Bahger

  • Content count

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Bahger

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  1. Dagger kiboshes three firewalls in one go but only on one device, right? So the most value I have ever got out of it (except in an emergency) is a one-shot hack of a two-firewall device, as I have rarely encountered a device with a firewall value of three. This leaves me with one unspent FW-hacking point that I cannot use on another device. Surely we should be able to use Dagger to hack more than one device within a certain range, up to an expenditure of three, in other words, if I see a two-FW camera in close proximity to a one-FW safe, shouldn't I be able to use Dagger to get both devices? More often than not, I go into the long 5-turn cool down having wasted one FW-hacking point of Dagger's overall capacity. Am I doing something wrong? I have noticed that using dagger will reveal the location of otherwise out of FOV nearby hackable devices but having read what a useful ability it is to have, I am a little underwhelmed by how unable I am to optimise it to full capacity.
  2. But how? I am sorry to be such a novice but I am not yet versed in these dark arts and if I get through the next mission I may well be faced with null drones again. And, as we all know, there is no trial and error in this game.
  3. I haven't a clue. I tried shooting them but could only get LOS from the front so they shot my agent before he could shoot them. I could not hack a vault until I got rid of the drones so it was stalemate. It's the first encounter I've had with them. How should I arm myself to deal with them, with weapons or hacking tools through Incognita? Many thanks!
  4. Well, I have now won three consecutive missions and am heading into my fourth with a three-agent team and quite a few gadgets. However, I have no power and no ability to confront armored guards. I am obviously learning the game but I must try and get more money and spend it on stuff that I anticipate I'll need in the Very Guarded and heavily Guarded missions. At the moment I am spending too much time in front of a hacked Nanofab with not enough money to buy anything but an extra storage slot.
  5. I could not have put this better myself and again I emphasize, I am having a hard time advancing beyond the third mission. Those who claim that a save feature can be justified because it can be ignored are advancing a completely wrongheaded argument, in my opinion. This is a very well-designed game whether you value the level of difficulty or not and as Phenom says, the absence of a save feature is a design decision. To include one now would imply that the designers lacked faith in the integrity of their own design concept, and nobody wants to play an otherwise worthwhile game that has had such a core design compromise inflicted on it through pressure from one section of its player base. And I have never, ever, been able to give the "well you can just ignore it" argument any credence whatsoever (it always crops up when people complain about games with autosaves but no quicksaves). If I got in a really tight spot in Invisible Inc (which has happened more often than I care to admit) I would rather be faced with a decision between trying to wriggle my way out (which is often possible once you think hard enough about your options) and admitting defeat. If a save were available, then no matter how determined I might be not to use it, I'd be sitting there wondering if the experience of the game and the outcome of the situation on a second attempt, might have been more enjoyable. This kind of speculation, even if it is not followed through, is unfair to the devs, who have built a very good game around a live-or-die mechanic. If they were to compromise it with a save feature, no matter how convenient it might be to certain players including myself, it would be a gesture of bad faith and of a lack of confidence in the game's basic DNA. The devs mustn't do it and I am confident that they will not.
  6. I started this thread because I was frustrated with the game's uncompromising difficulty but even I would not advocate a save option. Whether you intend to use it or not, it's very existence influences the way you play and this game must be played on a one mistake and you're out basis. As I get better at it I am no longer even advocating intel re. the location of the elevator. I just wish it were possible for someone with my relatively meagre talent and available time to get past three consecutive missions; I have abandoned all hope of ever getting to the end.
  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.
  8. @N3KroMancer, these are exactly my sentiments, as you know, but they carry more weight when expressed by a committed and experienced player. My limited recent success in the game has encouraged me to persevere with it and I am not dismissive of games that offer a high level of challenge or which face the player with the irreversible consequences of his own actions. I can even understand an argument -- which nobody has made here yet -- that the game is not aimed at "the casual gamer". If so, fair enough, but it is a good enough game to deserve a chance at broad commercial success, especially as it is available on Steam, yet I fear it will not achieve this for as long as beginning players fail three missions or more for every one at which they succeed and the ultimate success of getting through the campaign and unlocking the whatsit mode seems limited to a small group of people with rarefied abilities.
  9. This is impressive and encouraging to me. Can you explain what you mean by having Incognita "ping a nearby location"? Was that some kind of distraction tactic?
  10. Thanks, I will let you know how it goes; after wrestling with the game all day I cannot bring myself to face the humiliation tonight but will hit it in the morning. The thing that bothers me is the lack of intel re. the elevator location. I think all professional operatives know exactly where they are to exfiltrate, as one says in the black ops business. I do understand the gameplay vs. realism argument but I wish there were an alternative to going room to room in the hope that you will find either the objective or the exfil location, or both, before attrition has its way with you. The game is essentially an ingenious, dynamic maze puzzle but I do wish I could feel I can win one for every two times I lose; that seems to be a reasonable balance to me.
  11. Gosh, it wouldn't let me write the expression "t!ts-up"! Sorry...
  12. Thanks very much for responding to my thread and for being so constructive. I have taken a lot of these responses to heart, especially after reading Darksider282's. I have never played a game before whose XP system is based on rewarding you for losing repeatedly, so I am finding that I need to make a large mental adjustment. I like the game, even while it drives me crazy. I am possibly getting better at it. Right now, with Banks and Deckard (sp?) I am approaching a hostage location, I know where the extraction point is and both my operatives are fully powered up. There is a guard facing the entrance of the hostage location but I think I can I can take him down using Deckard's cloaking device and, if necessary, keep him down with Banks' special syringe. After that, it should just be a matter of extracting across about five rooms but I'm at security level 4 and it will all probably go ****-up. Sigh. Onwards!
  13. Good points, Revol. I really want this game to succeed in the marketplace, it richly deserves to. At first, I thought it could be as strong a contender in terms of a very smart indie game crossing over to mass-appeal as Door Kickers. However, I fear that right now you have to be a very dedicated puzzle-gamer -- which I am not -- to persevere with this and that's a shame.
  14. After a 10-hour binge on this game, which I do not regret buying because I admire the concept/design, I am going to put it aside until the next update or I am going to grind my teeth to powder. I like challenging games but this is too frustrating. Here's why: - There is so little intel re. the locations that it is a matter of luck whether you will ever find the elevator. this obliges the player to go on a room-by-room hunt and most of the time both the steeply increasing alarm status and the dwindling resources available to him conspire to get his operatives trapped like rats. I think it is very important to implement something like drones (easily abstracted) that can "light up" the map so that the player can know where he has to try to work towards and decide how many risks and detours he wants to take on the way. Right now, navigation is too blind and risk is too high. - It's just plain wrong that the player, who cannot save -- I like that design concept -- loses everything except XP when he fails a mission, obliging him, literally, to start again from square one. I do not want saving and rinse-and-repeat experimental gameplay and like the fact that in this game you have to live with the consequences of your own choices but I am a good strategy gamer and I have never survived more than teo rounds of this game. It's way too unforgiving to have nothing to show for it in the end. Only the very hardcorest of the hardcore will put up with such unforgiving gameplay. - Resources, weapons and power-ups are too scarce and even when you get them, you need to win many more consecutive missions than the average player has either the ability or the patience to put up with in order to deploy them. Then when you inevitably lose a mission it all goes up in smoke. - I really like the choice the devs have made to limit safe experimentation by pressuring the player to use available time to accomplish goals while the alarm state increases but the balance is way too hard on the player right now. There is something fundamentally wrong with the gameplay mechanic whereby the more you accomplish, the harder it is to win. Again, I strongly suggest drones, or some such form of abstraction that gives the player better situational awareness of the whole map so that he has an overview and some chance of approaching the mission on a more strategic, less room-by-room basis. I like to review games like this for serious strategy/simulation gaming sites like SimHQ. At first I was so impressed with this WIP game that I wanted to approach the devs and propose a strongly positive review of the Beta. However, after accomplishing too little in spite of being a very competent gamer in this genre and learning all the stealth, gameplay and movement mechanics I have come to the conclusion that this is potentially a great game but there is an absolutely fundamental imbalance between satisfaction and frustration here that will severely limit the game's appeal to all but the most fanatical puzzle-gamers and that's not me or the serious, adult tactical/strategy/simulation gamers I write for. Most people simply do not have enough available time to overcome the frustrations involved in trying to "win" this game or to do well enough short of winning to achieve a sense of accomplishment. If the devs respond in detail to this post, or PM me, I would be happy to start a dialogue about gameplay balance which, if there were a consensus about the issues I've raised, and some proposed resolution of what I believe are huge gameplay balance problems affecting an otherwise very, very good game, I promise I will promote this game heavily on Steam and on the specialist sites I write for. Meanwhile perhaps the following poll will help establish whether or not that consensus exists amongst forum members: