Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 364

Thread: So snipers can't equip AR's and Heavy's can't equip pistols..

  1. #41
    If you can have 20+ troops on standby for missions, and all you have is 3 heavys and a couple snipers available due to wounds, then you're probably being either careless or too aggressive with your other guys.

    (Going on pure speculation about number of reserve troops. Only meant as a "for instance".)

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by H0RSE View Post
    I still am not convinced. Using rpg classes as an example again, it's like an unbalanced party teaming up yet still being victorious.
    Unbalanced party? To my benefit? I'm talking about downgrading their weapons for tactical reasons. Not giving an unfair advantage of any sort.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Sandy Ego, California
    Posts
    1,898
    That's XCom, baby! Got 12 snipers? Suck it up. Ain't seen a heavy yet and its turn 872? Oh well. Tired of using smoke grenades because that's all your 6 support guys are good for? That's XCom, baby!

    Seriously, the game is about forced challenges and artificially induced crises demanding rude choices on a timeline that you do not get to choose. Hey, does Jake look like a subtle guy?

    If this is all a bit much and hard to swallow, I feel your pain, really. I think that after this game comes out and faces the harsh glare of the real world and real players, Jake will have either made his career in the gaming industry or he's going to be trimming Sid's lawn for the next 20 years. I'm betting on the latter.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsXcom4U View Post
    Unbalanced party? To my benefit? I'm talking about downgrading their weapons for tactical reasons. Not giving an unfair advantage of any sort.
    I meant "unbalanced" as in not optimal - like 3 tanks and a DPS, opposed to a tank, DPS, Healer and CC. So if certain soldier classes are unable to equip certain weapons in XCOM, thus running the chance of having an "unbalanced" squad, (snipers will always have to be long range or pistols - they cannot compensate for lack of other classes) I don't see this as a problem. Something else to note is that I am a fan fan of classes behaving uniquely, with little to no crossover between them - that's what dual classing is for.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by H0RSE View Post
    I meant "unbalanced" as in not optimal - like 3 tanks and a DPS, opposed to a tank, DPS, Healer and CC. So if certain soldier classes are unable to equip certain weapons in XCOM, thus running the chance of having an "unbalanced" squad, (snipers will always have to be long range or pistols - they cannot compensate for lack of other classes) I don't see this as a problem. Something else to note is that I am a fan fan of classes behaving uniquely, with little to no crossover between them - that's what dual classing is for.
    Ah, I see what you mean. I misunderstood you.
    Well, I just hope with the lack of control over which classes the game throws at us, we will be able to make do with the lack of flexibility, whether downgrading weapons or not..

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    502
    Quote Originally Posted by H0RSE View Post
    I meant "unbalanced" as in not optimal - like 3 tanks and a DPS, opposed to a tank, DPS, Healer and CC. So if certain soldier classes are unable to equip certain weapons in XCOM, thus running the chance of having an "unbalanced" squad, (snipers will always have to be long range or pistols - they cannot compensate for lack of other classes) I don't see this as a problem. Something else to note is that I am a fan fan of classes behaving uniquely, with little to no crossover between them - that's what dual classing is for.
    Sorry, unbalanced teams can frequently be just as powerful, if not more so, than balanced teams, in the right circumstances. It all depends on setup, situation, and tactics.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by Ellis_ View Post
    I too wish that we had just a few more options in terms of loadout customization. I would have units armed only with a pistol and as many medpacs as possible. Also, the ammo runner unit is not possible in this version. This is just nitpicking though; 2k has made a stellar game and I can't wait for 10/7.
    Wait. October 7th?

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    282
    While it would be nice to have the flexibility to give ARs to Snipers or let a Heavy carry a pistol, I see where they are going with the forced weapon.

    Also, lets not forget the weapons each have advantages and disadvantages:

    AR - Balanced weapon, no advantage or disadvantage
    Pistol - Secondary Weapon; good if you don't want to reload or are a Sniper and don't have Snap Shot
    Sniper Rifle - Increased Accuracy, but cannot move and shoot without a perk (Snap Shot)
    LMG - Grants 'Supression' Ability, but chews through ammo fast
    Shotguns - Power and accuracy scale to range; great up close, but steadly grows weaker as range increases
    Rocket - (More of a special ability...) Pretty dang powerful, but only one shot and cannot move and shoot

    This comes from watching numerous gameplay movies and monitoring the numbers; snipers always seemed to have higher precentage shots while the LMG went through ammo fast (three shots; Supression counts as two). Also, the first ability gained by the Heavy was Rocket... Supression is just on the bar, so I figure it comes from the gun itself. Shotguns are more of a guess, but an educated one. The Pistol comment comes from Jake talking about giving Snipers the best pistols because they will use them alot (unless they have Snap Shot I guess; likely Snap Shot undoes the bonus from the sniper rifle... so maybe the sniper rifle bonus is +20 Accuracy?)

    Just some food for thought.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    188
    Another thought... it wouldn't make sense for a sniper to gain experience from kills while packing an assault rifle. Since most of your future skills revolve around sniping, and you're not even doing anything beyond spraying and praying...

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by Skyblade View Post
    Sorry, unbalanced teams can frequently be just as powerful, if not more so, than balanced teams, in the right circumstances. It all depends on setup, situation, and tactics.
    That may be true, but it is irreverent in the example I was using, and contributes nothing to the discussion.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,208
    Giving a sniper an AR seems like a waste to me. what's the point?

  12. #52
    I saw a support guy with a LMG. If anyone cares I could probably find it again.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by karlhungusjr View Post
    Giving a sniper an AR seems like a waste to me. what's the point?
    Well, some would argue that it adds "tactical depth."

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by H0RSE View Post
    Well, some would argue that it adds "tactical depth."
    And others would argue that it's terribly silly. Hence why it's an argument.

    Besides, how is being able to equip anyone with anything "tactical depth".

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by billsayswow View Post
    And others would argue that it's terribly silly. Hence why it's an argument.

    Besides, how is being able to equip anyone with anything "tactical depth".
    Ask them - i think it degrades the class system, and makes it more trivial.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Turkey
    Posts
    1,616
    The restriction is just there so the helpless, unthinking masses won't equip the sniper with a shotgun and expect to headshot with it, only to find out the ability isn't compatible with it and be decimated.

    The times have changed! People don't want to think anymore! Deal with it! Firaxis needs to make a living! Original X-COM had it wrong!

    Am I doing it right, guys?

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,208
    Quote Originally Posted by H0RSE View Post
    Well, some would argue that it adds "tactical depth."
    why can't i equip my Fighter with the amulet of +MP??? I DEMAND TACTICAL DEPTH!!!

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,208
    Quote Originally Posted by kingsword View Post
    The restriction is just there so the helpless, unthinking masses won't equip the sniper with a shotgun and expect to headshot with it, only to find out the ability isn't compatible with it and be decimated.

    The times have changed! People don't want to think anymore! Deal with it! Firaxis needs to make a living! Original X-COM had it wrong!

    Am I doing it right, guys?
    If you're trying to construct a strawman since no one actually said such things, then yes.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by Geewhizz View Post
    (Going on pure speculation about number of reserve troops. Only meant as a "for instance".)
    In the First Contact Preview, when they went to hire more soldiers @ 4:19, it showed the limit as 9/99.

    So you can have up to 99 soldiers on hand. That's... a lot. More then I think the vast majority will ever need.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Sandy Ego, California
    Posts
    1,898
    Quote Originally Posted by kingsword View Post
    The restriction is just there so the helpless, unthinking masses won't equip the sniper with a shotgun and expect to headshot with it, only to find out the ability isn't compatible with it and be decimated.

    The times have changed! People don't want to think anymore! Deal with it! Firaxis needs to make a living! Original X-COM had it wrong!

    Am I doing it right, guys?
    If by doing it right you mean making it abundantly clear you are only here to raise hate and discontent, yes.

  21. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Turkey
    Posts
    1,616
    Quote Originally Posted by karlhungusjr View Post
    If you're trying to construct a strawman since no one actually said such things, then yes.
    If someone hasn't yet, it's only a matter of time then. Those are actually gathered from around the threads that has discussions about features removed.
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnergoz View Post
    If by doing it right you mean making it abundantly clear you are only here to raise hate and discontent, yes.
    Hate certainly not as it serves no meaningful purpose. Discontent, as in the state of 'being discontent with features getting removed', then yes, I'm trying to spread that.

  22. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,208
    Quote Originally Posted by kingsword View Post
    If someone hasn't yet, it's only a matter of time then. Those are actually gathered from around the threads that has discussions about features removed.
    No they're not. It's things you THINK people have said instead of actually listening to them. AKA: a strawman argument.

    But since there were no classes in the original, any point you may have had is moot.

  23. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Turkey
    Posts
    1,616
    Everybody could equip everything in the original so not really. You can have have a class system and complete freedom to equip at the same time. Then it would depend on the intellect (WHAT!) of the player to put it to good use.

    If I made 1$ every time somebody told me here "times have changed, deal with it", I could buy a collector's edition of the game.

  24. #64
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Wellington, NZ
    Posts
    1,464
    Kingsword is right. Ro-sham-bo is a tremendously deep game, and including it in X-Com would significantly improve the tactical depth.

    If a feature wasn't a feature of worth, then removing it doesn't hurt.

  25. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Palouse, WA, USA
    Posts
    148
    Looking at the XCOM: Then and Now video it looks like the weapons get a bit locked down. The AR is unavailable to the sniper as the primary weapon, but maybe that's because the sniper should be carrying the sniper rifle as a primary weapon? You can also see that some weapons are class specific. http://www.viddler.com/v/e79d9faa?secret=42351346

  26. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Turkey
    Posts
    1,616
    Quote Originally Posted by ellgieff View Post
    Kingsword is right. Ro-sham-bo is a tremendously deep game, and including it in X-Com would significantly improve the tactical depth.

    If a feature wasn't a feature of worth, then removing it doesn't hurt.
    In fact there's a feature BEING ADDED (OH. MY. GOD.) here, the feature of 'class-locked weapons'. Guess what? It's worth nothing. Yet they still add it.

    Uh oh..

  27. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    865
    There's pros and cons to both approaches.

    If the devs are trying to ensure that the game is all about the players' ability to come up with tactics to suit a situation, this restriction is a very good way to do so. For example, as a player I might develop my standard squad composition (AssAssHeavSupSniSHIV, for example) and if one or more were injured, simply keep equipping someone else with the same loadout regardless of class. By not allowing it, the devs are ensuring that we have to have Plans B, C, D in hand and come up with different tactics based on different squad loadouts.

    It can seem a bit limiting, but I'm not too fussed by it. I'm pretty sure one of the amazing stories I will have from this game will be that one mission where a bunch of 5 snipers had to go into a mission all on their own because everybody else was crocked, and had to use the most unconventional tactics possible to bring home the win.

    Yeah, that'll be one of the stories that I'll be drinking to at the memorial.

  28. #68
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,208
    Quote Originally Posted by kingsword View Post
    Everybody could equip everything in the original so not really. You can have have a class system and complete freedom to equip at the same time. Then it would depend on the intellect (WHAT!) of the player to put it to good use.
    again...what is the point of a sniper having a assault rifle instead of a sniper rifle? classes having class specific items and not being able to use other class items is as old as table top gaming. giving a sniper a non sniper weapon is pointless. The only purpose it seems to serve is for you to have something new to complain about.


    also your "times have changed, deal with it" comment is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

  29. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Turkey
    Posts
    1,616
    There could be a point if they intended to let it be, but as it is now, we'll never really know. But there's one thing we can take for granted: Class-locking everything in a game which doesn't let you select what classes you're going to have is BAD.

    It's rather relevant, because the times have changed and people apparently are somehow dumber, (according to the general consensus on this forum which I disagree) designers had to implement a baby safety net that's class locking items so people won't mistake a sniper rifle with a shotgun in its compatible abilities.

  30. #70
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,208
    Quote Originally Posted by kingsword View Post
    Class-locking everything in a game which doesn't let you select what classes you're going to have is BAD.
    sure. Taht's why every preview is loudly complaining about it...

    It's rather relevant, because the times have changed and people apparently are somehow dumber, (according to the general consensus on this forum which I disagree)
    Another strawman...

    designers had to implement a baby safety net that's class locking items so people won't mistake a sniper rifle with a shotgun in its compatible abilities.
    conjuncture based on absolutely nothing. As I said before classes having class specific items and not being able to use other class items is as old as classes in games. You ignore that fact because it doesn't fit your narrative.

  31. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Sandy Ego, California
    Posts
    1,898
    Quote Originally Posted by kingsword View Post
    (snip)
    Hate certainly not as it serves no meaningful purpose. Discontent, as in the state of 'being discontent with features getting removed', then yes, I'm trying to spread that.
    Removed. Because I just realized I don't really care.

  32. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    48
    I think it's just yet another argument about how people wish the game were more realistic (use more grenades, free shooting at walls, etc.). It's always good when a game has a definite sense of realism, but this isn't a war simulator. It's a strategy game, meaning that the number one priority is making it fun. Part of that fun is balance and challenge. Personally, I love random factors in games as long as I still have a chance at winning. It spices things up and makes it much more fun on my second, third, fourth, etc. playthroughs. If I wasn't "forced" into some compromises, I could just find the strategy that works, roll through the game and put it back on the shelf because my next playthrough would be exactly the same.

    If they let every class use every weapon, classes wouldn't mean so much. A sniper with a an assault rifle isn't really a sniper anymore.

    Technically anyone might have trained to use X weapon in his past, but come on...this is a game. They're not going to program in random background training on every unit. Even if they did, every person would be better at a certain weapon or two (meaning lower hit and damage with the others?) so why would you give it to them? In the real army, soldiers do specialize. Maybe all soldiers have fired a rocket launcher in their career (by the way, I'm not a soldier nor have I ever been so feel free to correct me about any of this if you are) but I assume they aren't all equally adept at it.

  33. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by kingsword View Post
    There could be a point if they intended to let it be, but as it is now, we'll never really know. But there's one thing we can take for granted: Class-locking everything in a game which doesn't let you select what classes you're going to have is BAD.
    But you can select the classes you take out on missions. Not having exactly what you want is kind of the point; XCOM is about scarcity of resources and hard decisions. Do you field 3 snipers and a heavy or one sniper, one support and two rookies? By class-locking weapons, the game is forcing yet another decision on you at mission launch.

    The genesis of that decision could come from failing to field enough rookies to get enough of each class to have the variety you want in spite of fatigue and injury. Class locking reinforces this bad call, punishing you for it.

    That's not a flaw, that's a feature. That's the core of what XCOM is; hard decisions and reaping what you sow (or didn't sow).

    Look, I know I won't change your mind and you have strong opinions on a lot of the changes and removed systems, but suffice it to say that while I respect your opinions and right to voice them, I don't agree with many of them. I hope you enjoy the game, but if you don't, it won't make a difference to me.

    All that matters to me is that I will enjoy it and that Firaxis will have a success on their hands. Early indications point to the affirmative on both.

  34. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,390
    Quote Originally Posted by eskr View Post
    Huh.
    They told us that classes only added benefits, no downsides. (And thus weren't directly limiting.)
    That's bs if what you mention is correct and I'm disappointed by it.
    Wasn't that they said was "All of them are good at killing aliens", not that they don't have downsides? Basically, even a Support soldier is good at combat, but in a different manner to how Heavies or Snipers do it. It creates variety instead of having a homogenous squad with identical functions and tactics. No one complains that Rooks can only move vertically or that Knights can only move in an L-shaped fashion.

    It's not like there isn't merit to having classes be weapons-flexible though. As a Mass Effect 3 player, I appreciated the added ability to be able to choose whatever weapon I like no matter what class I used. But then again, ME3 and XCOM are two different games: the former is an RPG that emphasizes individual skill with a modicum of squad-based tactics, while XCOM's primary gameplay feature is on the squad-based tactics themselves. Having limitations on what your squad can carry further entices tactical thinking by requiring you to think about each classes' strengths and weaknesses, instead of just equipping everyone with Blaster Launchers and levelling the entire place.

  35. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    121
    Support=Grenades

    They get persk for carrying more grenades as well as using smoke grenades if im not completely mistaken. At least thats what I gathered from the PAX streams.

  36. #76
    Concluding from the livestreams and other videos, the guns don't seem to differ very much from each other apart from damage, accuracy and maybe "ammo meter" (and only the damage stat seems to be clearly shown...). The weapons themselves are rather streamlined, and like it's been pointed out, combat roles are defined mainly by class. So equipping a sniper with an AR would either be pointless, or seriously overpowered if you could move and shoot with abilities like Headshot or Squadsight. A heavy with an AR would probably be even more pointless. The shotgun seems to be a major exception here, and hopefully there are other similar options...

    The system will work, and most likely it works really well, but being the gun nut that I am, I would've preferred a lot more complex weapon system and selection than what the game seems to have, in addition to the class system, for the sake of variety and more choices. Lack of automatic fire is IMHO an excellent example of this. Every attack is either a hit or miss, there's no hitting with half of the bullets in a burst. Of course I don't know for sure, but I doubt things like selecting fire mode would've been difficult to implement and balance properly.

  37. #77
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    118
    You see this is what baffles me. Don't get me wrong but on a sniper I would take a sniper rifle over an AR any day the reason being that if its his particular weapon of choice why change it. Solution to all your problems, keep as many rookies as you can around the base rotating them out when you need them. It cant be that hard surely ?. In my initial playthrough I intend to keep as many rookies as I can easily afford to and to rotate them out, try to create several 'squads' of replacements as inevitably you'll lose more than just a few troops as you progress.

  38. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Turkey
    Posts
    1,616
    Quote Originally Posted by karlhungusjr View Post
    sure. Taht's why every preview is loudly complaining about it...
    There's a reason it called a Preview, previews aren't reviews.
    Another strawman...
    I hear you.
    conjuncture based on absolutely nothing. As I said before classes having class specific items and not being able to use other class items is as old as classes in games. You ignore that fact because it doesn't fit your narrative.
    And classes not being limited to class-specific weapons is probably as old as that. I'm not ignoring that but then again, it's not DnD but X-COM. Don't need to implement unnecessary limitations to a franchise that's famed with its freedom in gameplay.
    Quote Originally Posted by Battlemage View Post
    But you can select the classes you take out on missions. Not having exactly what you want is kind of the point; XCOM is about scarcity of resources and hard decisions. Do you field 3 snipers and a heavy or one sniper, one support and two rookies? By class-locking weapons, the game is forcing yet another decision on you at mission launch.

    The genesis of that decision could come from failing to field enough rookies to get enough of each class to have the variety you want in spite of fatigue and injury. Class locking reinforces this bad call, punishing you for it.

    That's not a flaw, that's a feature. That's the core of what XCOM is; hard decisions and reaping what you sow (or didn't sow).

    Look, I know I won't change your mind and you have strong opinions on a lot of the changes and removed systems, but suffice it to say that while I respect your opinions and right to voice them, I don't agree with many of them. I hope you enjoy the game, but if you don't, it won't make a difference to me.

    All that matters to me is that I will enjoy it and that Firaxis will have a success on their hands. Early indications point to the affirmative on both.
    That's assuming you draw from a limitless pool that has every class available aplenty on the same expertise level. Let's see, if I was let to choose what kind of classes I precisely want, then I could be rightfully denied the opportunity to form up proper teams because I neglected to 'train' them. But here, I'm being force-fed arbitrary combinations that's further aggravated by class-locked items. Can I have a couple of rocket launchers? No, because RNG didn't deem me worthy to have those. I have to try my chances with the dice some more but in this particular case, you need to farm through missions to get another roll at dice.

    Core of X-COM was never ever being force-fed abstract rules whose sole reason of existence is an illusion of difficulty. If anything, it was about the player forcing his own way and strategy through, tearing down walls with a looted rocket launcher wielded by a sniper.

    And I hope that I'll be proven wrong and we'll get an even deeper game and enjoy it all together. This however, I'm not seeing from what they showed us so far. But man, I do wish that really hard.

  39. #79
    Is class paths based on how you use your rookies in combat?

  40. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,208
    Quote Originally Posted by kingsword View Post
    There's a reason it called a PAnd classes not being limited to class-specific weapons is probably as old as that. I'm not ignoring that but then again, it's not DnD but X-COM. Don't need to implement unnecessary limitations to a franchise that's famed with its freedom in gameplay.
    It's not a limitation. It's a feature. The whole point of having classes is having different abilities, strengthens and weaknesses.

    but see...this just shows me that you're only here to talk smack. You originally said class specific weapons is "dumbing down" the game, despite the fact that class specific weapons are used all the time and have been used forever. You've taken something used by table top and D&D and claim it's to dumb something down.

    I'd say that's unbelievable, but this is the internet. I'll see something more unbelievable within a week.

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •