Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.

Bahger

I like it, I admire it, but it is much too frustrating

Is the balance between accomplishment and frustration right yet?  

146 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you like this game?

  2. 2. Do you think it is too hard to "win"?

  3. 3. If your answer to the above was "Yes", rate your level of satisfaction vs frustration

    • I am completely satisfied with the gameplay balance
    • I am basically satisfied but feel it needs tweaking in favor of the player
    • It is way too difficult to merit a long-term commitment unless it gets fixed


Recommended Posts

Paganator    2

Perma-Death Rogue Games are not about beating, but getting the high score.

 

But why must it be a perma-death rogue game? I loved the initial pitch that I read, of a procedural turn-based stealth game. A simple, quality high concept. I've played for a number of hours and imho the rogue-like aspect adds nothing to the game but rather detracts from it. I don't care one bit about my score.

 

The high difficulty and massive penalty of making even a tiny mistake has very detrimental effect on the gameplay. I thought it would be a game where I control a team of smart, in-control stealthy agents infiltrating corporations to steal information and loot. The more I play, the more it turns into a bunch of panicked dudes stuck in a building, desperately trying to find a bloody elevator (and screw the mission objectives).

 

Who is Klei making the game for exactly? I'm a fan of turn-based tactics game and a fan of stealth games, yet it appears this game isn't for me. Isn't that niche narrow enough already? They felt they'd better aim the game at the super-hardcore gamers who are simultaneously fans of turn-based tactics and stealth and rogue-likes? I don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bahger    7

I think they may have underestimated the sense of frustration most people feel when they fail three times for every one time they succeed although two things mitigate this: the steady drip of XP from failed missions and the satisfaction to be had from succeeding in a mission, occasionally twice in a row.

I have to say, I really admire the game's insistence on making you live with the consequences or your mistakes and its ability to force you to make operational compromises (exfil with one agent? Settle for less stolen intel?). I almost wish Splinter Cell went this far but of course this would damage the corporate bottom line.

I do agree with much of your argument though, Paganator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
obliviondoll    40

But why must it be a perma-death rogue game? I loved the initial pitch that I read, of a procedural turn-based stealth game. A simple, quality high concept. I've played for a number of hours and imho the rogue-like aspect adds nothing to the game but rather detracts from it. I don't care one bit about my score.

 

The high difficulty and massive penalty of making even a tiny mistake has very detrimental effect on the gameplay. I thought it would be a game where I control a team of smart, in-control stealthy agents infiltrating corporations to steal information and loot. The more I play, the more it turns into a bunch of panicked dudes stuck in a building, desperately trying to find a bloody elevator (and screw the mission objectives).

 

Who is Klei making the game for exactly? I'm a fan of turn-based tactics game and a fan of stealth games, yet it appears this game isn't for me. Isn't that niche narrow enough already? They felt they'd better aim the game at the super-hardcore gamers who are simultaneously fans of turn-based tactics and stealth and rogue-likes? I don't get it.

 

Having the game as a permadeath roguelike actually heightens the emphasis on stealth for me.

 

The high difficult feels gradually less harsh the more you play and the more you learn. You're expected to lose a lot when you're new to the game. You earn XP and build up your available starting options by losing repeatedly. You learn more advanced ways to use the relatively simple mechanics with each playthrough. You start out feeling like you're a blind fool telling a bunch of panicked dudes to run around a building looking for an exit, and gradually work towards becoming a competent leader of a team of smart, in-control stealthy agents.

 

I got lucky in that I had a really challenging mission that worked out through more luck than skill during my second game. I thought I was going to be screwed, and I did some things I didn't think were going to work out for me, but they did, and it not only taught me a lot, but showed me how possible some of those "impossible" situations you run into can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ginko87    0

As someone said already, I think an important tactic (at least for surviving) is knowing when a mission is impossible and early exfiltration is the only option. At first I was playing to win every mission but I have had scenarios such as a hostage rescue where there have been 3 guards just sitting in the cell block!! - I did try and complete this at the time only to get ganked pretty badly.

 

Bottlenecks are killer, and yeah worst is when you have hit alarm level 5 without knowing where the elevator is!!

 

I love roguelike games so I don't mind the death failure and restarting (I used to play ADOM where 90% of games end up with you being crippled or killed by the first rat you encounter) but I think this game could be a lot more fun if they shift the direction a little, I think the key to this is just adding lots of fun content and again as people have mentioned on this thread already, actually give the player a chance to use it.

 

Think of having a range of items to cool or slow down the alarm, traps to booby-trap doors or bodies etc. Personally I like the fact that the intense story/campaign is there but I would like a kind of "career mode" where missions are perhaps more balanced in your favor and you can just enjoy the stealth mechanics a bit more leisurely, make more use of firearms or whatever, I'm sure the devs have cool stuff in store for us though whichever way they decide to take it, if they just make it easier we will all complete it in beta and then forget about it :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
adivel    13

Games like FTL or Isaac as people have compared inv. inc. with are waayyy more forgiving than this. Both of them have runaway options for one thing.

Nah, you give those games too much credit! I played them both recently, and I can tell you about that room in "The Binding of Isaac", were you enter with a lot of hearts, and barely survive it with only half heart! Or about that spaceship in section 3-4 in FTL, that teleport four fully-combat-trained invaders to your ship, brutally murdering everyone, while you barely upgraded your shield to level 2!

And don't let me even getting started with Spelunky!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Invisible Inc is a perma-death rogue-like game, it is not aimed at the casual market. I don't think Klei really needs to do anything to make it more forgiving on these players when games like Don't Starve and FTL are the same way and have done so well. As it is now, the healing item is very strong and may need to be toned down to give the perma-death experience some more credit.

 

At best, maybe one or two extra options that make it easier on more casual gamers with some penalties. But I would hate to see the core game watered-down in the name of acceptance for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
obliviondoll    40

You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

When used in the context of this game, casual as a relative term ("more casual" rather than just "casual" by itself) means pretty much exactly what he thinks it means.

 

There are people who would ordinarily be considered regular gamers, but in this game, they're casual on a relative scale because they're pushing for an easier experience. When the game has been openly presented as a challenging game with harsh difficulty, there's plenty of room to call people casuals when they want an easier experience.

 

Many players are either not giving the game a good run, or somehow refusing or failing to learn from their mistakes. These people are seeing the uncompromising difficulty as unfair - not because it IS unfair, but because they refuse to learn why it ISN'T.

 

Some people show up here and on the Steam forums, say "hey, this game is stupid hard, I had (insert problem) happen and they need to make it easier by (insert significant reduction in difficulty)". Sometimes, it's a legitimate bug. Sometimes they just didn't understand how to deal with the situation, and explaining things will help the player to learn. But sometimes, they'll ignore a logical solution to their problem and demand that the developers "fix" it by dumbing the game down so any run-and-gun shooter fan can pick up the game and win on their first try. Often, even when the reasoning is sound, their solution is far too heavy-handed, but these comparatively casual gamers are going to push for it anyway. They won't listen to rational agreement with their core premise when it also suggests that they want more of a reduction in difficulty than the game needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RicoBoum    1

Nah, you give those games too much credit! I played them both recently, and I can tell you about that room in "The Binding of Isaac", were you enter with a lot of hearts, and barely survive it with only half heart! Or about that spaceship in section 3-4 in FTL, that teleport four fully-combat-trained invaders to your ship, brutally murdering everyone, while you barely upgraded your shield to level 2!

And don't let me even getting started with Spelunky!!

 

Well In Binding of Isaac, you can always bomb the door you came through, or another one, and get out of the room where you are in a bad situation.

FTL also has the option to give up combat, spool your engines and jump.

 

I meant that kind of "Oh ****" remedy.

They can be costly for both games in terms of health/resources lists or damage to deal with.

 

Anyway, I know for sure now I am not a fan of rogues like where your whole progression is lost. Just the way i take my games.

I have taken the sad habit of backing up the save game file of inv. inc. should I fail miserably, just like I had with don't starve at one point.

 

It kinda sucks as I obviously cheat. Having the option to avoid the fatal "oh **** situations" would be much more satisfying than this (limited roll backs of the previous turns, definable à la Don't starve options ?). I suspect a lot of people in the end resolve to this kind of things at one point or another of their experience, admitting it or not.

 

The more I explored the game and the more promising it gets in the end, there is still some serious work to balance that all and have more impact/diversity by higher end objects (at the moment, they actually get powerful but without really branching the gameplay possibilities I feel).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

Trust me, I know exactly what it means. Also, please include the fact that I said "more casual gamers" in my post instead of editing it out for your own purposes. 

 

Taken from OblivionDoll

 

Many players are either not giving the game a good run, or somehow refusing or failing to learn from their mistakes. These people are seeing the uncompromising difficulty as unfair - not because it IS unfair, but because they refuse to learn why it ISN'T.

 

Failing and learning from your mistakes is expected. When it happens, the correct action is to apply what you learned from your failure to the next run, not state the game is too difficult because you couldn't beat it in a couple of attempts.

 

Clearly, not everyone is going to like this, but I'm sure in the final release there will be missions that allow players to become familiar with the mechanics\agents\etc before getting thrown into the more challenging levels. Hell, there may even be an "easy" mode, but just that fact that it's labelled "easy" will probably upset some players.

 

For reference, I'm not a hardcore strategy\turn-based\simulation gamer at all, yet I have no problem understanding what I need to do and learning how to approach different maps and situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
N3KroMancer    1

Trust me, I know exactly what it means. Also, please include the fact that I said "more casual gamers" in my post instead of editing it out for your own purposes. 

 

Taken from OblivionDoll

 

Many players are either not giving the game a good run, or somehow refusing or failing to learn from their mistakes. These people are seeing the uncompromising difficulty as unfair - not because it IS unfair, but because they refuse to learn why it ISN'T.

 

Failing and learning from your mistakes is expected. When it happens, the correct action is to apply what you learned from your failure to the next run, not state the game is too difficult because you couldn't beat it in a couple of attempts.

 

Clearly, not everyone is going to like this, but I'm sure in the final release there will be missions that allow players to become familiar with the mechanics\agents\etc before getting thrown into the more challenging levels. Hell, there may even be an "easy" mode, but just that fact that it's labelled "easy" will probably upset some players.

 

For reference, I'm not a hardcore strategy\turn-based\simulation gamer at all, yet I have no problem understanding what I need to do and learning how to approach different maps and situations.

 

I don't think that labeling certain difficulty as easy is going to upset the player. All we need is incentive to beat higher difficulty.

 

Take a look at XCOM:EU/EW for a moment. There are multiple modes to choose ranging from easy to impossible to accommodate the playerbase. There is an ironman mode for those who enjoy challenge (hardcore, no manual saving) similar to the current design of Invisible inc. Players love it because it caters wider range of audience without losing the hair-pulling, nail-biting difficulty from the original (or very close to it). You can even add more mutators to increase difficulty in particular run for more fun!

 

I played that game for 200 hours and beat classic/ironman mode, it was wonderful experience. (well, after about 50 botched runs and losing an army of recruits)

 

After 6 hours spent with Invisible inc. I think the source of difficulty is lack of gear progression for our agent and reliance on power. In the second day, the guard start wearing armor and that's a source of annoyance that can not be fixed without luck. No skill involved. I managed to find just one extremely powerful taser with armor piercing. Power requirement are really annoying because it forces players to deal with randomized initial power with power drip. If you play a non-power drip setup, start with 0 power, the second room is covered with camera - you are done.  

 

What I would like to see (excluding difficulty and optional hardcore mode)

- A way to avoid camera without using power. Perhaps moving the camera's LoS each turn so that agent can sneak into the room and hide behind a cover without using incognito.

- A blind spot for camera.

- Gear swap between mission, I can't find any and swapping during the mission is a waste of turn.

- Gear upgrade or research panel. Making sure that the agents are up to the task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two more points in response to the N3KroMancer:

 

  1. I'm not adverse to an "easy" difficulty mode, as long as it scales the rewards back in relation to the reduction in difficulty (No XP on game completion or loss is a must, for example). I just don't think the normal difficulty should be scaled back to facilitate more casual players, that's what easy mode is for. Hard mode should be an additional challenge to those that want it, not what they expect to see in Normal mode.
  2. I hear you on the luck involved in finding certain items. Bear in mind that there is room for more agents, where one could start with an armour piercing weapon by default. In fact, Shalem 11 already starts with an armour-piercing weapon, so selecting him removes that problem entirely. There is also the skill-based option to handle guards with armour that you can't incapacitate by distracting and slipping past.

I still feel like a lot of the complaints about difficulty are based on a lack of understanding of the current mechanics. For example, having played for 10 hours doesn't guarantee you can make use of tactics like distracting an armoured, stationary guard by running and slipping past him as he opens the door to investigate the room.

 

Saving some power for dealing with cameras instead of cracking every safe/device as you see it is another tactic that ensures you'll avoid situations where a room has a camera and you have no power. Remember this is still early access, I doubt the final release will have a minimum starting power that doesn't allow you to at least remove a few cameras; I have never started with 0 power, personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoelFarnham    0

I like the game. I have played it over 8 hours. It is fun, but this game will not appeal to the majority. It is more for people who enjoy losing. The majority of people like to win. This game, as it is currently constituted, makes the players into losers who lose a lot. What is the fun of that? I have yet to get past the fourth city.  Yes, I know, I am supposed to learn from my mistakes.

 

As I see it, two things are needed.

 

First: Maps of the warrens. Real world Operators are given approximate diagrams of the buildings they are to infiltrate and some idea of where everything is at. As it stands right now, mistakes are really made because there is too much of a need just to find the exit then find the valuables. If you find the valuables and no exit, what is the point? Either more exits or maps of the compound.

 

Second: Guards. I have come face to face with guards time and again. Why is it, the operator can only attack the guard from behind or the side? Why can't the guard be attacked from the front? Real world Operators KILL the guards they encounter. At least, incapacitate them enough so that they are totally out of the equation. And what happens to the gun the guard used? Why would any Operator in his right mind, leave the gun with the guard he just brought down? As it stands right now, the guard wakes up and starts to hunt the Agent who put him down with the gun that he always has.  A good tweek for the guard is some sort of plastic wire ties and gag. It might take the Operator some time to truss the guard up, but that would be the trade-off. The guns could be only useful for a guard, but keeping it away from him should be paramount and if it is a smart gun, useful only to one guard, that could be considered loot as well.

 

One minor thing, at what XP level do new Agents and things become available? I am accumulating points, but I don't have any realistic idea of what I am aiming at. It could be something as simple as, you need 10,000 XP to unlock Banks or something for incognita.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
obliviondoll    40

FTL also has the option to give up combat, spool your engines and jump.

 

There is a caveat on that one.

 

You have a timer on your FTL charge, before which you can't jump. If you take engine damage OR helm damage, your charge slows or stops, and even if it's fully charged when one of those systems is down, you can't jump.

 

Kind of like how in Invisible, Inc. you can (almost) always run to the lift to get away instead of going for the mission objective, but sometimes you've got a bunch of guards and even that will be tough going.

 

In both games, it is possible to end up in an unwinnable situation. In both games, there's a way out. And in both games, that way out sometimes comes crashing down around you as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
obliviondoll    40

I like the game. I have played it over 8 hours. It is fun, but this game will not appeal to the majority. It is more for people who enjoy losing. The majority of people like to win. This game, as it is currently constituted, makes the players into losers who lose a lot. What is the fun of that? I have yet to get past the fourth city.  Yes, I know, I am supposed to learn from my mistakes.

 

Shift your perception of the game, instead of the game itself.

 

You reached the fourth city. To do that, your team survived 3 missions. You won 3 times, and only lost once.

 

If the game is hard, set yourself more manageable goals. Count each mission complete as a win.

 

Last night, for my first time, I made it to the final mission of the game. I ended up in a situation which was blatantly impossible for me to turn around once I was there, but I REACHED it. And I did so with a solidly-equipped team of 3 agents, all of whom were well-equipped. I didn't know if I was going to win the mission, but I felt like I was ready to give it a shot.

 

It's entirely possible to reach the final mission and to have spent so much effort then lost almost everything. You can get a detention centre mission at the end of the 72 hour timer, spend all your money upgrading the current agents, then lose them and only get out with the newly-unlocked 0-skills character you rescued. If it's Shalem, you'll potentially go into your final mission with no melee weapon and only an inventory upgrade. If that happened to me (and I won't be surprised if it does), I'm ok with that. I'll fail miserably, but I've had a good run leading up to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FateINV    1

I think they should allow people the option between hardcore and non hardcore mode. People can play it with less frustration and when they are more confident, they can try hardcore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
adivel    13

Well, there was a bribe option in the late pre-alpha, which give you a way to save your agent from a guard with a gun aimed to his/her face by bribing him to KO himself for a few turns!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D500    1

Here is actually my main problem with the game:

(quoting this out of another thread on the Steam page)

 

 

The alarm that starts after a few turns.

The "intrusion" being noticed is a reasonable explanation.
But this is a Stealth game. A stealth game should start with the default state being undetected.
If you perform an action - as player - like knocking out an enemy, killing someone, getting caught by a camera or hacking, then I accept the alarm to go off. But there should not be a mechanic that raises an alarm based on events that happen outside of player control.

The default state of stealth is a state in which the player is allowed to - within reasonable restrictions of course (that being patrol routes and security measures) - scout and explore the area, memorize guard movement patterns and make himself picture of the general security layout of the facility. It also allows better for dynamic avoidance of enemies instead of knocking them all out or killing them.

Yes, alarms make the game more tense. But those should happen upon player action, as punishment for making mistakes or being careless, not as default state that is triggered within a few turns.

I would accept the fact that the alarm is triggered after a few turns as special difficulty option or modifier for people who want it REALLY tense. But not as not triggerable standard.

The alarms rush you, they basically force you to make mistakes. Which can be a good mechanic if used in the right way. But IMO the decision when an alarm is triggered should never happen off-screen but be causes by the player himself. Give him some time to look around, scout. If he makes a mistake, alarm is raised anyway. If he does not then he has time until he performs the first hostile action (knocking out (which means if the guard wakes up alarm is triggered), killing (which means alarm is instantly triggered), hacking (alarm is instantly triggered (or after max. 2 turns)), or being spotted by a guard or camera or tripping a laser, etc, etc.

Just my opinion of course, but this should be provided IMO.
Don't get me wrong, I like insanely difficult games. I'd just like to be given the option to modify my difficulty, and this specific element, the first alarm, should be an element where we can modify how it happens, either automatically if you want it VERY hard, or upon the first hostile action like I said.

Another good solution would be to acutally make the missions variable in a way that SOME missions trigger and alarm after a few rounds, while other missions trigger no alarm until you perform your first hostile action or make a mistake.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HolyDeath    54

Somebody (can't remember who or where) made an interesting suggestion that alarm start rushing once you'll do something that'll tip the security something fishy is going on (guard seeing an open door - they usually close door by default - hacking a device, guard or sound bug hearing you running, guard seeing you or seeing a downed guard, etc.).

It'd give Deckard a lot more importance (for now he seems to be the least unique character) and allow players to explore level for some time before they'll make a mistake (or deliberate decision) that'll tip off the alarm. Then you'll have to hurry, regardless of how well you infiltrated the building.

Power Drip and Fusion could only work after the alarm has been activated, to prevent PWR hoarding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
leoharth    0

I really like the game. Played it for 12 hours already. I think a few adjustments would be nice.

 

I would like the final game to have a similar structure to Crypt of the Necrodancer, in wich if you clear a level consisting of 3 dungeons, it unlocks higher difficult levels.

 

So, If you beat the final misson, you can start a new game on a higher difficult with 4 agents and slightly better gear.

 

The closest I got from final mission was on day 3, i started a detention center mission 1 hour before the end of the 72. I had Deckard, Banks and Internationale and managed to free Salem. However they all died in the elevator corridor :(

 

After that, many times i fail in my second or even in my first mission. So I guess the game is a lot luck-dependent at this current build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vicwarrior    0

The game is good but the bad part is the missions having the alarm ticking right from the start while you are given absolutely no clues to where there is the exit elevator and the rooms of interest.

 

On top of this the pressure caused by the time encourages you to do things quickly sometimes causing things that you couldn't predict screw you over and make you lose an agent, or the entire run.

 

In some other games like xcom things out of your control such as alien pods unexpectedly showing up or an unlikely shot hitting can crew you over but not as much as in invisible.inc as losing (a) soldier(s) usually doesnt critically cripple your run as (if you are skilled) you have more trained soldiers in backup in the HQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the truthseeker    1,560

I really like the game. Played it for 12 hours already. I think a few adjustments would be nice.

 

I would like the final game to have a similar structure to Crypt of the Necrodancer, in wich if you clear a level consisting of 3 dungeons, it unlocks higher difficult levels.

 

So, If you beat the final misson, you can start a new game on a higher difficult with 4 agents and slightly better gear.

 

The closest I got from final mission was on day 3, i started a detention center mission 1 hour before the end of the 72. I had Deckard, Banks and Internationale and managed to free Salem. However they all died in the elevator corridor :(

 

After that, many times i fail in my second or even in my first mission. So I guess the game is a lot luck-dependent at this current build.

 

 

 

M9nU4A.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FozNertep    0

Hi everyone!

 

I can very much relate to those who think that the game is a little too frustrating in its current state.

Like the Alarm System, as many have already pointed out, rushing the player too much. This would make more sense if you were able to plan ahead, weigh out risks and benefits, but the random maps and "blind" approach do not allow for that. I had multiple occasions where I stumbled into an "unbeatable" situation right after the first couple of rooms and would really have liked to cut my losses and pull out, maybe just leaving through the original entry point, but couldn't.

 

I would really prefer the Alarm System to trigger on player actions instead of the turn count, at least as an option. It really prevents you from scouting a level in order to make informed decisions. As it is, you just rush towards one direction and pretty much need to follow through with it or get screwed by the timer. If it's a dead end, the game is pretty much over.

I constantly ran into situations I immediately knew I couldn't resolve in any satisfactory way. Like finding a dead-end hallway with two guard/enforcer spawns and the elevator at the end behind the first door I opened. After a look at the other door out of the starting room, it was obvious that I would never be able to get anywhere in time before my way out would be completely blocked by the additional guards.

Or a small room (3x6) with two armoured guards looking straight at the only other door. I could not take them out because of the armour and I could not get past them. And the room was a bottleneck. Game over.

 

Knocking out guards also is a curious issue. Disabling them for two turns just isn't enough to get the team out of "investigation range", pinning and/or dragging them costs too much time and I rarely ever encountered guards in a setup where I would have been able to sneak past them. Might be the RMG screwing me again, but even then, this suggests that the randomisation parameters need tweaking.

 

Killing them instead is seldomly an option in my opinion. Depending on the weapon used, it costs 200-400 credits in ammunition (provided you can find any ammo in the first place) plus clean-up, the alarm counter is raised by 2, and you might attract unwanted attention of other guards you did not even become aware of yet.

I'd really like to be able to knock out guards for good, maybe drag them to a safe spot where they won't be woken up by their colleagues and continue with the mission.

 

Also, the agent upgrades seem pretty superfluous at the moment. I've played quite a bit now and did a whooping total of two agent upgrades (additional MP for Shalem). Not that they might not be useful, but I simply never had enough cash to spend on them.

It definitely felt good after the initial failed attempts to have the first successful missions, going in, grabbing some stuff and leaving - until I realised that this had not in any way improved my situation. No actually useful items, no considerable advantage through agent upgrades, the "reward" was instead the difficulty spike providing me with unwinnable situations right on the next mission.

 

Sorry, but that is frustrating. I really like the concept of the game but I miss a real sense of progress and accomplishment. And please don't say I just haven't figured out the intricacies of the tactical game mechanics yet, because that really isn't the point I am trying to make, which is that the luck factor outweighs the tactical factor by too far at the moment. The game too often presents me with situations which either leave me no options at all or only options which make things worse regardless of my choice. So there is not really a choice or tactics involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
obliviondoll    40

Like finding a dead-end hallway with two guard/enforcer spawns and the elevator at the end behind the first door I opened. After a look at the other door out of the starting room, it was obvious that I would never be able to get anywhere in time before my way out would be completely blocked by the additional guards.

Or a small room (3x6) with two armoured guards looking straight at the only other door. I could not take them out because of the armour and I could not get past them. And the room was a bottleneck. Game over.

 

It definitely felt good after the initial failed attempts to have the first successful missions, going in, grabbing some stuff and leaving - until I realised that this had not in any way improved my situation. No actually useful items, no considerable advantage through agent upgrades, the "reward" was instead the difficulty spike providing me with unwinnable situations right on the next mission.

 

Dead end hallway with both spawns and the elevator: Time to cut and run. Spend the first 2 alarm levels (free of spwaning guards) exploring and collecting what you can without wasting too much power or alerting too many guards, then fall back to the lift before ticking up to level 3.

 

Small bottleneck room with armoured guards looking at the other door: RUN. Seriously. Make one of your agents run in the next room. The guards will hear the sound and move in to investigate. Once you've lured them out of position, you can pass through the room they were guarding and move on.

 

Difficulty spike: From what the devs have said, this is going to be changing in future. They're looking at adding difficulty settings. One idea being considered is that easy mode could have an extra alarm level at the beginning of each mission where nothing happens. No confirmation on the possibility of a hard mode or what changes that might entail. I know there are people who would welcome even more challenge though (I haven't finished story mode, so I think I'll stick to "normal"). On top of these changes, there has been mention of the full game being planned to be longer. The current final mission is a stand-in and will be used as a "special mission" type that will show up occasionally. In endless mode, there are two such mission types (one the same as the final mission). A lot of people are expecting that with a longer playtime, you'll get more missions on guarded/very guarded at the beginning of the game, giving you more time to build up and get ready for the heavily guarded and eventually extremely guarded missions that follow. It should also give you more opportunities to take Detention Centre missions and potentially unlock more agents.

 

The changes planned and being considered should be quite helpful to alleviate the frustration aspect that settles in for a lot of players when reaching that mid-game point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FozNertep    0

Dead end hallway with both spawns and the elevator: Time to cut and run. Spend the first 2 alarm levels (free of spwaning guards) exploring and collecting what you can without wasting too much power or alerting too many guards, then fall back to the lift before ticking up to level 3.

 

Small bottleneck room with armoured guards looking at the other door: RUN. Seriously. Make one of your agents run in the next room. The guards will hear the sound and move in to investigate. Once you've lured them out of position, you can pass through the room they were guarding and move on.

Unfortunately, the layout was such that I could not get anything in time. I had to leave right away without a chance to take anything.

 

On the other occasion: where would I run to? There was nowhere to hide in the adjacent room and no alternative routes. The "guarded" door also was a security door I could not get through without taking a Passkey from one of the guards first - and I had no means of taking them out.

 

Today I had two drones and one guard entering the room on what seemed to be a regular patrol, I had not drawn any attention - after all it was the second room I entered on the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites