normal. I never lost a mission, nor was I ever in danger of losing on ironman. I lost quite a few soldiers and had to make adjustments to my strategy on the fly, but the cliff of a learning curve that the first game had just didn't exist in this game. They did a good job of teaching you the gameplay mechanics as you needed them.

So absolutely. On normal. I had some hairy moments, but nothing that some adjustments to strategy couldn't solve.

On Classic/Ironman, I am finding it a much steeper beginning. I am already on month 3. I just got lasers and I have 5 man squads now, but I am still losing most of my soldiers on any given mission. And I have lost two missions completely including one from the counsel requesting a civilian extraction.

And when playing Normal, towards the end, I was pretty much going through the motions. Nothing really worried me until that final mission. And even then it was merely a matter of tactics. I finished it and only lost one guy which is unavoidable

Anyway, just saying it could use a little tuning. But yeah, I remember the originals being punishing.

[Howard]

Originally Posted by thespyder

So absolutely. On normal. I had some hairy moments, but nothing that some adjustments to strategy couldn't solve.

On Classic/Ironman, I am finding it a much steeper beginning. I am already on month 3. I just got lasers and I have 5 man squads now, but I am still losing most of my soldiers on any given mission. And I have lost two missions completely including one from the counsel requesting a civilian extraction.

And when playing Normal, towards the end, I was pretty much going through the motions. Nothing really worried me until that final mission. And even then it was merely a matter of tactics. I finished it and only lost one guy which is unavoidable

Anyway, just saying it could use a little tuning. But yeah, I remember the originals being punishing.

If you need help, you should check out the web streams for the Impossible Ironman playthroughs on the 2K Games forums. This guy in particular seems pretty good: http://www.twitch.tv/godwrath/videos

The only problem is, in Impossible you need to exploit explosives non-stop which hurts your research and weaponry advancement. Maybe in Classic you won't need to blow up your resources quite so often.

[Daverino]

Originally Posted by Howard

If you need help, you should check out the web streams for the Impossible Ironman playthroughs on the 2K Games forums. This guy in particular seems pretty good: http://www.twitch.tv/godwrath/videos

The only problem is, in Impossible you need to exploit explosives non-stop which hurts your research and weaponry advancement. Maybe in Classic you won't need to blow up your resources quite so often.

Yeah, on Classic and up just go ahead and ignore Dr. Vahlen. Grenades, rockets, guided missiles, nuclear bombs. Whatever you got, throw it at the aliens. You're going to be facing tons of aliens anyhow and weapon fragments won't be hard too get anyhow. But aliens are so much more lethal and if you don't take one out with a grenade when you have a chance, you're probably going to get blown away.

Actually, this is pretty much the same as the original X-COM. You didn't earn kills with grenades, but at the very beginning, when you had spit-ball launchers for your primary weapons, you threw them left and right. Same thing for taking a tank. Ups your firepower considerably, but at the cost of leveling up your soldiers.

[TheSlamma]

Originally Posted by thespyder

From everything that I have read, the PC arena is actually doing better than the consoles at the moment. Not sure if they are doing 'Good' but at least better. And rightly so (IMHO).

Many of the guys I play BF3 with are former console guys, they got a taste of BF3 in DX11 at well over the console 30fps lock and said they were tired of the outdated hardware holding them in on the same engine rehashes. Some of them now actually don't want to buy anything more for their old console systems.

I think as long as the PS3 and 360 are out their numbers will decline and PC can potentially go up, as much as people say they want innovative and quality storylines over graphics there is still a big base there that says graphics/engine quality still matters.

I'm sure when Xbox 720 and PS4 hit the numbers will swing back to console for awhile and the cycle will continue, but those devices are getting closer and closer to being PC's now and PC's are getting easier and easier to use as media stations so it almost seems like a merge eventually.

[thespyder]

Originally Posted by Daverino

Actually, this is pretty much the same as the original X-COM. You didn't earn kills with grenades, but at the very beginning, when you had spit-ball launchers for your primary weapons, you threw them left and right. Same thing for taking a tank. Ups your firepower considerably, but at the cost of leveling up your soldiers.

LOL. Yeah, I was thinking this myself. That isn't it odd that for a World organization, you start out with a handful of rookies. I would think that you would at least get "The Best of the best of the best, SIR!" Instead of guys that are going to wet their pants as soon as the bad guys start shooting back at them.

And thanks both of you guys for the advise. I am getting through it. And don't think I need "Help", so much as it is pretty frustrating and humiliating to go from the tail end of Normal and wiping out everything to Classic/Ironman rookies getting KIA every mission. I just need to get some traction is all.

[ChronoReverse]

Originally Posted by JamesV

Yea, I'm just playing on normal for now, trying to learn the game. Took a squad sight sniper with an Archangel armor, and in open levels it was pretty devastating. In the larger alien ships, not as great, but still pretty good.

Give your Snipers Gunslinger and the best pistol you have. They'll have a lot of punch for indoor areas (and high accuracy) plus if you get the foundry upgrades, each pistol will outperform the rifle in the same range (e.g., plasma pistols hitting harder than plasma rifles).

[kevinsbane]

Originally Posted by ChronoReverse

Give your Snipers Gunslinger and the best pistol you have. They'll have a lot of punch for indoor areas (and high accuracy) plus if you get the foundry upgrades, each pistol will outperform the rifle in the same range (e.g., plasma pistols hitting harder than plasma rifles).

Now that you put it that way, it's true... +2 dmg, at least +1 dmg from the pistol damage upgrade, with additional crit and aim as compared to a rifle...

6 gunslinging "snipers" saving the world... I like the idea

[Howard]

What's the alternative to Gunslinger? I remember I didn't grab Gunslinger because I felt the other option was better.

[thespyder]

Originally Posted by Howard

What's the alternative to Gunslinger? I remember I didn't grab Gunslinger because I felt the other option was better.

You have a choice between gunslinger and higher ground. So it is either more damage with a pistol or better overall to hit and reduced cover at elevation.

Has anyone tried the Battle scanner? Is it any good? And does it work in conjunction with Squad Site?

[Howard]

Originally Posted by thespyder

You have a choice between gunslinger and higher ground. So it is either more damage with a pistol or better overall to hit and reduced cover at elevation.

Has anyone tried the Battle scanner? Is it any good? And does it work in conjunction with Squad Site?

Yes and yes. Allows you to get the first hit in and find out what the good cover sites are.

Archangel armor works very well with Higher Ground but you can play Ghost-style with a Gunslinger sniper just as well, I suspect.

[thespyder]

Originally Posted by Howard

Archangel armor works very well with Higher Ground but you can play Ghost-style with a Gunslinger sniper just as well, I suspect.

Um, are you sure about that? I was sure that I read in game via the description that Higher ground specifically does not work with Archangel armor? or were you meaning using it to get to higher ground and THEN shooting?

[Howard]

Originally Posted by thespyder

Um, are you sure about that? I was sure that I read in game via the description that Higher ground specifically does not work with Archangel armor? or were you meaning using it to get to higher ground and THEN shooting?

Huh, strange. Now that you mention it, I do remember that. And yeah, that's what I meant.

So yeah, I guess Gunslinger is the slightly better ability, at least mid-to-end-game. Early game you don't have the Foundry upgrades.

[Clinkster]

Originally Posted by thespyder

Um, are you sure about that? I was sure that I read in game via the description that Higher ground specifically does not work with Archangel armor? or were you meaning using it to get to higher ground and THEN shooting?

Correct, archangel sniping does not give you bonuses for elevations.

I did read somewhere (not sure if true) that it does REMOVE the aim penalty when opponents are too close.

[kevinsbane]

Originally Posted by Howard

Yes and yes. Allows you to get the first hit in and find out what the good cover sites are.

Archangel armor works very well with Higher Ground but you can play Ghost-style with a Gunslinger sniper just as well, I suspect.

Archangel armour, despite the description, does actually give you elevation bonuses.

Battle scanner is at its best when thrown through doorways.

Damn good ground, the alt ability to gunslinger, I find to be mostly overkill.

[ChronoReverse]

Originally Posted by Clinkster

Correct, archangel sniping does not give you bonuses for elevations.

I did read somewhere (not sure if true) that it does REMOVE the aim penalty when opponents are too close.

Actually, Archangel Sniping doesn't give you the elevation bonuses for Damn Good Ground.

If you press F1 to see your accuracy, you'll notice that you'll get the +20 Aim bonus for being above your target.

[thespyder]

This might be a bit OT, but. Finished my first run through on normal. Been trying to get into my second run on Classic/Ironman. And finding that, although the difficulty is higher, there isn't a whole lot that is sucking me into the game at the moment. So, wanting to take a break and play something else.

Anyone out there have any suggestions on something to play that is similar? I actually have a game of ToEE running and have really been enjoying that. But am almost at the end of that as well. So, you can see I am really wanting/feeling the turn based experience. And very much enjoying the tactical aspects of both Xcom and ToEE.

I don't really want to go back and play the originals at this time. I also have played recently GalCiv 2, so that isn't what I want either. I generally gravitate more towards RPGs rather than just about anything else. and although I enjoyed D2 (not so much D3), I don't find games like that to be overly tactical (plus real time not really my thing). Oh, and I am taking a wait and see stance with regards to BG:EE.

So, loads of qualifications and things I won't do. Any suggestions on what I can play? Again, just until I get back into an Xcom mood?

[Clinkster]

Originally Posted by thespyder

This might be a bit OT, but. Finished my first run through on normal. Been trying to get into my second run on Classic/Ironman. And finding that, although the difficulty is higher, there isn't a whole lot that is sucking me into the game at the moment. So, wanting to take a break and play something else.

I don't have a suggestion for a game to play, but I wanted to let you know I felt the same thing after I completed my normal run. I played something else for several weeks before coming back. Game feels much fresher by then.

[thespyder]

Originally Posted by Clinkster

I don't have a suggestion for a game to play, but I wanted to let you know I felt the same thing after I completed my normal run. I played something else for several weeks before coming back. Game feels much fresher by then.

Yeah, I find it to be a really good game, and terribly addicting. Just not a GREAT game. And due to some of the self imposed limitations on the scope (presumably to make it console friendly), it lacks some depth (IMHO) in terms of story and game play elements. Not really a lot in the way of branching story line. Or alternate paths/endings. Which is OK. Just not perfect.

[Clinkster]

Originally Posted by thespyder

Yeah, I find it to be a really good game, and terribly addicting. Just not a GREAT game. And due to some of the self imposed limitations on the scope (presumably to make it console friendly), it lacks some depth (IMHO) in terms of story and game play elements. Not really a lot in the way of branching story line. Or alternate paths/endings. Which is OK. Just not perfect.

The story is meant to be simple, like some B rated horror movie. The linearity isn't surprising, it's difficult to make a multifaceted progression. And I think this game does a pretty damn good job at immersion, making you feel like a commander.

I think it's biggest setbacks are: all the bugs and the console feeling of the UI.

Although, I wish there were a bit more variety than missions where you only avoid aggroing more mobs in the fog. Maybe something like survival missions based on turns. Or difficult many mobs with no fog battles.

[thespyder]

Originally Posted by Clinkster

The story is meant to be simple, like some B rated horror movie. The linearity isn't surprising, it's difficult to make a multifaceted progression. And I think this game does a pretty damn good job at immersion, making you feel like a commander.

I think it's biggest setbacks are: all the bugs and the console feeling of the UI.

Although, I wish there were a bit more variety than missions where you only avoid aggroing more mobs in the fog. Maybe something like survival missions based on turns. Or difficult many mobs with no fog battles.

As far as making it console friendly, I see that the following choices were made.

One single base. This allowed for VO to be more readily adaptable. It also allowed greater graphics with less resources. And it meant that the soldiers didn't need to be so prevalent in order for them to be appropriate level for the encounters.

Limited Map variability. This was done both for economy of resources and in order to fit into a more console (and less resource intensive) environment. This is also why the size of the maps is smaller. And why the size of the squads are smaller.

The whole 'Two moves' decision. Clearly, not only was this done for console resources, but also to more appropriately adapt to less strict strategy market. And it is also why the limited resources cap is so very limited (amo reloads unlimited, one tertiary item, etc...).

and yes, the story is meant to be limited. But I would compare it to SC2 and say that it was even more limited than that. Again, the story is not the main focus of the game. Just saying that they could have gone two ways. One way was to do what GalCiv did in that there is almost no story and it is all about the strategy. the other way is they could have gone SC2 or further and had more branching story line with more end points. Either one would have made for significantly more replayability.

Not to say any of this is 'BAD'. Merely, that it separates the good game it is from the great game it could have been.

Oh, and yeah. The bugs as well.

[Mem]

The final battle is damn hard,got those mind shields but still getting mind controlled etc,lost one soldier getting to the final bosses and out of med packs ,very frustrating infact think I leave it until try tomorrow,if not done by Sunday then the game is getting uninstalled,got too many games to play and I hate it when you get a frustrating game where you can't even make a dent in the progress at the end.


I still think game needs rebalancing,I'm all for a hard game but it should never be frustrating because when a gamer gets frustrated he leaves the game or gives up completely.


I will say it's a not a classic and having played it this far feel they could of made it so much better in many ways,soldier inventory, mores bases etc...thats without bugs or balancing issues.
I'm not the best player or the worst and bet there are many players like me out there.

Oh well off too ME3 MP now,at least that game is not frustrating and actually fun to play.