Ground Combat Balance Discussion v19 Experimental Build 5

[GizmoGomez]

Not specific to the most recent version (not played enough yet), but something that's bothered me for a while (and inspired by discussions about grenades) - TUs spent on swapping items between belt/backpack and hand seem very low. It takes ~10 TUs to stow a weapon in a backpack and draw a handgun from a belt, which is half the TUs needed to take a snap shot with a rifle or shotgun.

I'd make two contentions for increasing the TU costs for this. Firstly, I think it would be more realistic (certainly my backpack-packing skills are not so lightning fast!). More importantly, though, I'd argue that it would add something to GC by making item-in-hand choices a little more meaningful. Given that it's so easy to swap items in and out of hand, it makes relatively little difference at the moment what you have in hand already. A soldier armed with a LMG or sniper rifle is hardly troubled by drawing their pistol to take a shot on the move; a medic is hardly troubled getting their medikit out to heal a badly wounded soldier; etc. IMO, I'd like these things to all be more important then they are at the moment.

This would also expand the use of pistols a bit more by making carrying grenades/medikits in hand a little more valuable (I've never used the Commando unit class since it's never troubled me to use grenades from the belt when I've needed to, so I've never seen the advantage of having a grenade already in hand).

I think that currently the cost for moving something to/from the backpack and the cost for the belt are the same. This should change; the belt should cost much less than the backpack. Also, ammo placed in the belt vs placed in the pack should have a different reload cost, even when using the quick reload. This way you can't just fill your pack with ammo and get the same result as putting a mag or two in your belt.

[kefeinzel]

This terror mission I'm doing sucks, there's like 20+ caesans :I

[Slackwork]

There's a weird and enduring bug around that causes smoke to destroy and set fire to low health props' date=' maybe it's related to that? It shouldn't be happening, anyway, since stuns do 0 regular damage (unlike flashbangs or stun rockets).[/quote']

That's probably it. It looked like the damage was dealt immediately after the grenade detonated. It didn't help that the only angle I could get on the jerk forced me to throw it next to the reactor.

The worst part was that the door to the hallway was open so the explosion was funneled out right into the faces of pretty much my entire squad; I lost six of my best men in the blast. I wish I could say I had the stones to gun it out but it broke me and I save scummed. I wound up dropping a C4 right next to the reactor and bugging the hell out of there. I almost cried at the loss of the reactor but it wasn't worth the casualties to stun baton rush him.

Speaking of which, it seems odd that dropping an armed C4 costs no TUs but throwing it costs as much as a standard grenade. I'm not saying it's bad but it feels off that I can get the C4 to my desired location with 100% accuracy and use all my TUs for movement with no ill effects other than standard reaction fire (assuming I save enough TUs to get the unit out of the blast radius) when throwing it doesn't provide me anything approaching that accuracy or flexibility. I do like the kamikaze-style game play it allows however.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Slackwork

[Mask]

I've tested the stun grenade... it hasn't changed from the previous version. I've found, just as before, that the most optimal strategy appears to be throwing dozens of stun grenades at every alien, from any given distance. I can throw grenades almost the full length of the map, and I can carry loads of them per soldier, so even if the chance is apparently 1%, I tend to get them close enough to stun the aliens, or at least cut out their routes of escape and movement.

If I had done this with the guns, I would probably have suppressed or even injured them, but I wouldn't take them out so often.

[Aaron]

I've tested the stun grenade... it hasn't changed from the previous version. I've found, just as before, that the most optimal strategy appears to be throwing dozens of stun grenades at every alien, from any given distance. I can throw grenades almost the full length of the map, and I can carry loads of them per soldier, so even if the chance is apparently 1%, I tend to get them close enough to stun the aliens, or at least cut out their routes of escape and movement.

If I had done this with the guns, I would probably have suppressed or even injured them, but I wouldn't take them out so often.

If you are able to throw grenades the full length of the map I have a feeling you are not using the latest experimental build - have you opted in to the experimental builds? What version number is displayed on the top right of the Xenonauts launcher?

[Ol' Stinky]

That's probably it. It looked like the damage was dealt immediately after the grenade detonated. It didn't help that the only angle I could get on the jerk forced me to throw it next to the reactor.

The worst part was that the door to the hallway was open so the explosion was funneled out right into the faces of pretty much my entire squad; I lost six of my best men in the blast. I wish I could say I had the stones to gun it out but it broke me and I save scummed. I wound up dropping a C4 right next to the reactor and bugging the hell out of there. I almost cried at the loss of the reactor but it wasn't worth the casualties to stun baton rush him.

Damn, that's a hell of a way to find out about that bug...

It's just a hunch, buuuuuut does anyone else think it might be smoke that's causing at least some of the accuracy irregularities? I'm now playing with the Aaron +accuracy mod that was updated by lightgemini, and when the aliens fire through a bunch of smoke (usually due to reaction fire), they seem to hit around a third of the time. I'm usually firing an LMG behind smoke, having him stand behind a crouching shieldbearer.

I'm thinking that the accuracy display suggests that smoke's effect stacks - so one tile of smoke is x0.8 accuracy, two is x0.64 acc, three is x0.51 acc and so on - but maybe it's actually only counted once?

I know, I know - confirmation bias, small sample of data, etc. - but maybe something to try and keep an eye on.

As far as my playing experience with the +acc mod: I think the accuracy buff to the sniper is overkill, but on everything else, a big thumbs up. The game becomes much more brutal, and I like that. After a particular corvette mission I'm definately feeling the pressure to upgrade soldiers to jackal + lasers, whereas before I could get by with a couple of armoured shieldbearer and most of the gang in pyjamas and using ballistics.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Ol' Stinky

[kabill]

It's just a hunch' date=' buuuuuut does anyone else think it might be smoke that's causing at least some of the accuracy irregularities? I'm now playing with the Aaron +accuracy mod that was updated by lightgemini, and when the aliens fire through a bunch of smoke (usually due to reaction fire), they seem to hit around a third of the time. I'm usually firing an LMG behind smoke, having him stand behind a crouching shieldbearer.

I'm thinking that the accuracy display suggests that smoke's effect stacks - so one tile of smoke is x0.8 accuracy, two is x0.64 acc, three is x0.51 acc and so on - but maybe it's actually only counted once?[/quote']

I'll be honest, I've always been surprised at how often I hit/get hit when shots are going through smoke. I've attributed this down to chance, but it seems we've had similar experiences here.

[Mask]

If you are able to throw grenades the full length of the map I have a feeling you are not using the latest experimental build - have you opted in to the experimental builds? What version number is displayed on the top right of the Xenonauts launcher?

Yes I--...Oops. I was sure I had enabled the experimental builds. That explains why the Grenades feel the same. When I test the new build, I'll let you know if I can still spam the grenades.

[Max_Caine]

It’s interesting that no-one has discussed reload costs in balance discussions, but reload cost is an increasingly important factor as you climb up the tiers, as the number of shots in from an energy cell steadily drops as the tier increases. I fiddled about with different reload costs for laser weapons before I came to work, and even small reductions in AP cost can have a big impact on how a laser weapon operates.

Take the laser pistol, for example. It’s easy to bang off an entire cell in a few turns, so reloading happens fairly often (well, it happens fairly often with me, anyway). The cost of reloading a laser pistol is a much larger chunk of the overall AP used by a squaddie in comparison to other laser weapons. I tried reducing the cost of reloading to five APs, and then tried it out at zero APs. In a (pre saved) firefight verses Sebillian soliders, when I dropped the cost of reloading to either level, it wasn’t so annoying to run out of ammo with a pistol as it had been previously, and made the pistol stand out from the other weapons. I’m still doing tests, but it might be worthwhile looking into AP intensive weapons like pistols and their corresponding reload costs.

[Dranak]

Now that it's been mentioned, I do like the idea of lower reload costs for your close range/fast fire weapons like pistols and shotguns.

And as much as I'm enjoying the increased number of aliens in the early game, some missions might overdo it. Like having 9 aliens in the control room of a small base in the first week of Nov.

[StellarRat]

Now that it's been mentioned, I do like the idea of lower reload costs for your close range/fast fire weapons like pistols and shotguns.

I can't see any logical reason for this, specially the shotgun, which should in fact take forever to reload comparatively.

[kabill]

I'd consider it a feature that you have to reload them more often and don't have a problem with that at all. Honestly, I'd like to see reload costs go up - they seem little more than a minor inconvenience at the moment and not very inpactful on the game.

[Max_Caine]

I wouldn't know about it being "not impactful". The pistol class is the only class with an ap cost of 20 to reload. Carbines, assault rifles and sniper rifles have a reload cost of 30, and LMGs and rocket launchers have a reload cost of 40. That's a sizeable chunk of APs however you cut it, especially with lower-level troops.

[kabill]

Heh, you're right - that's higher than I've ever felt it be.

I'd still argue that it being higher (most of a turn's TUs) would be better (to make it more of a penalty and perhaps even to encourage the use of a side-arm as a quicker alternative when you really need to shoot), but I'll agree it's presently not as negligible as I'd suggested.

[svidangel]

Well, at least we got most of the "drop your weapon on the ground to reload it" and manual reloads costing less TUs out of the way already

[Dranak]

I can't see any logical reason for this, specially the shotgun, which should in fact take forever to reload comparatively.

From a realism perspective, there isn't an argument for the shotgun. But it turning it a bit further into a high speed, high maneuverability weapon could help it truly shine in close combat (where it is still a bit underwhelming). /shrug. Just an idea, but not a particularly well developed/supported one.

On a different note, I am still loving the increased alien spawns per mission, except for alien bases. 25+ aliens per small base feels a bit too much, especially given the current maps (I know they're placeholders, but they're what we have to work with) where the majority of them camp out in two rooms.

[Max_Caine]

StellarRat, I will endeavour to give you good reasons to examine the issue of reloading and I have expanded it to examine magazine size in general, but to give you good reasons, you must be willing to abandon realism in favour of gameplay. Please bear in mind my original post discussed the higher tiers in relation to lower tiers, as opposed to discussing tier 1 exclusively as this post examines the higher tier weaponry.

This has turned out to be a longish essay. So here's a TL;DR summary.

TL;DR

• Tier 1 weapons have in general 2 or 3 times as many shots as Tier 2-4 weapons
  
• Tier 2-4 weapons have a much higher AP and size/weight overhead as a consequence
  
• This is unfair in terms of current accuracy
  
• Tier 1 weapons are partially more desirable because they can stay in the fight longer than Tier 2-4 weapons
  
• If one of the game aims is to have a smooth progression of weapon tiers, Tiers 2-4 should reduce AP/size weight overhead
  
• There are two ways to to this - reloading cost and increased cell size.
  
• Increased cell size has a visible, quantitative improvement in reducing AP overhead and size/weight overhead
  
• Reloading cost is not visibly less valuable in reducing AP overhead and size/weight overhead
  
• Reduced reloading costs have a qualitative improvement in reducing AP overhead.

---------------------

When weapons were reset, the cell sizes of tiers 2-4 were significantly reduced in comparison to tier 1 to a uniform level. Tier 1 pistols, for example, have 15 shots before reloading. Tiers 2-4 have 6. Thus, to fire the same number of shots from a tier 2-4 pistol as a tier 1 pistol, one must reload the weapon 2 times, for a total of 40APs. Rifles require 2 reloads (60APs), Carbines none (0APs), Precision rifles 2 (80APs), LMGs (measured in 5-shot bursts) 3 reloads (120APs). There is significant AP overhead in comparison to tier 1. There is also a significant weight and size overhead in terms of ammo as well. The consequence of this is that tier 1 is the weakest in terms of raw power is the strongest in terms of AP overhead and capacity. This, I believe, is intentional as tier 1 weapons must score more hits than higher tiers to kill an enemy, but it has the unintended effect of a tier-1 operator being able to do more than his higher tier brethren, as even with the higher accuracy adjustment, a firefight that involves cover will mean missing and a tier-1 solider can stay longer in a firefight before reloading than his more advanced brethren.

Is the overhead fair? At the moment, with the current level of accuracy displayed by soldiers, no. It is unfair because a solider can miss and miss and miss with their weapons and if they have any tier above 1, they are far more likely to run out of ammo sooner and be required to reload sooner (for evidence of frustration with missing, you can turn to any number of threads) incurring a higher overhead. Is the overhead fair with the accuracy buff? Not when cover is involved. Accurate weapons are fun and deadly to use when you catch someone out of cover, which should be a big part of the game. However, the significantly reduced clip sizes can be felt when attacking someone where it is difficult (open ground) or impossible (closed room - UFO or alien base) to flank the opponent.

As I mentioned previously, there is also a cost in terms of weight and size. Each energy cell has exactly the same dimensions as a magazine - 1x1 with 1kg weight. A Tier-1 operator with a rifle can carry 60 shots with three magazines. A Tier 2-4 operator can carry 27, which is under half! Now stat caps are more strictly enforced and heavy armours more desirable to have, the room to carry lots of ammo is being eroded to the point where a specialist ammo mule becomes desirable.

[video=youtube;gImLuqCFMSA]

In terms of gameplay while it is necessary to upgrade tiers to deal with later enemies Tier 1 is a viable and attractive choice because a tier 1 operators Damage Potential is inflated due to the larger number of shots he can fire. This is especially evident with tier-1 precision rifles and LMGs, as they do an almost-similar level of damage to tier-2 weapons while being able to fire more shots/bursts. Ballistic weapons remain viable well beyond the point where they should be replaced with lasers in part because of their ammo capacity and reduced AP overhead (as well as other reasons, such as the need to maintain a heavy air presence).

Should anything be done about this? Well, if the intention of the game is a smooth progression up weapons tiers, the answer is yes. One solution to reduce AP overhead is to increase the number of shots per cell. If a squaddie can shoot almost as much with a higher tier weapon as a lower tier weapon, it weakens the attractiveness of lower tier weapons.

The other is to reduce the cost of reloading a weapon. In terms of overhead, this solution seems less valuable than increasing clip size because increasing clip size means both a immediate reduction in AP overhead and a reduction in ammo carried whereas reducing reload cost only means a reduction in AP overhead. The value of reducing the reload cost of a weapon is in the immediate combat AP overhead. For example, it costs 30AP to reload a rifle. A 60AP solider which did nothing else other than reload would have just enough AP to fire a normal shot. If the rifle cost 10APs to reload, a solider which did nothing other than reload would have 50APs to move 2 tiles and fire an aimed shot, or move 5 tiles and fire a normal shot. Thus reducing reload cost has an immediate effect on the combat arena. Increasing reload cost also has the same effect. We can see with rocket launchers. They now cost 40 to reload, and 30 to shoot. Thus, a squaddie with a rocket launcher cannot in general reload and shoot in the same turn. In fact, rookies will need to take an additional turn in-between shots to reload, with adequate APs left over to reposition to take another shot. This reduces the lethality of a rocket launcher somewhat, and changes how it plays on the battlefield.

Tying this back into overhead, a tier-1 operator has a considerably reduced combat AP overhead in comparison to Tiers 2-4, because a Tier-1 operator does not need to reload as often as Tiers 2-4. He may need to fire more shots, but that's why he has a large magazine. So by only reducing the reload cost of a weapon and increasing the combat opportunities for a solider, a tier 2-4 operator sees an qualitative improvement in overhead by being able to do more, rather than the quantative decrease in overhead by increasing clip size.

CONCLUSION

There are significant overheads for tiers 2-4 which are not present in Tier 1, because of magazine size and reloading cost. In the current build, these costs are unfair because it is too easy to miss and have to reload. If the accuracy buff as discussed elsewhere is implemented, both reloading cost and cell size for tiers 2-4 should be re-examined in further updates to determine the qualitative and quantitative impact of having costs as they stand.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Max_Caine
Spelling and grammar. My WP hates me.

[Ol' Stinky]

Nice write-up.

Something else that hampers the desire to upgrade is lack of suppression improvements. Combine this with the ease of running out of ammo with a laser+ LMG and it feels that upgrading LMGs is actually the wrong move. I figure that this is deliberate until the devs have an idea of how much suppression they want better guns to dole out, but I bring it up just in case.

[smoitessier]

StellarRat, I will endeavour to give you good reasons to examine the issue of reloading and I have expanded it to examine magazine size in general, but to give you good reasons, you must be willing to abandon realism in favour of gameplay. Please bear in mind my original post discussed the higher tiers in relation to lower tiers, as opposed to discussing tier 1 exclusively as this post examines the higher tier weaponry.

This has turned out to be a longish essay. So here's a TL;DR summary.

TL;DR

• Tier 1 weapons have in general 2 or 3 times as many shots as Tier 2-4 weapons

• Tier 2-4 weapons have a much higher AP and size/weight overhead as a consequence

• This is unfair in terms of current accuracy

• Tier 1 weapons are partially more desirable because they can stay in the fight longer than Tier 2-4 weapons

• If one of the game aims is to have a smooth progression of weapon tiers, Tiers 2-4 should reduce AP/size weight overhead

• There are two ways to to this - reloading cost and increased cell size.

• Increased cell size has a visible, quantitative improvement in reducing AP overhead and size/weight overhead

• Reloading cost is not visibly less valuable in reducing AP overhead and size/weight overhead

• Reduced reloading costs have a qualitative improvement in reducing AP overhead.

---------------------

The T2-4 weapons had a dramatic reduction of shots because the GH wants to make you decide how many clips you need, not just let you load up your pack with just grenades for instance, also it is hinged on what ever system they decide to go with strength stat.

So I have a feeling they are not going to let things stay like this forever.

But you bring up a good point, why are all clip tiers the same physically? Is this just a placeholder? I would think experimental future tech rushed into service, would be unwieldily and heavy, especially their power sources. a laser clip, sorry magazine, could be 2x1 and 2 KG or something, then have it have more shots if needed, considering in 19.5 there are sometimes 22 Caesarians on terror missions.

[StellarRat]

The T2-4 weapons had a dramatic reduction of shots because the GH wants to make you decide how many clips you need, not just let you load up your pack with just grenades for instance, also it is hinged on what ever system they decide to go with strength stat.

So I have a feeling they are not going to let things stay like this forever.

But you bring up a good point, why are all clip tiers the same physically? Is this just a placeholder? I would think experimental future tech rushed into service, would be unwieldily and heavy, especially their power sources. a laser clip, sorry magazine, could be 2x1 and 2 KG or something, then have it have more shots if needed, considering in 19.5 there are sometimes 22 Caesarians on terror missions.

It's always been my contention that the higher level weapons need larger clips. I find it bizarre that I can kill a whole pile of aliens with one spare clip on my belt with an AR (or whatever), but as soon as I get laser weapons I start to need three to five clips to get through some maps.

[Max_Caine]

I believe that when Aaron did the reset, he set out to address certain aspects of weapons which eclipse others (raw damage, TU cost, now accuracy) first, hence the cell/magazine size/weight/physical size isn't yet examined.

[Aaron]

No, everything has been examined and set as intended (though not to say those values are final of course). I've left the ballistic weapons with the larger clip sizes because it makes the early game a little more forgiving, and because I don't want to receive hate-mail for giving "real" weapons incorrect stats.

I think in the vast majority of cases people will simply upgrade to laser weapons as a matter of course, because it's sort of the expected thing in games like this, but I'm not going to be mortified if some people stick with ballistics a little longer because they prefer them stats wise - indeed having players make choices like that is what strategy games are about (I would be pretty excited to see people just trying to get through the whole game on ballistics alone, tbh).

[svidangel]

Heh, if by "Ballistics alone" you mean lots of fusion grenades and equivalent missiles, etc, then sure! Think that was the way to go in the last version I tested.

[Aaron]

All ballistic pistols or you're wasting your time (no shield noobs)

[Max_Caine]

@Aaron, the thing is that lasers won't be built in a vaccum. Given costing and manufacturing times, it's more likely they'll be built individually and as a consequence compared in the field to the ballistics they replace so the player has time to try before committing to mass manufacturing. Upgrades won't be a matter of course, but a matter of taste, which I can see is something that you approve of, but at the same time a weapon may be unfairly predjudiced against because of something like excessive reloading.