Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Permanent Advent Firewalls Dark Event from 100% to 33% of mechanicals #1745

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: beta
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

SoupyDelicious
Copy link

(Go easy, it's my first time on Github xD)

Request to change Advent Firewalls - Permanent Dark Event to affect only 33% of encountered robots, as seen on wiki.

Secondary to the fact that it's not fun gameplay, it's too harsh. Penalties for failed hacks is already very high.

Perhaps a nerf to Failsafe would do instead, having it only prevent failed hack penalties a % of the time (75%, for example)

Request to change Advent Firewalls - Permanent Dark Event to affect only 33% of encountered robots, as seen on wiki.  

Secondary to the fact that it's not fun gameplay, it's too harsh.  Penalties for failed hacks is already very high.  

Perhaps a nerf to Failsafe would do instead, having it only prevent failed hack penalties a % of the time (75%, for example)
@copyrite copyrite changed the base branch from master to beta May 1, 2024 06:24
@copyrite
Copy link
Collaborator

copyrite commented May 1, 2024

From a technical and process viewpoint, you did pretty well. This kind of a change would have to go through the beta branch, which I've changed for you. I'd also make the change on a feature branch, not my own master, but that's a problem for you, not us. I can give you directions over on Discord, if you like.

As for the change itself, I strongly disagree with it. I consider myself a heavy Specialist user and don't recognize this problem with hack defense. It's also very easy to just buff XCOM out of community suggestions so buffs should really be accompanied with a stronger argument than "not fun". I'd really like to throw first-time contributors a bone, but I unfortunately wouldn't want to see this change go through.

@copyrite copyrite requested review from copyrite and removed request for copyrite May 1, 2024 06:35
@SoupyDelicious
Copy link
Author

Hey there Copyrite, thanks for taking the time :D

Ah, so on that 'feature branch' point, if I were to be doing a lot of my own modding, it'd be prudent to make my own mini-beta branch? Is that effectively the purpose of that? Appreciate you offering further help on discord. I have nothing else for now, but this github thing is definitely very intuitive and cool.

Regarding the change: not that you could know, but I'm notorious for not only being annoying, but also for erring on the side of hardcore/unforgiving gameplay wherever there's an option.

When I say 'fun', I guess I'm just referring to the kind of fun that isn't mutually exclusive to 'it benefits me, therefore it feels good' type-fun. It just 'feels bad', as subjective a statement as that is. RNG is fun, and to come up against an enemy who was 'lucky enough' to remain un-buffed is a real micro-win, dopamine moment.

We could change it to 66% of enemies are effected by firewall. Even a small chance of being spared; of the game throwing something in your favour is a more fun version of that mechanic. And if Specialists are already powerful enough that such a widespread debuff is necessary, then there are more 'under-the-hood' ways to alleviate that, but that's a whole 'nother discussion =P

@Tedster59
Copy link
Collaborator

I recommend instead of hardcoding the value, expose it to config instead, similar to how the others there are configurable.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants