Best of the Best

[Carlos the Jackal]

Editors are duuuum

*No comment*

[NKF]

I suppose, once you've won the game several times over, it's nice once in a while to have a little variation in gear.

 

I mean, how cool is it to have a standard pistol that not only takes pistol clips, but a stun bomb as well? Pretty multipurpose there. Or how about a heavy plasma with an underslung blaster launcher? No, you cannot shoot the blaster bombs ala the blaster launcher. Or what about a ridiculous laser pistol that takes heavy rockets and autocannon incendiary shells?

 

Some players tend to neglect some weapons, like the pistol and the heavy laser cannon. Now, you could edit them to make them useful again. Say upping the pistol clip damage a bit to match the plasma pistol, or coverting the heavy laser into an ultra-fast version of the laser rifle, scaling the damage down a bit to balance things of course.

 

Still, if you cannot win the game with what the game presents you, playing with modified guns really isn't all that honest. But I guess it's fun for some.

 

- NKF

[Solfius]

I only cheat if I can't win any other way, or I'm getting bored with the standard game

[The Veteran]

Cheaters Solfius... are worse than reloaders... :hmmm:

[Solfius]

I don't cheat though, I dispise cheaters, I'm saying I would only do it if the game was beginning to get boring for me, but that would never happen with X-com

[Asmodai]

If I ever got bored with a game, I'd just stop playing it and find a new game, cheating doesn't make games any more enjoyable.

[Psy Guy]

I think that cheaters that cheat after they beat a game aren't any lower than a reg gamer of that game but cheaters that cheat to win and don't admit they cheated are a sad bunch. Hackers are even lower. (Modding and Hacking are two diffrent things) (Hackin in my book is gaining an unfair advantage over the enemy by using methods that aren't in the game while modding is changing the gameplay.)

 

-PSY GUY-

[NKF]

Depends on what context you're using the cheats for.

 

If it's for playing a game you intend to seriously win, then ... well, you're just cheating yourself, and have nothing to gain from it. I think this is what everyone considers to be lower than pond scum.

 

If it's just for fun, or in my case, to set up the conditions for any experiments™ that I'd like to test, I suppose it's harmless. I like to keep these separate from any proper campaigns I'm playing. No sense in continuing the campaign after its been 'contaminated' eh?

 

If it's to make the game harder than it already is ... uh, whatever rocks your boat. You can make the game much harder without editing it in any way whatsoever. Like play in iron man mode, or stop using psi-amps. Use less heavy plasmas. More pistols. Sack uber-soldiers when they get too good. Play as a pacifist. Etc.

 

- NKF

[Orac]

The standard issue guns aren't crappy. They're the best of earth's tech (in relative xcom terms an M16A2 or AWP etc, is probably low-tech. Like if you threw one of those into xcom it would probably be the eqivilent to an xcom pistol). It's just that the aliens are much more technically advanced than earth. Thanks to the wonders of reverse engineering, and xcom being able hire the best of the best in scientists and engineers, we can turn the alien's technology against them.

 

As for damage for getting shot in the back at point blank. Since that's comparing to real life and outcome, I just wanted to add something to that thought. In real sometimes under rare and unexplained circumstances people sometimes survive those circumstances and aren't crippled. There's a lot of luck involved. I think xcom simulates that aspect pretty well for a game, because chances are that your soldier is toast, but he might get lucky and live to fight another day. Also take into consideration they're wearing armor. Those coveralls are actually armor, and probably higher tech than police issued kevlar vests. Let's say there was an x-com today in real life that we didn't know about. I think it would be safe to assume they'd be issued the best possible combat armor and weaponry this entire globe has available. Probably military hardware we have yet to know even existed.

 

Also let's say aliens were real, more advanced than us, and attacking earth. Even our navy seals would probably have a helluva time fighting them. They'd probably take casualties they never imagined. I mean it's tough enough fighting other humans, but the aliens in xcom are essentially monsters, not only monsters but high-tech ones at that (It's akin to a crack commando squad taking on a Preditor). They're high-tech, often genetically engineered for combat, and often very thick skinned. Of course they're going to make the best of the best human soldiers look like weaklings in comparison. As is their technology to boot. If our soldier were mere conscripts, as implied, then it would probably take armies of men to take them on as apposed to small squads.

 

Also, how does one gauge the accuracy of any of the weapons in the game compared to real life? I mean, even the most high-tech weapon are highly innaccurate compared to real life modern day tech. The reason is because of limitations imposed. Maps can only be so big. Maps getting too big starts to have ramification in PC processing power and memory, and also gameplay. Also, the sense of scale within the game probably isn't exact but more likely approximated. Ranges are obviously scaled down for gameplay reasons.

 

Anyway, the beginning equipment (rifles, pistols, etc) aren't all that bad. You can get the job done with minimal casualties. It just takes some good solid squad based tactics. If your tactics don't take into consideration the squad as a whole but instead treats individual soldiers as individual weapons platforms, then even a lone, veteran, x-com agent equipped in a flying suit and heavy plasma can get wasted. He tends to have better survival chances than a lone, low-tech, rookie though.

[Snikers]

Very accurate and analytical. I applaud. *applause*

 

The only thing is that I think a lot of people post just to be cynical.

[Orac]

I think that cheaters that cheat after they beat a game aren't any lower than a reg gamer of that game but cheaters that cheat to win and don't admit they cheated are a sad bunch.  Hackers are even lower. (Modding and Hacking are two diffrent things) (Hackin in my book is gaining an unfair advantage over the enemy by using methods that aren't in the game while modding is changing the gameplay.)

 

-PSY GUY-  

Personally, I don't care how anyone plays the game. If someone wants to cheat it's their perogative. They're just spoiling the game for themselves. They pretty much cheat themselves out of all the challenges and exciting experiences that can be had with the game.

 

It's like a friend of mine. A friend of mine would use an editor to make all his soldiers super human with super gear. I guess that was his idea of fun, but I would be bored. Kindof takes the whole point out of it all for me. I don't think any less of him though. If he's having fun, all the power to him. I prefer a challenge though.

 

I mean, the first time I got power armor I was excited. My cheating friend missed out on that whole experience. As it turns out, my friend lost interest with xcom within just a few weeks. I, on the other hand, have been having fun with it for years. A game as good as xcom doesn't come along very often. Of course, I tend to be more jaded about gaming compared to my friend. I don't use editors when I want to play a serious game, as a result I've been getting all the fun out of the game. Actually, haven't used an editor yet, but I'm sure that once I become bored with xcom (maybe that will never happen though ), then I can use the editor have even more fun with it. Like use it to present instant action scenarious once I get jaded with xcom.

 

Cheaters tend to be the same people that always complain that there's not any games worth playing. Somehow they've failed to realize they've cheated themselves out of having as much fun as they could have with any good games. On the other hand, different players have different thresholds of frustration. Some players get frustrated sooner than others. So a cheating or editing util, can help keep some people from getting put out by a game altogether out of frustration. To me, that's the ideal way to use such utils - instead of using such utils to cheat, instead use them as last resort to bring down the frustration level to what will make a game a fun challenge for one's self. So far, I haven't had to resort to such measures, but like some players, I have more determination than most casual gamers. It all comes down to where you're at as a gamer. And really none means much of anything one way or the other. About the only thing that has any meaning in gaming is how much fun and how entertained you are.

 

Hell, you can be the best gamer in the world, and really what's that going to mean? Pretty much nothing. It's not going to make you rich, get you laid, or make you anymore healthier. That's why I've never understood the types of gamers that take competition with their hobby to the extreme (i.e. those CPL geeks). Doesn't that kind of take all the fun out a hobby? And if all the fun is gone from a hobby, why have the said hobby anymore?

[Asmodai]

Cheating is changing the game in anyway, regardless what you do. Even if you change the game to make it more challenging. Modding is Changing the game! There 2 ways to play games... the way they were meant to be played, and the way you change them to suit you. I agree with Orac that it doesn't really matter, cause it's not like I'm going to hate any of you who cheat. Like, "Oh no! :o You are evil" hahaha. What gets me is when people cheat, then try to rationalize it.

[Orac]

What I hate is when people cheat in multiplayer games. I mean, if they want to ruin the game for themselves, it doesn't really affect anyone but them (possiblt cheating themselves out of opportunity for rewarding experiences etc). But multiplayer cheaters ruin a game for the whole gameplaying community.

 

There's probably nothing lower when it comes to gaming than cheaters who cheat at multiplayer.

[The Veteran]

I agree with Psy Guy. If people can finish a gasme on their own then who cars if they cheat and play it again? The reason programmers put cheat codes into games is that it allows extra play after the game has been completed the way it is supposed to be. Therefore by completing the game without cheating initially the gamer has effectively unlocked the cheats for themselves.

[usmarox]

I dunno, actually. I normally play a game normally for a few days, then cheat, and then come back to it "normally" again. I find that cheating just highlights what it is you're missing. In that respect, I'd say cheating is good for enjoying the game to its max. I cheated - heavily - at UFO not long after I got it, and when I started playing without the editor I realised how much I'd missed (I think it was the soldier development thing that did it for me).

 

If people want to cheat, then power to them. Just so they don't *force* it on me.

[Asmodai]

I often find myself being beaten for not cheating. People are all, "Beat him cause he's different" Yea it hurts.

[mirage]

I fire any soldier that has less than 60 shooting accuracy... no matter what

 

wait no.. if they have really good time units and stamina I might make him/her a medic.

[Gilesy]

:alien2: I think its great watching the solders grow into killing machines,

you just have to give them time.