3 ms·
> That's a fair perspective. For my part, I felt pretty consistently when I lost an ITB run that I deserved it— I hadn't lost to a heartless RNG, I had lost bec
by AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> That's a fair perspective. For my part, I felt pretty consistently when I lost an ITB run that I deserved it— I hadn't lost to a heartless RNG, I had lost because I made a wrong choice, and the scenario would have been beatable if I'd made different tradeoffs.
....which has absolutely nothing to do with achievements? I agree, the game design was fine in this regard, it is the gating of unlocks behind arbitrary objectives relying on luck that I have a problem with[0]. If they just gated each team behind beating the game with a previous team I wouldn't have complained.
[0] Specifically, unlocking certain characters relied on luck based events, as did even having an attempt at some of the achievements. All achievements need to be unlocked for the final team, which I never got because fuck that noise.
- mikepurvis 5y ago> Specifically, unlocking certain characters relied on luck based events Okay yes, thanks for this clarification. My RNG comment was based on a reading of your previous message that you didn't like progression being gated on completing the main missions because those had a luck component, and while I felt that at first, upon further play it became clear that there really are very few true Kobayashi Maru scenarios in Into The Breach, even on Hard Mode [0]. [0]: Youtuber soulmata has a series of 30k videos that are worth a watch to see what really high level play looks like.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y agoYeah, I think I caught that on later reading and I fully agree. There is a certain amount of luck in any given game of Into the Breach, but it isn't a luck-based game. After I got good at it, I never encountered a situation that I felt was impossible due to luck, only because I'd made bad choices somewhere along the line. Pretty much the same praise (and complaint, re: achievements and luck based unlocks) for FTL.