% TU vs Static TU firing cost

[legit1337]

Because you can fire four shots per turn with some weapons, and twice with most of them. Are you struggling to understand that?

The long post is there to convince people with a less simplistic understanding of the issues than you apparently have.

I think the point he was trying to make (not defending him being condescending about it), was that before, if you had a veteran with 80 TUs, he could stand still and make 2 burst or aimed shots, as opposed to a rookie with 55 TUs who could just take 1 burst shot and move a little.

If you assume combat power as survivability multiplied by damage output, even under this new system then veteran soldiers are four times as good as basic soldiers, can move twice as far, have four times as effective reaction fire and are half as likely to fall victim to morale issues or psionic powers. They're still pretty powerful.

Respectfully, where are you getting these numbers? Take a rookie with 50TUs and have him use half of them for shooting, he can then move 8 squares. Now take a veteran with 80 TUs and have him use half of them shooting. He can now move 13 squares. That is not twice as far, and the TU gap was pretty large (most of the rookies in my games have less than 20TU difference between veterans). The differences only get smaller the more you shoot to the point where a rookie and veteran firing an LMG are essentially the same.

Four times as effective reaction fire? Not unless the reaction and accuracy stats are also 4 times higher then the rookies in question.

I'm sorry but there is no denying the fact that the new TU% system neuters veterans heavily. I'm not saying it can't be balanced but as it stands right now it is not.

Edited February 28, 2014 by legit1337

[Gauddlike]

Gaudlike's idea to reduce the reflex stat on overloaded soldiers is interesting, but I am worried that alien reaction fire will become even more powerful. The mechanics of the game mean that aliens already get to use reaction fire far more often than xenonauts do.

I don't think that would be the case.

Firstly it would only affect soldiers who had been overloaded and should take into account how much overloaded they are.

Someone carrying an extra grenade might have a reaction point or two penalty while someone carrying a spare rocket launcher, spare machine gun, and as much ammo as they had space for would be at a bigger disadvantage.

Remember also that aliens use the same percentage based firing system so that part of the equation should be close to equal.

having a soldier that can go around a corner, take a couple of snapshots, and retreat back doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

That sounds like a balance issue.

In another thread I suggested that shots could have their AP cost (and accuracy bonus) set according to how many of them could be fired per turn.

For example if the assault rifle had 32% AP cost for a snap shot then you could fire two in a turn with AP left to use cover.

Or if you were already in cover you could take advantage of it by firing the third snap shot.

In Xenonauts, I feel that it's less abstact to see a guy with X TU's and instantly know he can shoot Y times with weapon Z.

With the percentage system that is the case for everyone.

You see a guy with an assault rifle and you know instantly how many shots he can fire as the same percentage is used for everyone.

After moving I generally have to look to see how many AP the soldier has left so glancing at the reserve slider to see what kind of shots I have available isn't a major ordeal.

I *do* want a heavy weapons soldier who has been on ten missions to be able to walk more than two squares and fire in the same turn.

I would say that is another balance issue.

The AP cost for firing a machine gun is currently 90% of AP but movement is significantly increased by reducing the cost to 80% AP for example.

Rather than walking away from the game I would suggest trying it with several different settings to find one that is more to your liking and then sharing the results of your tests with the rest of the beta test forum.

I'm sorry but there is no denying the fact that the new TU% system neuters veterans heavily. I'm not saying it can't be balanced but as it stands right now it is not.

I would assume that is because this is the first iteration and has not yet had any balancing changes made at all.

If there was a thread half the size of this one full of balance tests and suggestions for adjustments then I imagine the next update would be closer, and possibly more to the liking of the people who are actually involved in the feedback process.

[Sleet01]

I would say that is another balance issue.

The AP cost for firing a machine gun is currently 90% of AP but movement is significantly increased by reducing the cost to 80% AP for example.

Rather than walking away from the game I would suggest trying it with several different settings to find one that is more to your liking and then sharing the results of your tests with the rest of the beta test forum.

Oh, I'm not putting it down anytime soon! I just wanted to try to get a little further with the defaults before tweaking anything. That's a good idea, though.

[Chris]

I think the point he was trying to make (not defending him being condescending about it), was that before, if you had a veteran with 80 TUs, he could stand still and make 2 burst or aimed shots, as opposed to a rookie with 55 TUs who could just take 1 burst shot and move a little.

Respectfully, where are you getting these numbers? Take a rookie with 50TUs and have him use half of them for shooting, he can then move 8 squares. Now take a veteran with 80 TUs and have him use half of them shooting. He can now move 13 squares. That is not twice as far, and the TU gap was pretty large (most of the rookies in my games have less than 20TU difference between veterans). The differences only get smaller the more you shoot to the point where a rookie and veteran firing an LMG are essentially the same.

Four times as effective reaction fire? Not unless the reaction and accuracy stats are also 4 times higher then the rookies in question.

I'm sorry but there is no denying the fact that the new TU% system neuters veterans heavily. I'm not saying it can't be balanced but as it stands right now it is not.

We all know the point he's trying to make, but I refuse to write a nuanced answer for a post that is deliberately simplifying everything to the point of absurdity.

The new system makes veteran (stat 100) soldiers half as good as they were previously by letting them fire half as many shots. I'm not denying that, it's mentioned in the original post. My argument is that they're still plenty good enough at that point.

It's true that once a soldier fires his weapon, the increased movement isn't so high as it was before. But if they don't fire any weapons, they can move twice as far in a single turn. If they spend all their TU shooting, they'll do twice as much damage because they're twice as accurate. They have double the hitpoints so they can take twice as much punishment before they die. Double damage and double hitpoints gives 4x combat effectiveness. Double the morale too.

They're four times as good at reaction fire because they're twice as likely to be able to take a shot, and their shots are twice as accurate. Admittedly if an alien just mills around in front of you all turn then the fact your reaction shot is taken earlier doesn't matter, but equally it could save the life of your soldier by shooting first.

I know I soldier can't necessarily be all of those things at once, because for instance if they've spent all their TU moving then their reaction stat is wasted (although the same is true for the low-level soldiers too).

My point is just that even without TU allowing you to fire extra shots, veteran soldiers are still *significantly* better than basic soldiers. There's no balance issue here at all, it's just a question of philosophy as to how much of a soldier's power should be down to their stats and how much their equipment.

[Alturys]

I'm sorry but there is no denying the fact that the new TU% system neuters veterans heavily. I'm not saying it can't be balanced but as it stands right now it is not.

I think that the dev are trying to neutralize veteran supernatural speed only. Veteran are far superior too rookies regarding Precision, Reflexes... all stats.

Precision for exemple. If a rookie has 40 precision and a veteran have 80, the vet damage is 100% more. In fact the vet is so much stronger than 2 time because he will miss 20% of time only, the rookie will miss 60%. Three time more miss for the rookie. If you add another 100% more hit point on top of that you have already a killing machine... You have to understand that all these factors are multiplicative. 2 time more precise and 2 time more survivabilty leads to 4 times effectiveness in combat.

With old TU system the same vet would also shoot something like 4/5 time, with high precision snap shoot. This is ridiculous for Xenonaut AND aliens elites...

[Chris]

In short, we're just removing the ability to fire double the number of shots at double the accuracy with double the survivability of a rookie.

Put too many doubles together and things just get out of hand. Double the accuracy and double the survivability, plus extra movement / flexibility out of combat should be enough.

EDIT - yup, what Alturys said above.

[Caaygun]

Will the discussion come down to the stat 'TU' being a rather difficult concept to balance or even implement perhaps. Say every Turn takes 10 seconds of real time conceptwise. Then by experience soldiers may gain the capability to do more actions in this time window by their TU stat, ok, in other words they gain Speed. Why would it take constant real-time (%TU) to fire a firearm?

These videos are just a few of many that demonstrate just how much difference training and experience makes even in the speed that a soldier operates firearms, leaving aside the immense accuracy they also possess in the demonstration.

So it takes 4 Time Units for everyone to move 1 tile, but then why it would take them variable TUs to operate machinery (or fire weapon)? A faster person, while moving faster, could also reasonable operate equipment or weapons faster too. I agree somewhat that auto shot might have a constant time element in it, the magazine auto-reloading after the operator puts his finger on the trigger should roughly be constant real-timewise for everyone after deducting the aim phase which is experience dependent. Much more so with aimed shot which requires deliberate aiming and is the most of the 3 shooting types whose effectiveness and speed depends on experience.

My point is just that even without TU allowing you to fire extra shots, veteran soldiers are still *significantly* better than basic soldiers. There's no balance issue here at all, it's just a question of philosophy as to how much of a soldier's power should be down to their stats and how much their equipment.

This last sentence I think really briefs the essence of another part of the discussion: should it be stats or equipment that matter most?

I think Stats. very clear. A rookie with a laser sniper rifle should by no means be capable of defeating a pistol wielding elite. (50 stat vs. 100 stat). Then your commanders with 25 missions under their belt really start meaning something to you so you want to make them survive, and feel the loss when they inevitably die at last by a team of some menacing sebillian warriors who are probably equally hardened through years exceptional training, memory implanting or whatnot. Elite should mean more than 4x effective, especially when squad size is very small so the individual merits of everyone come into play and tactics-organisation is not as much of a determining factor as would be in a battle between large armies.

[KateMicucci]

This last sentence I think really briefs the essence of another part of the discussion: should it be stats or equipment that matter most?

Equipment. The game cannot be properly balanced around soldier stats being the dominating factor. The player will certainly advance through tiers of equipment. However, a team of elite soldiers can quickly be wiped out from one bad mission. If elite soldiers are 4x more effective like you want them to be, then losing that team means you are only 25% as effective in the next one- which is likely to lead to most of that team being wiped out too since they aren't dealing with scouts at that point anymore.

Upgrading equipment is also less important when soldiers are supermen, and reverse engineered technology is supposed to be a big theme of the game. Rambo commandos killing sebellian elites with 9mm is not.

[qdlat]

So it takes 4 Time Units for everyone to move 1 tile, but then why it would take them variable TUs to operate machinery (or fire weapon)?

Methinks I will not be the first one to explain that the reason is to make TU-invariant shots. I can press a trigger almost as fast as a professional soldier, the difference shall be in accuracy - and fact that possibly I will shoot myself in the process .

Game-wise I find %-based approach better, both in terms of player's experience and lore-wise. Let's remember that our employees are already best-of-best. They can still develop, but there should not be such huge difference as it is now. Currently a rookie feels useless in a comparison to a veteran.

[Chris]

@ Caaygun - You can equally argue that soldiers spend a fixed amount of time firing the weapon (relative to their TU) in each instance, but the more experienced soldiers are able to use it better and so hit with more of their shots. That's why experienced soldiers can fire faster - they can use snap shots where a rookie would have to use an aimed shot. I mean, I can probably fire a shotgun just as fast as the guy in the video you linked, I just wouldn't be able to hit anything if I did.

The logic side of any argument kinda falls down a bit when you try to analyse the combat system of a turn-based combat game in detail, though. There's too many abstractions in place for it to be a fully accurate interpretation of real combat (we've both come up with perfectly plausible explanations that support our respective views).

Regarding your thoughts on stats vs equipment, I can't agree that I think stats should be more important than the results of the research tree. Nor do I think it's a good idea to have elite soldiers that are more than four times as effective as a starting soldier, especially as the squad size goes up through the game. That's just too high a multiplier to be realistic imo. It'd be turning the game into XCOM 2012 instead of X-Com 1994.

[legit1337]

We all know the point he's trying to make, but I refuse to write a nuanced answer for a post that is deliberately simplifying everything to the point of absurdity.

The new system makes veteran (stat 100) soldiers half as good as they were previously by letting them fire half as many shots. I'm not denying that, it's mentioned in the original post. My argument is that they're still plenty good enough at that point.

It's true that once a soldier fires his weapon, the increased movement isn't so high as it was before. But if they don't fire any weapons, they can move twice as far in a single turn. If they spend all their TU shooting, they'll do twice as much damage because they're twice as accurate. They have double the hitpoints so they can take twice as much punishment before they die. Double damage and double hitpoints gives 4x combat effectiveness. Double the morale too.

They're four times as good at reaction fire because they're twice as likely to be able to take a shot, and their shots are twice as accurate. Admittedly if an alien just mills around in front of you all turn then the fact your reaction shot is taken earlier doesn't matter, but equally it could save the life of your soldier by shooting first.

I know I soldier can't necessarily be all of those things at once, because for instance if they've spent all their TU moving then their reaction stat is wasted (although the same is true for the low-level soldiers too).

My point is just that even without TU allowing you to fire extra shots, veteran soldiers are still *significantly* better than basic soldiers. There's no balance issue here at all, it's just a question of philosophy as to how much of a soldier's power should be down to their stats and how much their equipment.

I'm sorry, again I'm not getting where you pull these numbers from. If you are using 100s across the board as a baseline for a "veteran" that is extremely unrealistic, the highest I have ever gotten a stat on a single soldier is 89.

Since when do veterans have twice the HP of rookies?

Since when do they have twice the reactions or accuracy?

The difference between a veteran and a rookie is about 20-30 stat points at the most, not 50.

My argument is that under the new system realistic veterans (see line above) are not good enough in comparison with rookies.

Equipment. The game cannot be properly balanced around soldier stats being the dominating factor. The player will certainly advance through tiers of equipment. However, a team of elite soldiers can quickly be wiped out from one bad mission. If elite soldiers are 4x more effective like you want them to be, then losing that team means you are only 25% as effective in the next one- which is likely to lead to most of that team being wiped out too since they aren't dealing with scouts at that point anymore.

Upgrading equipment is also less important when soldiers are supermen, and reverse engineered technology is supposed to be a big theme of the game. Rambo commandos killing sebellian elites with 9mm is not.

I agree to a certain extent. But I'd rather take a team of SEALS armed with spears over a cub scout patrol armed with AK-47s any day of the week.

Stats should play a very important role in soldier performance, otherwise they are meaningless, why even have them?

Edited February 28, 2014 by legit1337

[Chris]

That's a valid point. I'm using 100 stats across the board to show the extremes that the system can generate, in reality it's very difficult to get a soldier that good.

That's party due to playstyle, though. I assume you don't grind all the light scout missions instead of airstriking them? Back before airstriking was implemented I used to see save games with squads full of Colonels with 120 TU (that was the limit back then) when people were fighting Landing Ships. It was crazy, but people can still do those missions if they want to.

Your starting squad is +5 per attribute over a rookie and you can level up 2 points per mission per stat. ACC and TU are two of the easier stats to level up, as you get TU just by spending enough TU in the mission. After five light scout missions your soldiers are already +15 in TU over a rookie, and after 10 missions a survivor has +25 TU. I think they also get +2 to their stats each time they rank up too.

Admittedly, most normal players will have a core of soldiers with 70-80 across the board by the end of the game. Let's assume 75, which is +25 compared to rookies. That's an extra 50% damage due to accuracy, and 50% extra health, and the ability to move 50% further (without shooting).

That's roughly equivalent to being equipped with one higher tier of weapons, as each tier adds roughly 50% damage to the previous one. That's pretty good, really. The upgrade from ballistics to lasers or lasers to plasmas seems pretty major step up in-game, no? Certainly enough to have a noticeable effect on their combat usefulness?

With static TU units, soldiers with 75 TU and AP do 112.5% more damage than rookies. That's over two weapon tiers, and as the research tree only contains three of them it seems a pretty big number.

[StellarRat]

That's a valid point. I'm using 100 stats across the board to show the extremes that the system can generate, in reality it's very difficult to get a soldier that good.

That's what I was trying to say in my earlier post. I don't think I've ever had a soldier with 80 TU's. They usually get killed before then. It's also the reason I'm saying putting experience gain on a non-linear curve would pretty much assure that no one would ever get to 100 (or even 80 if you use the right numbers) in any attribute if you're really concerned about that. I also posted a solution that would allow Xenonauts to keep their "talents" and shortcomings throughout the game. I think you're aiming at a problem that is not really that big a deal. The only thing that is a big deal is the high level ALIENS being too powerful, but you can easily fix that by just lowering their TUs or increasing the amount needed to fire their weapons. One thing I can tell you for sure, if the current % system goes forward, I'm going to have to take MUCH longer to play a ground combat. I already have to play very carefully, moving very slowly across the battlefield because the aliens are so dangerous now and that's just to survive with over 1/2 my squad, but if I can't move much and shoot because of the % I'm going to need to go even slower. You just raised all the movement rates by a 1/3 couple builds ago to counteract the lack of dynamism you perceived in ground combat. Well this is going to make it much slower than it was even before that, at least in my case. Edited February 28, 2014 by StellarRat

[jeon]

As per current gameconfig.xml numbers, a soldier can only increase each skill by 1 per battle. Also, TUs are currently capped at 79. Also, I'm confused, if your soldiers rarely survive long enough to gain many additional TUs, and if TU% cost is balanced based on the average starting TU, you aren't ever going to see much of an increase in your TU costs.

I'm all for % TU costs for shooting for the following reasons:

1) There aren't magical numbers of TU amounts for a soldier that suddenly let you shoot an extra shot with a certain weapon. Making the change to a % system makes scaling less exponential and erratic.

2) Both Xenonauts and aliens become easier to balance.

3) Losing some veteran soldiers is no longer an end of the world scenario.

4) Soldier recruitment is no longer heavily slanted towards the guys with the most AP.

As for the extreme low TUs with being overloaded, I am fine with being able to shoot without any extra penalty, because not being able to move as far is the penalty. In my opinion, the drop-off to 0 is a bit fast with the current settings, I've had pretty good results with bumping limitCarryCapacityMul in the gameconfig.xml from 2.0 to 3.0.

[StellarRat]

As per current gameconfig.xml numbers, a soldier can only increase each skill by 1 per battle. Also, TUs are currently capped at 79. Also, I'm confused, if your soldiers rarely survive long enough to gain many additional TUs, and if TU% cost is balanced based on the average starting TU, you aren't ever going to see much of an increase in your TU costs.

If they're already capped at 79 why are we even having this discussion? If you talking to me, I'm saying that I've never had a soldier with more than about 75 TU's. That's still quite a gain, but nothing close to 100. This whole thread is now confusing me. Why are we arguing about some "condition" that appears to be impossible to achieve already?

[a333]

I'm going to have to take MUCH longer to play a ground combat.

I'm just from there. It feels anything but slower. Rookies with static TUs are roughly the same as the ones with the %.

Yes, you'll have to compensate universality of the previous soldiers by the scouting (those who scout mostly move and rarely shoot, at least at the same turn), position your snipers and HWs to cover suspicious areas and minimise their movement for the next couple of turns. You swap the turns more often, and this isn't exactly feels like counter-dynamic. For the situations solved earlier with "move-shoot-hide" i now have to use quite a bit of various tactics.

[StellarRat]

I'm just from there. It feels anything but slower. Rookies with static TUs are roughly the same as the ones with the %.

Yes, you'll have to compensate universality of the previous soldiers by the scouting (those who scout mostly move and rarely shoot, at least at the same turn), position your snipers and HWs to cover suspicious areas and minimise their movement for the next couple of turns. You swap the turns more often, and this isn't exactly feels like counter-dynamic. For the situations solved earlier with "move-shoot-hide" i now have to use quite a bit of various tactics.

It sounds like your play style is much different than mine. My experience so far is that I can't shoot AND move anymore with most of my guys. That necessitates having to slow down my assault even more to prepare weapons constantly. Edited February 28, 2014 by StellarRat

[jeon]

If they're already capped at 79 why are we even having this discussion? If you talking to me, I'm saying that I've never had a soldier with more than about 75 TU's. That's still quite a gain, but nothing close to 100. This whole thread is now confusing me. Why are we arguing about some "condition" that appears to be impossible to achieve already?

Because the 1 gain per mission and the lowering of the TU cap a couple of times until it is now at 79 are both band-aid fixes to the problem that high stat soldiers become too powerful. We are discussing whether the band-aids are fine, or if there is a real issue that needs fixed. I'm of the opinion that the % based TU firing cost fixes the real problem and then some of the band-aids can be removed.

There are various other things it helps with such as: shorter turns, excessive reaction fire, and grenade spam.

[StellarRat]

Because the 1 gain per mission and the lowering of the TU cap a couple of times until it is now at 79 are both band-aid fixes to the problem that high stat soldiers become too powerful. We are discussing whether the band-aids are fine, or if there is a real issue that needs fixed. I'm of the opinion that the % based TU firing cost fixes the real problem and then some of the band-aids can be removed.

There are various other things it helps with such as: shorter turns, excessive reaction fire, and grenade spam.

No, the "real" problem is that soldiers eventually get too many TUs (supposedly.) I guess you and I aren't in agreement about what the true problem is. The solution you support is confusing and counter-intitutive, IMO. While mine is how the real world actually works i.e. it takes forever to become the best at anything for humans. That's why a diminishing returns system for experience is better than some bizarre division of TU's to fire a weapon.

[Max_Caine]

I would respectfully submit it's entirely possible to have too many TUs. The aliens are an excellent and factual example. You can't have a 90TU alien. You just can't. A 90TU Sebillian (Warrior class before Chris made changes) can and will poop shots like it's no tomorrow, and a heavy plasma (a Sebbies' favourite weapon) severely wounds or terminates even Wolf armour with one shot. Don't believe me? Switch back to standard AP and watch any and all aliens with 70+TUs blast away with gay abandon.

[StellarRat]

I would respectfully submit it's entirely possible to have too many TUs. The aliens are an excellent and factual example. You can't have a 90TU alien. You just can't. A 90TU Sebillian (Warrior class before Chris made changes) can and will poop shots like it's no tomorrow, and a heavy plasma (a Sebbies' favourite weapon) severely wounds or terminates even Wolf armour with one shot. Don't believe me? Switch back to standard AP and watch any and all aliens with 70+TUs blast away with gay abandon.

Yes, but aliens don't have an experience system, so if 90 TUs is OP then he can just set them to a lower value. Its really a moot point with aliens.

[Max_Caine]

@StellarRat. I'm afraid that's not the point I'm making. The point isn't "oh, the TUs are on aliens are OP, reduce the TUs on aliens". Can you not see that high TUs in a flat cost system are in of themselves OP? You've just now suggested "if the aliens have too high TU, reduce the TU". In doing that you have agreed with me (in my inital post) that TUs in a flat-cost system are OP unless severely bracketed. And that bracket is quite small.

[Ol' Stinky]

It sounds like your play style is much different than mine. My experience so far is that I can't shoot AND move anymore with most of my guys. That necessitates having to slow down my assault even more to prepare weapons constantly.

Out of curiosity: what's your squad's loadout?

[Skitso]

StellarRat has summarized my toughts perfectly. As a non native speaker I often don't find right words to express myself, but those are just the things I've been thinking in my head in finnish. The balance problems are easy to fix and you don't need to use these unintuitive and complex gameplay mechanics to fix them. Just make gaining TU's progressively slower and decrease high ranking alien TU's.

Also, comparing an absolute elite soldier (all 100's) to a total rookie (all 40's) is a bit deceptive. First of all there's a TU cap atm at 80, second, its very rare to get any stat even near a 100 or even 90. Third, all rookies have some stats that can be as high as 60(?). So a battle hardened, best of the best badass veteran in real world comparison has maybe only 20 TU and/or ACC advance compared to a total newb.

I don't feel thats enough. I really want to shout "Nooooooooooo" like Darth Vader in the Return if the Sith when my best soldier hits the dirt. Now, even a total nobody can wear his boots like nothing. The real difference is much less than is said here.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Skitso

[Max_Caine]

And put a hard cap of no more than 80 on TUs. And a minimum of 50 TUs. 55 for preference. For everyone.