Star Wars Zero Company gets much-needed first patch so you won't miss shots with a 100% chance to hit any more

4.3k

I feel like some coder intentionally included that as an X-com joke.

1.6k

u/NiceTrySuckaz 1d ago

Still doesn't excuse the XCOM devs who apparently just did it to inflict mental anguish

958

u/Midget_Stories 1d ago

Xcom actually does it the other way around.

If you have a 98% chance, the tool tip will show 95%. That way you're actually hitting more 95% chance shots than you expect.

582

u/WhenAmI 1d ago

I'm pretty sure old XCOM used to determine if a shot hit before you selected the shooter or target.

There was a old exploit where you'd quick save and shoot someone. If it hit, you reload your quick save and shoot any target, it was a guaranteed hit.

336

u/Mariqel 1d ago

If you are referring to Xcom Enemy Unknown / Enemy within you are correct.

383

u/MarsMissionMan 1d ago

We live in an age where people see "old XCOM" and think Enemy Unknown.

I'm not even 30 yet and that makes me feel old. The X-COM games are older than I am and I feel old.

161

u/theartificialkid 1d ago

Do you have any idea how old your comment makes people feel who were teenagers when the first xcom came out and saw it as a radical advance in tactical computer games?

66

u/LostInRetransmission 1d ago

I was already well in my 20ies when the first xcom was published.

Now get off my lawn !

;)

23

u/PreferenceGeneral475 1d ago

Wouldn't want to fall in that 6 x 3 hole you are digging. Forward thinking that, Grandpa.

16

u/pablo_kickasso 1d ago

What's the % chance of him falling into the hole? And if he does, what's the cover bonus once he's in it?

→ More replies (0)

→ More replies (2)

12

u/Teantis 1d ago

I didn't see it as anything because my parents wouldn't get it for me. My dad felt my 3 year old pirated copy of chuck Yeagers air combat was sufficient.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/FFTactics 21h ago

It was the inspiration for the early versions of Diablo, so yeah pretty damn old.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (10)

31

u/frostbittenteddy 1d ago

What's the point of even having hit chances displayed then? That seems entirely stupid random and counterproductive to any tactical game

31

u/Amyndris 1d ago edited 1d ago

It pulls from a pre generated list of numbers when the stage is initiated. So say your hit was 95%. If the number list was 98, 50, 2, 12, 80 then you could "burn" that 98 on someone else, then use the 50 for your shooter.

This also is what Fire Emblem did. There was a way to basically figure out the whole number list (well, you could figure if the number was High or Low then you would write down a giant list of H/L. Every attack used 2 numbers average for hit, then a third number for crit. So a H/H/H would be a hit+crit, a H/H/L would be a regular hit. That list also determined if you would increase your stats at level up (each character had a chance to gain stats at level up; a warrior might have 50% chance to gain strength but only 30% chance to gain crit and 10% chance to gain magic) so you could use the list to create super buffed characters.

72

u/El-Emenapy 1d ago

It's an interesting topic and shows how bad people generally are at understanding probability.

Like, getting screwed over by XCOM's hit probabilities is a running joke across reddit gaming subs (the assumption being that they conspire against the player), when in actual fact, the only slight cheating the game does is in the player's favour.

I remember reading an interview with devs of a more recent game with similar mechanics (I can't remember which) and they talked about how play-testing lead them to cheat slightly in the player's favour (like in XCOM), because ultimately, the important thing is the player's fun, which depends on their perception of odds and fairness, as opposed to having the odds more accurately reported

22

u/mrbubbamac 1d ago

I was watching a GDC conference talk about skill based matchmaking, and their data from players said the game only felt "fair" if they won 70% of the online matches

This is a big reason why people hate skill based matchmaking, it doesn't feel fair to them because they don't think they deserved to lose

14

u/RunninOnMT 1d ago

This is why online racing is a fucking nightmare. When you have like 10 people racing and each of them expects to cross the line in first 70 percent of the time, they quickly start resorting to “evening the odds” and then suddenly you just have bumper cars.

7

u/SoWrongItsPainful 1d ago

SBMM feels bad because it feels determined to give everyone a 50% win/loss ratio, instead of each game being a 50/50.

9

u/CrashB111 23h ago

The rumors of "forced 50" persist, because the losses always seem so lopsided but the wins feel like crawling over broken glass.

4

u/alurimperium 1d ago

And because the losses tend to put you up against people who are much better than you, so those feel so much worse than the wins feel good.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (2)

7

u/Shadowfist_45 1d ago

Yeah, people don't understand how infrequent 95% is compared to even 99%, literally comparatively 95% will feel more like half the time, when people think it's still almost every time but that's just not how it is

5

u/jakoto0 1d ago

Poker players know

4

u/StepComplete1 20h ago

Winning ones do. Even in poker, there's a lot of these people. A hell of a lot of idiots who think every online regulated site is rigged against them, and every IRL dealer is somehow controlling the cards to be rigged against them, to avoid admitting they're just a losing player.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/frostbittenteddy 1d ago

I mean, of course a 95% shot has a 5% chance to fail

But if your shot misses, you go to your next operative and they also have a 95% shot miss and you got to your next operative and they also have a 95% shot miss then I dunno, that somehow feels statistically iffy. And (at least for me) it's not fun when then next turn the aliens nail almost all their shots

Idk, maybe I'm still misunderstanding how the system works, but I never could get into XCOM because of this and I tried multiple times

34

u/danteoff 1d ago

You tend to remember the one mission where the squad wiped due to bad luck and not the 20 preceding missions you won by avoiding bad luck.

36

u/Borgcube 1d ago

That is the part of people having poor intuition about probability, yes. After your first shot missed the second shot has the same 5% probability to miss like before. And getting two 95% misses is 1 in 400, so not that unlikely at all.

The real issue, I feel, is that you don't get that many dice rolls overall which would smooth out the curve. And one or two early misses can snowball into having even fewer shots.

15

u/KingCarbon1807 1d ago

This right here. The sample size was small enough to amplify the impact both from a gameplay and psychological perspective.

Especially when the little fuckers seemed able to 10 ring your operatives at will.

12

u/robotical712 1d ago edited 1d ago

It’s the Settlers of Catan problem: A series of unlucky rolls early can put you in an irrecoverable position for the rest of the game.

12

u/TheYango 1d ago edited 1d ago

The real issue, I feel, is that you don't get that many dice rolls overall which would smooth out the curve. And one or two early misses can snowball into having even fewer shots.

Yeah the big thing is that successes and failures aren't "balanced". Failures are much more catastrophic than successes generally (losing a soldier is way more detrimental to you than it is for the aliens generally), so variance inherently hurts you more.

Most players' heuristics regarding probability are based on situations with balanced outcomes. But in games like X-Com, the outcomes are not balanced--they're heavily skewed against the player (again because any given player unit is massively more valuable than any given enemy unit, so losing player units is catastrophic while killing enemy units is expected) which massively skews the expected risk tolerance.

→ More replies (0)

→ More replies (1)

14

u/Fuzzy_Wheel_4565 1d ago

Statistically, you are not just missing 3 95% rolls in a row. You are missing 3 95% rolls across hundreds and hundreds of rolls. Missing 3 of those is almost a guarantee. They just happen to all occur right after each other which is what makes you question the odds. You have to account for every 95% roll to get an accurate 95% hit chance, which you don't do because humans are bad at intuitive statistics.

The hit chances are fine, you just mentally perceive 95% as 100%. 1 in 20 chance to miss is actually quite high. If airplanes had a failure rate that high they'd be dropping out of the sky like flies and noone would want to use them. Even 0.1% would be considered unacceptable. A success rate of 99.99966% is considered the minimum acceptable for such processes (look up six sigma if you want to know more about that).

So basically if you're playing xcom and get mad if you miss you're approaching it the wrong way. You should pretty much expect to miss and plan accordingly. Always have a plan B because 1 in 20 times you will need it, which is a lot.

13

u/bobdole3-2 1d ago

This is one of the many things people miss (that's XCOM baby!) when talking about hit probability. You're probably going to take more than 3,000 shots across a single campaign; you should not only expect to see unlikely things, you should expect to see them multiple times.

People also don't recognize all of the low percentage shots they make, or all the high percentage shots that enemies miss. If you install a mod that shows hit rate for Overwatch shots and enemy attacks, you're doing to see a bunch of example of aliens getting killed by 5% shots, or missing 90% shots against you.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Chataboutgames 1d ago

This is honestly an example of the utter futility of this. “It’s demonstrably proven that the game cheats slightly force player.” “Immediately goes on to discuss how a statistically unlikely, but entirely possible, thing is actually the game cheating against the player.”

Human brains are bad at probability

2

u/Remarkable-Dig-1241 1d ago

chances don't compound. You have just missed a 95% roll 3 times in a row, which is statistically improbable but is definitely not impossible. What makes it statistically improbable is the specific sequence of rolls landing on those exact outcomes, but for all intents and purposes it might be deterministic and the "chance" is theoretical, it would have always happened to you in that moment, but the statistical breakdown of it showed that there were more chances than not that it wouldn't have happened. universal wave function mumbo jumbo aside, we really don't understand statistic because for 99.999999999% of cases it doesn't represent what happens in reality, just what could also be happening.

→ More replies (3)

8

u/Mariqel 1d ago

Well idk its just how it works.

The chance is random it's just that it's determined as your turn starts so re-loading a save will "spin the wheel again".

It does make more sense to spin the wheel as you confirm the attack but I am no game dev, they probably had a reason.

11

u/Strowy 1d ago

they probably had a reason

XCOM specifically used a pre-seeded random number generator to cut down on save scumming (repeatedly loading a save to try and roll better).

Older games also tended to use this kind of generator because they were cheaper compute-wise, e.g. the GBA Fire Emblem games.

10

u/CleverInnuendo 1d ago

I can attest that you could save scum a turn as a sniper 1000 times, and it will miss every time if it missed the first time.

But you could find another ally, take a shot with them, and then go back to the sniper and land their 90% shot. Every character had their hit or miss locked in to each action point.

2

u/Faust723 1d ago

Same. That kind of thing bothered me quite a bit. If my shot is already predetermined to fail no matter how many times I reload the save, then it feels more like I'm being cheated by the game for no reason. Whatever is going on in the code behind that, it still feels like shit when you see it for yourself.

10

u/Whispernight 1d ago

The opposite of that is that you could hit all shots that have at least a 1% chance of hitting if you just reload the save enough times. Would that really be a better experience?

Also, it's not that "this shot" is predetermined to hit, it's that the game has a list of results that it will use in order as rolls are needed. If you want to savescum, you need to use the bad roll for something else (including drawing an overwatch shot from the enemy) to get to the next roll.

Then again, I play without reloading my save unless there's bug or crash. I just don't understand why people feel the need to reload and try their shots again in the first place.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/XZamusX 1d ago

I mean it is made to prevent cheating via save scuming the game is intended around an iroman setting ie no save states were every choice you make has a consecuence, in that regard the game is random enough.

The funny thing is that at lower difficulties the game actually cheats in your favor, giving shoots higher % to hit than show if your shoots miss too often or making enemies take less ideal moves if you have already lost a soldier in that match.

6

u/Minibootz_Longsocks 1d ago

I mean, you are the one cheating in this situation though...

6

u/Chataboutgames 1d ago

No, it’s just a perfectly functional RNG system so long as you don’t savescum

→ More replies (2)

→ More replies (11)

3

u/MrDLTE3 1d ago

Man I used to cheese the shit out of enemy unknown with snipers and overwatch. Luring enemies into overwatched snipers was such a insane 'exploit', made the game so much easier.

They fixed that in enemy within by nerfing the hell out of sniper damage.

→ More replies (3)

38

u/Cassin1306 1d ago

That's how Blood Bowl works. It have "tables" with dice rolls already pre-rolled and the game will use the table, in order, for every roll you make in the game.

So you can cheese the game if you got the patience, if you try a bold move and fail, you can note the die result, reload, make another action before where this result have no consequence, then retry your bold move (and hope the next roll is better).

They even turned it into the game itself, they got a mode where you have a given situation and the next rolls displayed, and you need to puzzle your way out of it.

13

u/QuickQuirk 1d ago

you may know this, and just simplified things, but it's not quite 'tables'. It's that classic computer random order actually just selects the next number from a completely predictable mathematical sequence. And some old games stored the previous point in the sequence in the save game file.

It's considered good practice to start the sequence at a different point using some method to simulate a random start point in the sequence.

→ More replies (3)

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Swordofsatan666 1d ago

This explains so much. I did a lot of save scumming. It never helped, because shots would still miss even if i change targets…

5

u/horrorwibe 1d ago

What you can do is perform another action with another character first, and then try the shot again. It will change the outcome, i mean it can still be a miss, but it will reroll the outcome atleast

4

u/Phage0070 1d ago

Wait, if it selected hit or miss prior to target selection then strategy is pointless right? The entire premise of the game is a lie.

9

u/BestNarcissist 1d ago

no, the dice roll is selected prior to target selection

target selection determines if the dice roll is a hit or miss

For example,

The dice roll is 48.

You have two targets, one with a 60% chance to hit and one with a 30% chance.

The 60% target requires a dice roll of (100-60) = 40 or better to hit.

The 30% target requires a dice roll of (100-30) = 70 or better to hit.

So if you choose the 60% target, you hit it. If you choose the 30% target, you miss. This is a true RNG system as long as you do not introduce more information by savescumming (at which point you know whether you hit or miss the shot before you select the target).

It might work a little differently in game depending on how it is implemented (can a target require a dice roll higher than the dice can actually roll? Can you roll 0? can you roll 100? do you need [100-hit chance] to hit or [100-hit chance +1] and so on) but this should give you intuition for how a RNG system with 'pre'-rolled dice works.

In short, the randomness comes from the target's hit requirement, not the dice roll itself.

→ More replies (3)

→ More replies (9)

20

u/Whispernight 1d ago

Not quite, technically. What XCOM does is show you the chance that you have based on the defined rules it gives you (distance, cover, soldier aim, and so on), then depending on the difficulty (higher difficulties don't have a base increase)), situation (XCOM 2 at least has a bonus if you have three or fewer soldiers remaining at lower difficulties), and events (bonus if you've missed consecutive shots) it adds hidden bonuses. I believe in XCOM 2 this was capped at 95% total so the hidden bonus can't guarantee a shot. End result is the same (you're hitting more shots than the percentage shows), but the order is technically different (increase the chance instead of showing a lower percentage than it actually is).

And as others have mentioned, XCOM also has the random number generator seeded, so if you load a save and do the same actions in the same order, you'll get the same result. If you wanted to savescum, you'd have to take another action that uses those numbers (so just moving a soldier wouldn't help) before the action you're trying to change the results of. In some cases changing targets might work since your "roll" might have been just short of a success so changing between a 50% and 60% hit chance could be enough.

4

u/24_August_1814 22h ago

I seem to remember reading years ago about a bug in one of the XCom games in some piece about unintended consequences in programming. Probably Enemy Unknown, based on the timeline in my head. They have "streak breaker" logic where, if you've consistently missed several shots in a row, it'll give you a hit regardless of how low the chance is because feelsbad.jpg. Trouble was, it wasn't originally programmed to be specific to misses, just flipping an outcome if that outcome occurred too many times in a row, so what ended up happening was players in the late game, with fully upgraded squads and a solid understanding of how positioning affected miss chance, were missing an unusual number of 95% shots - IIRC the final rate ended up being in the range of 85-90%, which is also pretty feelsbad.jpg

9

u/DeCrunch 1d ago

Jokes on you, I expect to hit every 95% chance!

3

u/thedicestoppedrollin 1d ago

Iirc many of the fire emblem games also have a true hit value that does not match the displayed value

1

u/asdkevinasd 1d ago

Yet I have miss more 95% shot than 80% shot.

23

u/ohtetraket 1d ago

Did you count? If you did like 1000 shots of both percentages you would for sure miss more 80 once.

6

u/Chataboutgames 1d ago

No you don’t

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (4)

12

u/Ayjayz 1d ago

But that doesn't happen in Xcom?

5

u/Strokeslahoma 1d ago

I was going to say, does it ever go higher than 95%?

5

u/AyeBraine 23h ago

It goes to 100% in 1% increments.

7

u/osunightfall 1d ago

Not a real thing.

17

u/Lore6969 1d ago

I mean many of the same people who worked on XCOM made ZC.

9

u/ReflectionEterna 1d ago

Some of those who work forces...

11

u/_BlackDove 1d ago

Nothing beats running up to an alien point blank with the shotgun model clipping into their head:

MISS!

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Munchkinasaurous 1d ago

I kept questioning if I really saw a 100% chance or not.

4

u/Max_Trollbot_ 1d ago

I assumed it was a deliberate joke

2

u/igdub 16h ago

95% chance to hit, so 1d20 for critical miss.

3

u/DDD_ivora 1d ago

you dont miss with a 100% chance in xcom.

→ More replies (4)

→ More replies (9)

1.2k

u/Single-Climate2259 1d ago

100% chance to hit still missing is peak Star Wars immersion

262

u/Xylus1985 1d ago

Hey, Stormtroopers have not been formed yet

92

u/SassyAssAhsoka 1d ago

Does he know?

55

u/Mind_Killer 1d ago

Weeeellllllllll… about that…

23

u/wiewiorowicz 1d ago

Aerith and Gustave just called...

4

u/chisui 19h ago

I'm not that far in, but damn I guess good soldiers follow orders :(

2

u/s0ulbrother 18h ago

When one falls

→ More replies (1)

15

u/stumac85 1d ago

Never tell me the odds

2

u/AeneasVII 1d ago

Playing the same level layout over and over again doesn't help.

→ More replies (1)

987

u/Makhai123 1d ago

Can you really call it an X-COM-like if you don't miss 100% shots?

165

u/Quarksideofthemoon 1d ago

Did that actually happen in xcom though

385

u/PedroAsani 1d ago

Frequently. To the point where the quote became "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take, and the 100% shots you do take"

99

u/Mammoth_Composer_111 1d ago

Frequently for which game? This isn’t a thing for xcom 2. I’ve never missed a 100% shot. In fact even amongst all games I don’t think I’ve ever missed a 100% shot.

42

u/Swordofsatan666 1d ago

I dont remember Xcom Enemy Unknown/Within or Xcom 2 having 100% shots? Didnt they cap it at 95% ?

41

u/homicidalhummus 1d ago

XCOM2 definitely has 100% shots, especially with shotguns or high ground

7

u/Senpai_Kushy 19h ago

Yeah I distinctly remember missing a 100% point blank shotgun blast.

4

u/NorionV 18h ago

Nope. You could get 100% and it wasn't even that hard. I played it again recently so I'm extra sure about this.

And yeah, you don't miss 100% shots. Or maybe there's like an extremely rare circumstance where you can due to maybe some kind of rounding thing? Like it's actually 99.7% and the game rounds it to 100, and you miss because of that.

But it absolutely has not happened to me yet. I would remember an injustice like that because I'm a petty person.

→ More replies (2)

58

u/Makhai123 1d ago

100% is the game rounding. There are no 100% shots, in XCOM 1 I believe shot accuracy is capped at 95% and in XCOM2 it will display as 100% because it rounds it up. But you can, and will miss.

21

u/ANuclearsquid 1d ago edited 1d ago

Shot accuracy is absolutely not capped at 95% in either modern xcom game that would be an actual war crime by the devs. 5% is still 1/20 which would be horrible. I do very vaguely remember there being some old fire emblem game where this was exactly the case though.

I think you are correct about the 100% misses due to rounding in xcom 1 but not xcom 2 (its more like 1/200 though not 1/20) .

10

u/JayPet94 1d ago

Not a videogame but D&D caps at 95% too for attacks. Nat 1 on an attack roll is always a miss. I'd guess those things are related, probably done intentionally to capture the tabletop feel

61

u/Draugr_the_Greedy 1d ago edited 1d ago

In xcom 2 you cannot miss 100% shots. Hit chance in that game can also go beyond 100%, where if say someone has a 120% chance to hit, and they have a 15% aim penalty, the chance is still 105% (but the display caps at 100). It never rounds up

4

u/StoneyLepi 1d ago

Is it 15% before or after the 120% calculation?

4

u/Whispernight 1d ago

Most modifiers in XCOM are percentage points, not percentage of the total. So if something says -15%, it usually doesn't matter at what point it's calculated, it's always 15 percentage points.

Exception being overwatch penalty (0.7 multiplier at the very end, IIRC) and probably some others.

7

u/Draugr_the_Greedy 1d ago

In the event that you use abilities which grant a hit chance penalty (like rapid fire, chain shot, deadeye) these are after the initial hit calculations. So a soldier with enough hit chance can have a 100% shot with deadeye despite it having a significant aim penalty.

→ More replies (3)

8

u/Mr_Chajnik 1d ago

I don't know how it is in vanilla, but XCOM Enemy Within has 100% shots, and I have never seen those miss in my playthrough that I am currently playing.

2

u/IBetThisIsTakenToo 1d ago

People just see a number of 90% or higher and mentally go "That's a sure thing!!" and remember it as 100% when the other 10% happens

2

u/AyeBraine 23h ago edited 22h ago

I revisited the topic recently and one player even did a test, recording several thousand shots in real gameplay conditions. Of 351 shots taken at 100%, all 351 hit.

Also the page on Chance to Hit notes that in XCOM2012, there WAS a clamp on 95%, but only for shots from 95 to 99, to retain unpredictability (like in D&D). If you got to 100 and above, you get your guaranteed hit.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/cuckingfomputer 1d ago

DODGE:GRAZED is a real thing on shots that "connect".

→ More replies (2)

7

u/Mr_Chajnik 1d ago

Never happened for me. I am currently playing Xcom Enemy Within and all shots that display 100% chance always hit.

8

u/AyeBraine 23h ago

It's a joke. It didn't actually literally happen. It's just the less likely misses (like 95, 96, 92s) were jarring and often stuck in people's memory, so the "That's XCOM baby!" joke developed.

→ More replies (3)

7

u/Ayjayz 1d ago

Not for the last 20 years it hasn't. Dunno about the older games, haven't played them

22

u/Stregen 1d ago

Never seen it happen in the modern ones (Enemy Within or XCom 2)

5

u/Whispernight 1d ago

I believe EU/EW had some map spots where the rules say you should be able to shoot, but when it tries to render your shot, it's actually blocked and you can end up missing a 100%.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/bobdole3-2 1d ago

It could happen in the old XCOM games (the ones from the 90s) due to the janky way it calculated hit probabilities. You could also hit on a 0% chance. It wasn't common, only really coming into play when you were taking a shot that just barely clipped through the corner of a square, but it could happen.

There was then a separate roll for damage, so you could often hit but not do anything, but that's not a miss.

3

u/Chataboutgames 1d ago

No

3

u/noyoto 1d ago

I think the big meme was that characters could miss even when their target is right in front of them, inches away from the barrel of the gun. And I think people are misremembering that as missing 100% shots, when it would usually be 95% or so.

2

u/chipmunksocute 1d ago

Not in all my 4000 hours in XCOM2 did I miss a 100% shot. Missing 95 or 98 sure yep it does happen but not 100% Getting to 100% shots with add ons, height, buffs was essential since it is garunteed9 damage which is king in XCOM2.

1

u/Lady-Red-96 1d ago

In XCOM2 in rare instances the screen shows 100% but its rounding because it isnt configured for decimals so its actually like 99.5% and then theres still a chance you miss. Leading to what looks like a 100% chance to hit missing.

7

u/SnowOwI 1d ago

There are no decimals and no rounding anywhere in the hit calculation of XCOM 2. It works with pure integers where a value of 100 (or above) is a guaranteed hit. You can not miss "100%" shots without modifying the game.

What many attribute as "100% misses" are in fact a mod added overwatch hit% flyover erroneusly reporting a shot at 100% while it was not.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (2)

24

u/kolosmenus 1d ago

There are no 100% shots in XCOM. 95% is max iirc

44

u/Awsomethingy 1d ago

There’s 100%. Put an assault with a shotgun one tile away it’ll be a gold 100

→ More replies (1)

18

u/Ayjayz 1d ago

You do not recall correctly. 100% is the max

→ More replies (5)

8

u/meesta_masa 1d ago

Ah, the pain of missing 99.1% shots on Battletech.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/UrbanGoose77 11h ago

That's X-COM BABY!

3

u/CreamDue4255 1d ago

you can't miss 100% shots

21

u/Makhai123 1d ago

You go into every XCOM run understanding that its Shrodinger's hit chance.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (1)

60

u/Nuthetes 1d ago

The biggest fix they need is a skip animation button for the Infinite Coil.

Jesus fucking Christ, when I'm fighting those dickheads. I pick my book up and have a read until they're all over.

7

u/LostMyKarmaElSegundo 23h ago

Yeah, those animations are far too slow.

2

u/adam694 15h ago

There is a mod to speed that up!

284

u/CR4ZY_PR0PH3T 1d ago

Damn, now you can't role-play as a Stormtrooper anymore.

44

u/Hermina-H-Gerhold 1d ago

Canon accuracy ruined in the very first patch.

31

u/benolot 1d ago

But cannon accuracy improved

6

u/Munchkinasaurous 1d ago

Well played

208

u/Intentionallyabadger 1d ago

Saw some videos where enemies just run through overwatch like there was nothing.

145

u/WhenAmI 1d ago

Overwatch is kinda weird sometimes enemies don't count as in line of sight because of a small piece of terrain blocking your view when they enter the cone.

42

u/BobTheFettt 1d ago

I also think some of them have that perk that doesn't set off overwatch

7

u/dnqboy 23h ago

it’s also just buggy, i had a nearly-dead droideka randomly stop triggering it during a tough mission when that was my main method of killing those guys. i had the whole team overwatching that mfer at one point and he just did not care lol was driving me nuts

4

u/iyager 21h ago

Best strategy I've found on them when I have the jedi is to set up overwatch on them and then use her push. When she pushes the shield goes down and the movement from it triggers the overwatch

→ More replies (3)

2

u/amjhwk 20h ago

my main method of killing Droidekas is just using force push and force pull on it

→ More replies (2)

32

u/grailly 1d ago edited 1d ago

It happens to me a lot. It goes both ways though. Sometime my UI tells me that I'll get hit by overwatch if I move and then I just don't get hit.

Same with some area of effect stuff, the UI tells me a unit will get hit, but it doesn't.

27

u/urmyleander 1d ago

I think that might just be because Overwatch can ver easily be obatructed by objects like boxes, ive never experienced overwatch not triggering if an enemy entered the actual active overwatch zone.

14

u/RazorSharpNuts 1d ago

Yeah I've had it happen quite a bit I fortunately. Completely open area and it they dip into it through a corner and back out, often it won't shoot.

But on the other side I've had overwatch work for shots that really shouldn't have, so I don't really mind either way.

14

u/DameonKormar 1d ago

My favorite is when you have 3 of your team on overwatch and the enemy spawns into the middle of your kill zone and then run to cover without a single shot being taken.

Either that, or when they spawn in the game freezes for 10 seconds, then everyone dies.

2

u/Penitent_Tangent240 23h ago

Having multiple overwatch zones overlapping on the point where reinforcements are entering really seems to give the game problems. Worst case for me was having half the reinforcements never move out of the exit, and when the door closed back up I couldn't even target them. They then got to walk straight through the door on the next turn and fire on my squad.

5

u/Intentionallyabadger 1d ago edited 1d ago

https://youtu.be/9rU5Eyicn-s

You can see this sequence at the 15min mark.

Also around 18mins.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/JiminyJilickers-79 1d ago

That has happened to me twice SINCE the patch. Three times, if you count the fact that, the first time, the enemy ran right through dual overlapping overwatch triangles. 😒

3

u/Sword_Thain 1d ago

To me, it seems that an enemy has to be within the cone for X amount of time for it to trigger. In addition, the enemy gets invincibility frames of you have overlapping OWs and won't trigger multiple.

Also I've thrown a couple of grenades and the displayed zone was larger than what actually went off.

I hope that is in patch 2.

2

u/Thunderfunkasaurus 1d ago

Me and a friend have noticed after this patch Overwatch is kinda glitchy. I’m on my second playthrough trying to do an Expert difficulty run and glitchy Overwatch can hurt but isn’t game breaking. I’m on cycle 22 or so.

2

u/Intentionallyabadger 1d ago

How long did you take for one playthrough? The 30 hours I read online is kinda making me want to wait for a discount.

2

u/AyeBraine 22h ago

I'm on 70 now, I think close to the ending.

→ More replies (2)

→ More replies (5)

→ More replies (13)

68

u/Vestuvius1993 1d ago

It's stopped that, sure. But has it stopped the game from not letting me play after an enemy's turn? The music plays, the characters move a little, but the menus don't come up. Haven't had to reboot a game due to this sort of glitch for years and I did it three times in one mission yesterday.

30

u/Conman657 1d ago

I find when mine does that I slam some of the camera movement keys or left ctrl button it comes back

21

u/asianflipboy 1d ago

I've had 1 instance of this happen where it wasn't recoverable.

Other times it stays hanging for a hot sec but like other comments mention, sometimes it's recoverable by moving the controller or something.

3

u/jenorama_CA 20h ago

Yeah, I had to quit the game once because of a hang.

6

u/CappyRawr 1d ago

I’ve had that happen a few times, but after waiting a few minutes it resolves itself. Unsure if that’s faster than restarting or not.

3

u/PhineasFN 1d ago

Yeah I had to stop playing yesterday due to this, nearly a hour long mission and it freezes on the final enemy. Super frustrating

→ More replies (11)

39

u/Donmiggy143 1d ago

I do love that got both achievements for missing a 90% shot and making a 10% shot in the same mission, and the shot I missed was 100%. Was like 4 tiles away, behind, and they weren't in cover. I think the game just wanted me to get a trophy.

7

u/Aluc1d 23h ago

I got my “hit a 10%” achievement, cheered, then immediately got the miss a 90% the very next shot on my next character. The force is mysterious and fickle

→ More replies (2)

8

u/HolyRamenEmperor 17h ago

I just want performance addressed on Xbox Series X... the same departure/arrival cutscene that plays 100 times shouldn't be stuttering, hanging, and popping in constantly. Same goes for loading into missions... IMO a loading screen is preferable to performance-induced lag while environmental assets and effects render in.

But honestly, it's a pretty refined game overall! I've had no gameplay issues whatsoever, only performance and camera hitches (action cam focuses on the wrong thing, enemies spawn/move while it's showing something else, etc.).

3

u/2easy2bpeasy 13h ago

I've had a similar experience on ps5 with lots of pop in during cutscenes and starts of combat encounters. Loving the game despite this and this is my first full fledged turn based tactics game. Only other experience I've had is with Mario and rabbits kingdom battle on switch, which was my introduction to turn based tactics.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/dorm_five 21h ago

How bout fixing why getting meleed with a pipe does more damage than a blaster pistol shot -_-

4

u/Dr_Insano_MD 1d ago

But is it a real XCom experience if you don't miss a 95%+ shot, see your squad member panic, throw a grenade at his own feet and die, and cause his friend to panic fire at the other squad member?

59

u/Wretschko 1d ago

"Bit Reactor, the studio that created Zero Company, reportedly furloughed most of its staff shortly before launch, and has been operating with a skeleton crew since then. Which explains why it's taken two weeks for some fairly fundamental issues to be addressed. Here's hoping some of those staff can get brought back on to help speed up the rate patches come out."

Oh, FFS, I'm tired of reading stories like these. Are they doing this to meet investors' profit expectations?

Someone clue me in why this is a regular cycle in videogame development.

76

u/TwevOWNED 1d ago

Furloughed isn't the same as layoffs. Furloughing employees you intend to layoff doesn't make sense because you'd be giving them extra legal protections for no reason.

They ran out of money and couldn't afford to pay them, but wanted to give them the opportunity to come back in the future if the game sold well.

10

u/hatesnack 1d ago

In the US, they don't get any extra legal protection for being furloughed vs layed off. But to your point, if they were gonna lay people off, they would just do it, not have an extra step in between.

→ More replies (5)

38

u/Urge_Reddit 1d ago

Are they doing this to meet investors' profit expectations?

As far as I know they just ran out of money. It's a brand new studio and it seems like they overextended themselves and had to gamble on ZCOM doing well.

I hope it pays off, I've been having a ton of fun with the game.

→ More replies (13)

28

u/Maniactver 1d ago

It's simple - they ran out of money to pay people before release.

3

u/XenthorX PC 1d ago

Only Valve is getting its guaranteed 30%, Studios all around the world are risking it all financially.

CryTek handled it very poorly after the failure of "Ryse: Son of Rome" and its employee didn't get paid for months.

As mentioned in other answers furloughed isn't the same as layoffs, it doesn't take the some amount of people to support over time compared to developing from scratch and reach a shipping deadline. If they have no immediate other project to allocate people to, furlough is the better solution.

3

u/smakusdod 1d ago

Why aren’t the construction workers still around after the building is built?

→ More replies (6)

8

u/RedNog 1d ago

I havent played it since launch weekend, wondering if they plan to add a speed up enemy turn feature.

That irked the hell out of me. I believe I'm towards the end and the later half of maps that extend really far out where enemy factions are fighting each other can get insanely annoying because they take forever to actually resolve their actions. So you're sitting there like an idiot and what is happening all the way across the map pretty much has little to no importance to what you're doing. Made some maps drag out so insanely long where your goal was basically to bum rush to the escape and you spend 90% of the time watching the enemies fight each other.

8

u/Whatsit-Tooya 1d ago

When you kill a bunch of Coil and have to wait an eternity for the stupid resonance animations to finish...

→ More replies (1)

5

u/HawksBurst 1d ago

That sounds like Xcom intended gameplay

12

u/sativarg_orez 1d ago

That hasn’t happened to me yet..

12

u/PlzHelpWanted 1d ago

It happened to me in the tutorial. But I didn't think it was a bug, I just assumed I was too close or something.

→ More replies (2)

12

u/kaskayde 1d ago

huh ive played thru the game twice and never had this, or a crash

2

u/cur10us_ge0rge 12h ago

Your award is on the table, congrats!

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Coldkiller17 1d ago

The amount of times in overwatch I had setup with 100% hit and the enemy either waltz'd through like it wasn't there or just "dodged" the shot had me so mad.

3

u/Grand_Honeydew7661 1d ago

So glad this game is getting some fixes. The stuttering was so bad that it made it difficult to enjoy.

3

u/SubstantialDriver226 1d ago

Now if they could just tell me why bad guys, stroll right out of my 3-4 overwatch cones and shoot me for free.

3

u/Stolehtreb 1d ago

Oh my god I thought I was crazy. Vindication

3

u/mkgorgone 22h ago

Jokes on you, I already got the achievement for missing a 95%+ chance shot!

6

u/bloodychill 1d ago

I had 40 hours pre patch and never had it happen. But I guess I’m glad it won’t happen for those that did.

7

u/Kube__420 1d ago

They should leave it in and call it stormtroopers mode

2

u/SuzuGem 1d ago

X-COM PTSD triggered instantly. I thought I escaped that nightmare years ago 😭

2

u/Revanchistexile 1d ago

Honestly not being able to keep playing after the credits rolled took the wind out of my sails.

I really wanted to get my bond up with everyone and the way the missions are structured didn't give me enough time.

I enjoyed my time with the game but I don't want to start over with the den upgrades and trying to min max zones and bonds.

2

u/IzTasu 1d ago

I thought they did it because FUCK YOU

2

u/MrPanda663 23h ago

But you’ll still miss at 99% because RNG said fuck you. lol.

2

u/rayallen73 23h ago

Funny enough, I didn't miss any 100% shots before the patch, but got one after. In my scenario, the coil guy was flung into a wall next to some destroyable cover by a bullrush melee. He was visibly behind the cover, but the cursor for shooting at him was on my side. It said 100%, but Kabb shot at the cursor spot and not where the guy actually was. After that, the cursor would allow me to put it on him and everything was fine.

2

u/shaard 23h ago

They were missing 100% guaranteed hits? What do they think this is? An x com game?

2

u/bart2278 22h ago

I thought I was seeing things, when I missed with Hawk 100% standing right next to someone.

2

u/LostMyOldAccount977 21h ago

I just hope they add base customization or at least upgrades. It'd be a nice detail to see the stuff I'm spending 2000 credits on make a difference, or even have injured operators in the medbay

2

u/bedtricky 21h ago

I had one crash in my 40 odd hours playtime. It happened when I used the jet pack ability for the first time.

2

u/Tumbler 20h ago

Heh I don’t think I’ve missed a 100% shot, I thought that was a particular difference in how this game plays, I think I hit all those shots.

2

u/WolfColaCo2020 17h ago

Finished the game today. Man there needs to be some optimisation that goes on with that game. I really enjoyed it but some of it was ponderous. Like full on wait a minute plus whilst the computer figured out wtf it was meant to do next

2

u/Promature 16h ago

Never had that issue, but glad it’s fixed for others.

3

u/nikilidstrom 1d ago

Great, can we get that patch for Xcom now?

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Juuber 1d ago

ive both misseed 3 95% chance shots in a row and made 3 5% shots in a row. its to the point where I dont believe the percentages and just take shots if its the best option

5

u/hart37 1d ago

RIP true X-com experience

5

u/DKM_Eby 1d ago

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

Wayne Gretzky

7

u/CorkInAPork 1d ago

Michael Scott

2

u/COE33isBad 1d ago

Did the studio came back from the stupid forloughn situation?

2

u/Gloin23 1d ago

Right now my first impression of this patch is that it added tons of bug and I still missed a 100% shot. Had a mission where all heroes except hawk started at 0 hp and we're basically invulnerable in the end....

And I don't use any mods for now so can't use this excuse.

Edit:typo.

2

u/Ok_Ganache_9110 1d ago

my theory is that players actively do not take low % to hit shots, and thus missing the high % shots feels twice as bad. you rarely see the inverse (hitting an unlikely shot) since they are not taken, and therefore it feels like the odds always just fuck you.

simultaneously, people overestimate the certitude of 95%. 1/20 miss? you are gonna miss a lot of those over the hundreds of 95% shots you take in a single campaign.

part of me thinks a less granular system would feel better. 100%, 50/50, 1/10. only ever one of those odds. thats basically the direction that xcom quietly cheesing the numbers in your favor was heading

2

u/Zedman5000 22h ago

I think that's how the Mario and Rabbids games work, if you're flanking you always hit, cover changes it to a 50/50 or 0% depending on the size of the cover.

Personally in zero company I've started gambling more on low % shots when I can get an assist shot alongside it, as long as the enemy doesn't have a retaliation ability; I don't care if my pistol shot misses a 5% chance if the sniper hits the assist for more than double the pistol's damage.

Still haven't gotten the "hit a 10% or less chance shot" achievement even though I've definitely landed an assist shot from someone who had a 10% chance to hit; not sure if assist shots get an accuracy boost, or just don't count.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/SuzanoSho 1d ago

Don't see what the problem was, you literally had a 100% chance to hit something, doesn't matter if that something was air.

2

u/updoted 1d ago

I wanted to buy this game but realized its EA, which is dead to me after the acquisition. Bummer

26

u/Lore6969 1d ago

Your loss, the game is fantastic. No one likes EA, but doesn’t mean you can’t support a studio who makes a good game.

9

u/pali1d 1d ago

It’s a legitimately good game. The tactical combat and squad building elements are very solid - not as brilliant or deep as can be found elsewhere in the genre, which may cut a bit into replayability, but they are still more than satisfactory for a couple playthroughs. The story, characters, and visuals, on the other hand, are all top tier for the genre.

There are some technical hiccups here and there, the frequency of which are clearly varying depending on one’s gaming rig, but for the most part they aren’t game-breaking - and the most problematic are seemingly being quickly addressed.

The game’s a solid 8.5/10 or better in my books.

→ More replies (32)

1

u/Joustiin76 1d ago

Its already happened to me twice post patch, so yeah.

1

u/FactorFear74 1d ago

Thank you!

1

u/lazerpew 1d ago

Did they fix cutscenes before and after missions sometimes not playing on PS5? The screen turns black and only the skip button was working

1

u/drift9745 1d ago

Im gonna get this eventually

1

u/Vectorman1989 1d ago

Do your hear that, Xcom?

Star Wars Zero Company gets much-needed first patch so you won't miss shots with a 100% chance to hit any more

You are about to leave Redlib