I think you're rationalizing and could not disagree more strongly. So you're content with every hunter having 28% of the maximum levels allowed by these mechanics even though if the level cap were 34 you could still have 7200 unique hunter builds? But somehow it is only by keeping it at 10 that you feel your hunters could have personality? Like all new games, I chalk this up to novelty and naivete. In another few weeks when everyone has already min-maxed their current team as much as possible and the only possible reason to keep playing is hoping for another legendary drop, we'll see what people are saying, and I'm pretty sure it's not going to be, "Ohnoes, don't you dare raise the level cap Rodeo Games! I couldn't possibly stand to play another contract for this boring ass game since I maxed out everything a week ago, but my memories would be so sullied by you opening up more experimentation, specialization and game play!"
This is a pretty misleading way of counting, since once you are at a high level putting a small number of points into something you never or rarely use, doesn't make much sense. You constantly commit the fallacy of central position, the belief that everyone is like you. You might reflect on what actual fraction of players will have "already min-maxed their current team as much as possible." Maybe 1%?
Had a question regarding item function. ( I really wish there was more info. Cus I find it interesting and WANT to learn more about resistance, crits etc) anyway, I was wondering for those seasoned players, does the amount of toughness(is it safe to assume/interchange this with the general term defense for ease?) = a greater benefit/ is more important than resistance? Now I know it may be more or less effective per a arm class, but in gen. For example. Light armor 840 toughness 5 res. vs 680 toughness 30 res. Or Heavy armor: 5200 tough 5 res. vs 3700 tough 45 res Or Medium : 2280 tough 10 res vs 2600 tough vs 15 res Not sure if this paints a clear enough image of what I'm trying to ask. Thanks for your help+ tips.
So you mean "not many". Which implies that it takes long for characters to level up, and for people to explore the different possibilities. Increasing the level cap will only give you more both time and possibilities. More importantly, you do realize there are only two skill trees available to each hunter? Even if every hunter is given the maximum 34 points, there would still be 10, reasonably distinct builds.
<sigh>... Hard as it may be for you to believe, I'm not rationalizing. I'm enjoying myself. Sit down with your therapist and see if you can spot the difference. Yes, I do prefer this way. Why? Because I like making hard choices. My guys have flaws. Weaknesses. One small tactical slip and could they go from kicking a** to needing a replacement in a single turn. That's exciting. So yes, it's their weaknesses as much as their strengths that give them personality. And if I want to explore different options, then hey, I can make a whole new team and have fun starting all over again. As David pointed out, different people like different things. It's a grand old world. Then my work here is done.
+1 ^^ And according to that, do you think it's interesting to choose Cold Blood for a Hammer wielding hunter (Charger build) ? I've noticed that the Fleet Footed skill is worth a point (about 30% proc) but what's about Cold Blood skill ?
For a very rough idea, calculate the following for each armour: (armour toughness)/[1-0.008*(armour resistance)] where resistance is in percent (e.g. 5% = 5, not 0.05). This gives you a likely 'damage handling equivalent'; that is, how much unmodified damage the armour can handle without failing. For your examples, I get (and someone check my equation!): Light: 840/5 vs 680/30 --> 875 vs 895 (2nd is better) Or Heavy: 5200/5 vs 3700/45 --> 5417 vs 5781 (2nd is better) Or Medium : 2600/10 vs 2280/15 --> 2826 vs 2591 (I rearranged your numbers because in the original, the 2nd was obviously better) However, don't rely on this too much, since this analysis is based on handling large numbers of hits, and against tougher enemies, resistance becomes more important, since some hits would be one-shot kills, especially in the lighter armours. In general, the heavier the hit, the better it is to have higher resistance. So choose your armour not only on the stats but what enemies you're likely to expose your hunter to.
Hmm...I haven't tried a Combat Hammer. I thought Scouting/Survival would be a better choice, so that's what I've worked with. With Scouting, you get Fleet Foot (+1 AP chance/move), Improved Metabolism (+1 AP), Recon (+2 AP first few turns) and Sprint (for positioning and getting out of tight situations). Take Hunker Down from the Survival tree, add a lvl 2 Stimpak, put some Light armour on him and he's a beast. You could have at least 16 AP your first turn (likely more), and still leave him harmlessly exposed to a round of shots for a two-turn total of at least 24 AP. Or save those skills for later and you get at least 18 damage-free AP over two turns. I tend to use my Hammer to dart in and out, rather than standing around soaking up damage. So he's always moving, and Fleet Foot's a better choice for that. But I'm playing hardcore, so I can't afford to leave my guys exposed. The downside is that apart from one or two short bursts, your Hammer ends up mostly standing around doing nothing. And he's totally ineffective on large, open maps. With Combat, Second Chance and Cold Blood are both useful. Crippling Shot would rarely be used, though, and Massacre only sometimes, I suspect. I think this would work for a non-hardcore build. Put heavier armour on him and he'd be a lot of fun when he gets up close.
No fallacy as the only people who could possibly ever care about the level cap are the same ones who will have done so and are posting here. To even stretch your mind to assume I'm talking about the entire player base takes a talent I can only guess at how it functions. You routinely commit the fallacy of assuming I don't know how studies, statistics, etc. function, or context for that matter, yet I'm all but certain I'm at least as versed in the field if not mopping the floor with your gadfly self. You want relative positions, OK... Raise or don't raise the level cap since 98% of the player base will never advance their teams past levels 6 or 7 anyhow so the upper game couldn't possibly matter to anyone who counts according DaviddesJ. Don't worry about adding any more weapons and content because, who cares, most of your players will never experience it anyhow. And Blizzard? That company who rakes in billions putting the lions' share of their efforts catering mostly to less than a fraction of a percentage point of their players, they're idiots
I'm not saying you're not enjoying yourself, but, yes, I do assume your claims are rationalization at some level. You're taking one of those "best of all possible worlds" positions that are usually, by their nature, logically weak. They released the game with a maximum of 9 points for builds, so we all have to put on our thinking caps and come up with the best solutions giving 9 points, and for gamers, yes, it's fun. However, it's kind of silly to assert that if they'd released the game with 14 points or 17 points or whatever that you wouldn't have come to the exact same conclusion: You enjoy the game so, ergo, the game design must be the "best" possible game design as even with those limited points you would still be making hard decisions and creating hunters with weaknesses. Your claims don't pass the proverbial smell test. You can't even create a hunter with a little bit of everything with less than a level 22 cap, and that's just a little bit. So the reasons you give for why 9 is better than 10 or 12 or whatever are baseless assertions at their core.
Only just started playing this, but can somebody let me know if this has been retina updated for the new iPad?
No, that's not true at all. The question of how they add new content to the game makes a big difference to everyone, not just the few people like you. There's not much room for different interpretations of your claim, "In another few weeks when everyone has already min-maxed their current team as much as possible." You're saying all of the players are in the same position as you and want the same things. But it's just not true at all. There's not much point in raising the level caps if you don't also add more difficult content for those higher level characters. You already trumpet how easy it is for you to beat everything in the game now, surely you aren't going to be satisfied with stronger characters beating the same enemies even more easily. So the path of raising the level cap in order to add more difficult content for higher level characters is one way of continuing to grow and expand the game, but it's one that only serves a small fraction of the player community. Compare that to other ways of expanding the game, such as adding more skills that everyone can use, at whatever level they are, and you see why a lot of people in that 99% might not prefer what you consider to be the only approach.
Haven't read your solution since I'm still working toward doing it myself (will be curious to see if my load out and team looks anything like yours). Came very close on this last play through today. Got everyone except that guy with the assault rifle down in the bottom right. Tried, but I was down to 3 guys by the time I got to him and after 2 of my hunters got killed, turned tail and ran and completed the mission with my last hunter. Next time dang it.
This game is amazing on so many levels. So many. It's practically the perfect iPhone game. Haven't felt this way about a turn-based iOS game since Dungeon Raid. Glad I took a chance despite some of the hate in this thread based on a bad developer experience with Hunters 1.
Mission 5? Hey all. Not a total noob when it comes to strategy games but I've been stuck on Mission 5 for a day or two. This is the mission where you first meet Caius. For some reason I can't figure out which path gets you safely past the other mega powerful Hunters. Could someone please help me figure this out...? Thanks!
I'm actually pretty disappointed with the game. Love turn based strategy, but really was hoping for something a little bit more challenging or interesting, instead of a grind to get exp and new equipment (like so many hundreds of other games with RPG elements tacked on). Maybe my hopes were a bit high with the obvious similarities to WH40k, Space Hulk especially, one of my all time favorite games, but the similarities are only superficial. The game is just missing any kind of tension or danger, and the only real choices you end up making are if you have the patience to creep forward, abusing the AI. Because there's no turn limit, and the enemies never really try and hunt you or maneuver, you can just make sure not to end your guys in the enemies line of sight, and you really can't go wrong. The enemy AI is just too static and dull to be interesting, IMO.
