Part of the issue is there’s a disconnect from what’s being shown and what’s already happened.
So, XCOM, and I think XCOM2 (it’s been a while since I played both) create a table with “random” values on map load. This means, you can 100% save scum the shit out any encounter because cause and effect will always be the same, it’s not a live “dice roll”. Part of this sucks, because what happened is hidden from the player. Something like BG3, you can see “Oh, I swung, rolled a 3, and these modifiers, my total was 14 and they have an AC of 15”. Also, some games help by using a pseudo-random where the probability of something happening, actually increases over time. Example would be Dota2, where something like bash, shows a given percent, but it’s actually on a scale. Each attack changes the % chance the next bash may happen, eventually getting to a point it’s nearly a guarantee. This type of random is often used to make the game feel more fun for the player (to nudge the numbers one way or the other). However, with a pre-seeded table, this likely isn’t happening.
Then you add the visual component. Point blank range, it’ll say “99%” and you miss. Or the number will seem low, despite point blank range. And you have the visual of the %.
So you add those together, the game likely not helping the player and just using a pre-seeded table plus the visuals with the human notion of really only remembering the extremes and you get the overall feeling of “game not fair”. You made 10 shots in a row with only 30% chance, but you only remember the single 99% chance you missed
It’s never really been an “issue”. The rolls have always been accurate, and the XCOM devs have even said in XCOM 2 they gave an invisible “buff” on hit chances on some difficulties.
The problem is we as people assume that something like 90% is a guarantee, and a miss in XCOM always feels so much worse, especially when they changed from time units to just a flat “do a shot, hit or miss them all” approach. So even though statistically you’re going to miss 1 of every 10 on a 90% shot, when it happens twice it’s “bullshit”. But that’s just odds man, gamblers fallacy is real.
Are we pretending this wasn’t an issue in the previous XCOM: Enemy Unknown? Or is it just that much worse in 2?
Also I don’t know which of these is the most ridiculous. Maybe R6.
Shoutout to the original STALKER games for having good ballistics.
Part of the issue is there’s a disconnect from what’s being shown and what’s already happened. So, XCOM, and I think XCOM2 (it’s been a while since I played both) create a table with “random” values on map load. This means, you can 100% save scum the shit out any encounter because cause and effect will always be the same, it’s not a live “dice roll”. Part of this sucks, because what happened is hidden from the player. Something like BG3, you can see “Oh, I swung, rolled a 3, and these modifiers, my total was 14 and they have an AC of 15”. Also, some games help by using a pseudo-random where the probability of something happening, actually increases over time. Example would be Dota2, where something like bash, shows a given percent, but it’s actually on a scale. Each attack changes the % chance the next bash may happen, eventually getting to a point it’s nearly a guarantee. This type of random is often used to make the game feel more fun for the player (to nudge the numbers one way or the other). However, with a pre-seeded table, this likely isn’t happening.
Then you add the visual component. Point blank range, it’ll say “99%” and you miss. Or the number will seem low, despite point blank range. And you have the visual of the %.
So you add those together, the game likely not helping the player and just using a pre-seeded table plus the visuals with the human notion of really only remembering the extremes and you get the overall feeling of “game not fair”. You made 10 shots in a row with only 30% chance, but you only remember the single 99% chance you missed
That’s probably the best explanation I’ve seen, thanks.
It’s never really been an “issue”. The rolls have always been accurate, and the XCOM devs have even said in XCOM 2 they gave an invisible “buff” on hit chances on some difficulties.
The problem is we as people assume that something like 90% is a guarantee, and a miss in XCOM always feels so much worse, especially when they changed from time units to just a flat “do a shot, hit or miss them all” approach. So even though statistically you’re going to miss 1 of every 10 on a 90% shot, when it happens twice it’s “bullshit”. But that’s just odds man, gamblers fallacy is real.
deleted by creator
Is Stalker 2 worse, do you know? Thinking of getting it.
I haven’t tried it yet, that’s why I didn’t mention it. Hopefully it’s the same!