Seriously, the fuck is wrong with this game?

Seriously, the fuck is wrong with this game?

I'm an old fuck, so I've spent more hours into the old X-Com games than the new ones, and I don't mind hard games, quite the opposite. But there is a point where shit becomes retarded.

My soldiers miss 4 shots in a fucking row, with a 97% chance of hitting the enemy. That's not bad luck, I refuse to believe that, this is something else. Can anyone explain to me why the game makes me miss so much, with such an huge chance of not missing?
It's not fun if I can't calculate a probability, or even trust the info I'm given.

Is this bad game design or something else I'm missing?

git gud

On lower difficulties the game actually makes it more likely for you to hit if you're in a bad spot

That's the problem, there's no skill involved in that scenario which means I can't blame myself(good game design), but I can only blame the game(bad game design)

I'm in full cover with a 97% to hit, but I miss 4 times in a row.

Fate works in mysterious ways.

savescumming shit

Your same argument could be applied to the older games

Did you actually fire with the same soldier 4 on four separate turns and miss, or just reload a save over and over to fire "4" times and miss again and again?

Dont fucking help him

Not that big dealio there since you always have room for door openers and everyone have squadsight.

I actually tried with different soldiers with a hit chance of 87-97% and save/load, all miss. I don't blame the game(well, not as much anyway), for giving me a lesser chance to hit if I save/load since it's cheating more or less, even though it shouldn't give me same percentage then, but a penalty instead.

I'm playing on Veteran.

>My soldiers miss 4 shots in a fucking row, with a 97% chance of hitting the enemy. That's not bad luck,
0.03^4= 8.1*10^(-7)

The older games bullets continued on so if you missed your intended target you could still hit the fucker behind them in fog.

>save/load
There's your problem

Read my post again. I tried various ways, save/load was only one.

Also this is not an isolated situation.

Whether you hit your target or not still ultimately depends on luck

Probability is not your friend. It never was. All instance of it in past games where you think it's fair was actually weighted often in your favor.

Blame game devs for mollycoddling you for so long.

There's a great deal more you can do in the older games to minimize the chance of a completely useless turn though.

Such as

So you got unlucky. What do you think the problem is here, that the game lying about its percentage chances?

Yes, I think the percentage is not representative of the actual strategic possibility. I think I have a much higher chance of missing than 3%, which is fine, just tell me about it.
I'm also fine with missing one shot even though I had 97%, but not the majority of shots in general, then something isn't right.

>claims to have played classic xcom games
>is bitching about missing on 97%

Something doesn't add up here.

I wouldn't bother with 2, I was extremely disappointed with it. I didn't even have any problems with the hit chances, the game just isn't fun to play, on top of it not running very well, at least at launch. There's way too much streamlining in regards to the choices you have per move and the equipment you're allowed to bring that it just becomes move and attack: the game while the original and Apocalypse had a lot more room for creativity and improvisation.

Haven't played XCOM 2 but the only time I wiped a whole squad in one mission was that Newfoundland mission in the first game.

>pretty easy mission
>activate the boat transponder
>mfw

oh come on. you are a veteran of the old xcoms and now you destroy your experience with some cheap quickloads?
and dont come with your "i missed the 90% shot".
this is the main mechanic of xcom. There is always a chance for an easy mission to get out of hand and destroy your a-team.
And no, 90% is 90%. they dont manipulate the numbers to ruin your game idiot.

take a break for a day and start again.

And the evidence you have to support this is...something very unlikely happened

i dont like the newer xcom games as much as the old ones

openapocalypse when

It is bad luck, nobody's ever been able to demonstrate that new XCOM's hit chances are bogus.

I love reading these post about people claiming to be missing 90% shots all the time because they dont understand that 90% does not mean 100%.

I regularly look at 25% shots and say "fuck it ill take it" because every once in a while I know it will hit, and when it does I laugh and benefit. Thats how statistics work, eventually everything will fail or succeed.

They seem to still be doing work on OpenApoc but they haven't done any official updates in like a year. I think you can go download what they have done so far and play around in it, but it isn't a playable game yet. Seeing the 60 fps is great though.

Savescumming

This game is unplayable without it

:D

Read my posts you autist. I don't mind missing, I do mind when I miss the majority of my shots all above 90%. That's not luck/chance. I believe there's calculation not being shown.

I played it for a few hours and went right back to Long War. I put a decent amount of time into the EW and decided to buy it for Long War since the thing only worked for steam. Was worth it. Glad I didn't pay for X-Com 2.

I think the game just blatantly lies about enemy/friendly hit%. A lot of games tend to do this to make it more "challenging," when all it does is frustrate players. It's one thing to miss a 98% shot or land a 10% shot, it's another thing to do either of those things 3 or 4 times in a row. The odds are absurd, and it happens consistently enough to be a major complaint.

The guys just fucking explained that everyone has squad sight, you have a large squad size for scouting, and your rounds don't dematerialize the second they miss the guy you're shooting at. All 3 of those things make each individual turn much more likely to accomplish something useful than something like what OP was talking about.

>That's not luck/chance
It actually is. 90% isn't 100% and the only way you would be guaranteed to hit at least one shot even if you had 20 90%s in a row would be if the game was helping you. The probability of something happening isn't affected by what happened before. This is basic statistics.

>My soldiers miss 4 shots in a fucking row, with a 97% chance of hitting the enemy.
Stop lying scrub

>something unlikely happens
>must be broken!
lol

>popular videogame
>huge modding community which modifies probabilities
>no one ever found any "cheating" in the game
>still think he plays like shit because the devs suck
you are either a big idiot with no understanding or baiting

I love how every thread about this game is started by some scrub how got upset at the RNG

Don't the modern games make a seed or w/e so even if you save scum, the result will be the same?

90% should equate to 9/10. Threads about this topic have always existed, and would get hundreds of replies, multiple times a day, every day, for weeks, for every XCOM release.

That's not at all what I said. You really don't have to shitpost.

I really don't understand why there's always a couple people just vehemently defending this crap. I played the old XCOMs after the new ones and the hit%s seem much more accurate to what actually happens.

The game is shit for other reasons, but not because of hit/miss percentages.

Everyone remembers when they miss a 95% shot - but when you hit, it's normal and expected, so you never remember the dozens of high percentage shots you DID make.

How is that not exactly what you wrote? Something unlikely happened, so you think the game is broken

>90% should equate to 9/10.
It is, but only for that one shot. Probability isn't dependent on past results. So if you get 90% 10 times in a row that doesn't guarantee you'll hit 9 of those 10 shots. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

in enemy within i know it does that unless you choose savescum in second wave options

>90% should equate to 9/10
In that particular instance, sure. It has no bearing on consecutive shots, which will also be 9/10. Although, fun fact, the game actually boosts your hit chance behind the curtain for every consecutive shot you miss on any difficulty short of Legendary. Which tells me you're baiting hardcore.

Read

>there are people who have trouble with alpha strike: the game on commander or lower

There is guaranteed damage fucking everywhere. Beyond that, if you don't wipe out the entire pod on the turn of activation, the devs were even kind enough to give you meme beacons.

Tbqh if you're having trouble on anything short of first month Legendary, you're pretty trash.

If rolled a 10 sided die, how many times do you think it would have to be rolled to land on 1 four times in a row? How often do you think it would land on 1 twice in a row, or three times in a row? I'm just saying that something as unlikely as those circumstances seem to happen surprisingly often. I'm not talking about individual misses, just consistency.

I said in an earlier post that the original games seemed to have more accurate hit%s. 45% in the modern games doesn't seem like a slightly off 50/50, it feels more like 30/70, and 25% feels more like 5-10%.


>Although, fun fact, the game actually boosts your hit chance behind the curtain for every consecutive shot you miss on any difficulty short of Legendary. Which tells me you're baiting hardcore.

so now an unlikely occurrence is supposed to be impossible, or what? I'm not baiting just because you don't agree with me. When you say consecutive, do you mean with that soldier, or other soldiers, does it carry over through turns, etc?

I never said I have trouble with the game, just that I don't think the hit%s are accurate and that's all I'm talking about. I never really had any outrageous difficulty outside of legendary, besides doing something dumb and getting my ace squad murdered, which is just whatever, it happens.

go play a table top game like warhammer where you roll a lot of dice. shit happens and is supposed to happen because if its not 100% its not 100%.

Are you retarded? Since it's RNG and all events are individual from each other, you should be able to hit 9/10 shots 9 times and miss 1 with a probability of only 34.8%.

(9/10)^10 = 0.348.. ≈ 34.8%

>tfw a copycat did things better

You're just salty you missed some shots. It happens user.

You're baiting because the situation you describe is near-impossible. You cannot miss four consecutive 90% shots, not because of probability, but because the game literally won't let you. You'd have a hidden +30% bonus to the last shot, rounded down to 95% so you can't break the game by abusing rapidfire abilities to boost the bonus for other, harder-hitting units. This carries over between turns and soldiers. Like, you'd have a 0.00125% chance of missing all of those shots. It's far more likely you just fucking suck and/or are baiting.

>Seriously, the fuck is wrong with this game?
>My soldiers miss 4 shots in a fucking row, with a 97% chance of hitting the enemy.
>Is this bad game design or something else I'm missing?
Pretty much OP this game is fucking gay as they decided to stack even more bullshit on top the shit cake.

Have fun when it comes to beating the RNG hit chance, the shot connects... BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE! Units now have a dodge chance! so even if your attack hits there's an additional chance to do less damage! woooooooooo!

Whoever designed the codex is a fucking masochist
>Gets attacked
>Teleports somewhere else as a free move
>Clones itself as a free move
>Clone teleports somewhere else as a free move
>Someone has likely been flanked by now

You speak the truth user

is that gaem actually good?
ive seen it a couple of times on steam now, but i never read anything about it.

I do. I don't see how that's related. In a table top, I have the dice. In a game, I have a window telling me what the % is, and then code that I don't know determining the shot through some algorithm that I also don't know. Unless if you're trying to tell me that rolling some d20 around or a couple d8s is the same consistency as XCOM's hit%s.

Okay, so, what is the probability of missing a 90% shot 4 times in a row, 3 times in a row, and 2 times in a row? What is the probability of any of those situations occurring 2, 3, or 4 seperate times across 20 shots?

Then why didn't you tell OP that 30 minutes ago?

I haven't played XCOM in months, stop being a shitposter.

They tried to refresh the formula and failed miserably by just adding shit that has no impact on the overall gameplay whatsoever.
Polishing went down the drain during that process.

>hurr, 90% is 100%!!
>H-how could 10% happen?!?! It's literally impossible

Git gud and fuck off, in any order.

4 times = 0.0001 = 0.001%
3 times = 0.001 = 0.01%
2 times = 0.01 = 0.1 %

If makes no difference in what order they come since all instances are individual. Sure the chances of having a 90% shot miss 4 times in a row is one in a thousand, but it still happens.

There is no wizardry here. You are just mad because you lost your squad. As "an old man" you should know how probability works, or how to spell "separate".

It's something you play for the story and narrator, well, I did at least.
There's not really any challenge in the game combat wise since the AI pretty much operates on the "Do I see player? No? Do nothing then." and I had even a case where AI guy flanked himself on purpose in range of my whole posse.

There's also the case of shit performance, no manual save, game being divided into scenarios instead of being one full story. but on the other hand each one had slightly unique twist on the world map.

Luck mechanic and different guns doing different damage through full/half cover also means that you can't have a 6 turn miss-a-thon where nothing happens.

> You are just mad because you lost your squad. As "an old man" you should know how probability works, or how to spell "separate".

????????????????????

I just said I haven't played the game in months, I'm not OP. I don't understand what the old man remark is about, or why you think whining about spelling makes a difference. The more I talk to you the more I think you're trying to shitpost.

I also never said that I had 4 90% shots miss in a row. I have said that I don't think the hit%s are accurate.

I really don't get why you have to be so insulting about this, you're acting like I've offended or bothered you somehow.

Overall I'd say I got my 9 funnymoney worth of enjoyment out of it.
Well, apart from the DLC and the negress.

>I really don't get why you have to be so insulting about this, you're acting like I've offended or bothered you somehow.

You should really be able to count high school math, man.

I'm asking you the question because I want to make you go through the reasoning of events with such small chances of happening occuring unreasonably often. When each game out there was always lots and lots of posts about the RNG and hit% and the consistency of the inconsistency. Lots of people were whining about the difficulty but I never saw a problem with losing guys. I'd just rather the hit% actually say what the chance is. Like I said before, a lot of games lie about their hit%s, and since one or two posts have even said that the game buffs your hit% without saying, this would explain why there is inconsistency and the hit% doesn't seem accurate.

>You should really be able to count high school math, man.

I've no reason to when you'll do it for me, but you're just being argumentative for no real reason other then to be rude for some reason.

I wish stuff like this was still present.

I love making chess-like pins when I can but the game (among others) doesn't allow for this to happen naturally.

Wooo! Confirmation bias!