Jump to content

Tighten up fire accuracy


Recommended Posts

Well I don't have any better suggestions than anyone else on here but I just wanted to remind whoever it was who claims missing from 1 tile is ludicrous...

Remember that in a turn based strategy game your not modelling movement and so sure it seems silly not able to hit a still target. However, really that target would be in the very least moving - possible side on, possibly diving out the way if the game were a RTS.

When I did a fair amount of shooting with the TA for 2 years and using a SUSAT hitting a target at 300m - I had to aim at its foot to hit it in the chest! (and I was the best shot in the unit, many people missed outright because they actually aimed at the target) but you've got to remember and adjust for your eye position relative to the sight. Even worse at 100m where I was aiming for the ground about a ft below the target to hit it in the bulls-eye.

Does that person also know that the majority of people killed in a military environment are by explosives and ordinance and that many soldiers went through WW2 for example unsure of whether they had actually killed anyone in several years of fighting (or with numbers in the few as opposed to hundreds).

Then the situation is even worse trying to hit a moving target at even 25m where your not hitting where your aiming because sights are usually zeroed at 300 or 400m.

I'm sure a few other [ex]military will agree about the actual accuracy of shooting.

Also I take what any gun club shooting fanatics rhetoric's come back with a pinch of salt as I'm sure they have spent many years *just* firing their weapon of choice and aren't in the club because they also need to have tactical awareness, fitness, the ability to take orders, courage and every other rounded skills a soldier needs...

Edited by Belmakor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if near misses are that much of a problem why not just get rid of the bullet in flight animation and use a sort of hitscan approach??

1. roll to hit

2. if it's a hit, draw a line from the shooter to the target

2a. if it isn't, determine deviation and draw a line along that angle

3. if anything else is on that line, roll to hit that too

4. the first thing that gets hit stops the bullet (unless there's over penetration etc.)

5. determine where the bullet hit animation is going to be played and then spawn it

6. DONE

no perceived collision detection problems plus now you have to look for aliens that are shooting at you instead of just watching where their plasma comes from

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a suggestion to add to this:

1. Deviations appear to be done in terms of tiles on the X (left to right) and Y axis (forward to back), the Y axis should be replaced with the Z axis (height) which would make the problem of bullets landing behind the target go away. Instead they will either go to the side OR above/below.

2. Each axis should be treated as a separate gaussian distribution. Using what we know about Gaussian distributions the "cone" would adjust appropriately based on the firers accuracy. For each shot generate two Z-values (one for each axis) that range between -3 and 3 using a uniform distribution.

3. The % chance to hit can be used to calculate how many standard deviations fall within the tile, which allows one to create a cone that reflects the firer's accuracy. First you calculate the probability value for each axis which will equal the square root of the probability to hit. Next consult a Z-table to determine what the z-value is. For example if the probability to hit is 95%, then the probability for each axis is sqrt(0.95) = 0.97. I don't have my stats book nearby, but the Z value for that range that would hit the target would be around -2.5 to 2.5.

4. If both gaussian distributions don't fall within that range then determine which tile the bullet will hit or pass through using your knowledge of where certain Z values would land. Ie. if the Z-values of -1 to 1 are in the target box, values of between +- 1 and +-2 would be one tile away and those between +-2 and +- 3 would be 2 tiles away.

5. The result would look like this:

Img.jpg

with the Blue dots being Xenonauts and the Red dots being Aliens. Sorry for the small picture.

Img.jpg

Img.jpg.ccdbf2b56f3e7d906a6df85efc80054c

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if near misses are that much of a problem why not just get rid of the bullet in flight animation and use a sort of hitscan approach??

1. roll to hit

2. if it's a hit, draw a line from the shooter to the target

2a. if it isn't, determine deviation and draw a line along that angle

3. if anything else is on that line, roll to hit that too

4. the first thing that gets hit stops the bullet (unless there's over penetration etc.)

5. determine where the bullet hit animation is going to be played and then spawn it

6. DONE

no perceived collision detection problems plus now you have to look for aliens that are shooting at you instead of just watching where their plasma comes from

As far as I understand it that is the current method. The complaint that people have is that

1) if the deviation is too small, then you hit the original target more often than the hit percentage would suggest (since the shot could miss on step 1, then hit the original target on step 3-4). The fix to that was to make the deviation larger, leading to

2) if the deviation is too large, the soldiers look like utter incompetants.

svidangel: having played UFO a couple of days ago, autofire could be all over the place. At a range of around 30 tiles, I had a deviation between hits in the same autofire burst of at least 10 tiles.

Gauddlike: that sound's pretty good. My main issue would be that accuracy reduction due to cover might cause issues; you might need to calculate the hit chance not including cover for the purposes of determining deviation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I take what any gun club shooting fanatics rhetoric's come back with a pinch of salt as I'm sure they have spent many years *just* firing their weapon of choice and aren't in the club because they also need to have tactical awareness, fitness, the ability to take orders, courage and every other rounded skills a soldier needs...

I make sure to take anything someone who uses "gun club shooting fanatic" and the implication that anyone in a 'gun club' (as if every country requires that, or as if the SUSAT is the benchmark all sights are measured against) isn't fit for the military. Or when they make other, uncited sweeping generalizations. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't have any better suggestions than anyone else on here but I just wanted to remind whoever it was who claims missing from 1 tile is ludicrous...
I agree with your statement in general, however, I'm sure even with the worst shots in your unit you didn't have to worry about being killed by their comrades when they were standing off to the side to the point where you'd have to turn your head to get a good look at them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a suggestion to add to this:

1. Deviations appear to be done in terms of tiles on the X (left to right) and Y axis (forward to back), the Y axis should be replaced with the Z axis (height) which would make the problem of bullets landing behind the target go away. Instead they will either go to the side OR above/below.

2. Each axis should be treated as a separate gaussian distribution. Using what we know about Gaussian distributions the "cone" would adjust appropriately based on the firers accuracy. For each shot generate two Z-values (one for each axis) that range between -3 and 3 using a uniform distribution.

3. The % chance to hit can be used to calculate how many standard deviations fall within the tile, which allows one to create a cone that reflects the firer's accuracy. First you calculate the probability value for each axis which will equal the square root of the probability to hit. Next consult a Z-table to determine what the z-value is. For example if the probability to hit is 95%, then the probability for each axis is sqrt(0.95) = 0.97. I don't have my stats book nearby, but the Z value for that range that would hit the target would be around -2.5 to 2.5.

4. If both gaussian distributions don't fall within that range then determine which tile the bullet will hit or pass through using your knowledge of where certain Z values would land. Ie. if the Z-values of -1 to 1 are in the target box, values of between +- 1 and +-2 would be one tile away and those between +-2 and +- 3 would be 2 tiles away.

5. The result would look like this:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1598[/ATTACH]

with the Blue dots being Xenonauts and the Red dots being Aliens. Sorry for the small picture.

Having shots go high and low is an excellent suggestion. :cool: In fact, that is the most common type of miss. Generally, people don't have nearly as much problem with horizontal accuracy as they do with vertical accuracy. By they way, welcome back! I hope your paper writing went well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gauddlike: that sound's pretty good. My main issue would be that accuracy reduction due to cover might cause issues; you might need to calculate the hit chance not including cover for the purposes of determining deviation.

From the way I read the current accuracy formula it shouldn't make a difference.

The roll against a unit in cover has a chance to hit the unit, chance to hit the cover, chance to hit something along the route to the target (assuming intervening terrain) and chance to miss.

My suggestion would just use that miss chance to generate a deviation angle rather than it being randomly sent off at any angle inside the deviation arc.

A close miss would have a small deviation while a really bad roll would have a wider deviation.

That should be the case at any range and reflect the difficulty of the shot and the accuracy of the weapon/shooter.

@Quartermaster - that sounds pretty much the same as my suggestion but with more technical language :P

I don't know how the game engine would handle misses on the z axis but it should really be used if possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I understand it that is the current method. The complaint that people have is that

1) if the deviation is too small, then you hit the original target more often than the hit percentage would suggest (since the shot could miss on step 1, then hit the original target on step 3-4). The fix to that was to make the deviation larger, leading to

2) if the deviation is too large, the soldiers look like utter incompetants.

That's pretty much it. The main problem is that near misses would appear to go right through the enemies tile without doing anything. Some people don't like that. So the only way to correct this and make everyone happy is come up with a narrower spread that doesn't go into an enemy tile. This causes all kinds of weird geometry issues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind shots going through unoccupied areas of the enemy tile, the problem is that the game doesn't actually know which parts are occupied as all it does is display a picture.
I don't think I'm following you on this? Are trying to say that the game executes code based on whether or not the shot passes through an occupied tile, so there is no way to control near misses??
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the earlier posts said something about a unit out of cover having a 100% blocking chance for any shot that passed through it's tile. So basically yes. I'm not sure how XCOM handled it since I am pretty sure I saw near misses there... but that was a different engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I'm following you on this? Are trying to say that the game executes code based on whether or not the shot passes through an occupied tile, so there is no way to control near misses??

No I was saying that the game does not know what parts of the tile are occupied.

It knows something is there and that a stopping chance is assigned.

It would not know, for example, if the top third of a tile was empty or contained your soldiers head.

A miss that passed through the occupied tile could therefore pass through an empty section or straight through the soldiers left eye.

It is no different to the game, it just has a very different aesthetic effect on the player.

Seeing a perfect head shot classed as a miss while a shot that appears to miss being classed as a hit looks like bad game mechanics or bugs.

To me it would be better to make hits look like hits while misses look like misses.

That is what the suggested systems are supposed to do.

Basically you need to think of hits and misses as being on the whole tile rather than the little picture within it.

The game doesn't know, or care, if you have a narrow post running up the middle of the tile or a thick post taking up most of the space within it.

You can assign a stopping chance to them (normal standing soldier 100%, kneeling soldier 60%) but that bears no relation to the image used.

A shot that appears to hit the empty top corner of the tile can be classed as a hit.

It doesn't matter if there is any image in that part of the tile.

In the same way a kneeling trooper can be missed if a shot passes straight through his chest but the game rolls over his 60% stopping chance.

Edited by Gauddlike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I was saying that the game does not know what parts of the tile are occupied.

It knows something is there and that a stopping chance is assigned.

It would not know, for example, if the top third of a tile was empty or contained your soldiers head.

A miss that passed through the occupied tile could therefore pass through an empty section or straight through the soldiers left eye.

It is no different to the game, it just has a very different aesthetic effect on the player.

Seeing a perfect head shot classed as a miss while a shot that appears to miss being classed as a hit looks like bad game mechanics or bugs.

To me it would be better to make hits look like hits while misses look like misses.

That is what the suggested systems are supposed to do.

Basically you need to think of hits and misses as being on the whole tile rather than the little picture within it.

The game doesn't know, or care, if you have a narrow post running up the middle of the tile or a thick post taking up most of the space within it.

You can assign a stopping chance to them (normal standing soldier 100%, kneeling soldier 60%) but that bears no relation to the image used.

A shot that appears to hit the empty top corner of the tile can be classed as a hit.

It doesn't matter if there is any image in that part of the tile.

In the same way a kneeling trooper can be missed if a shot passes straight through his chest but the game rolls over his 60% stopping chance.

Well, that clears up a few things. Let me ask you this: Does the developer have control of where a shot sprite passes through the tile? I assuming that can be drawn through any part of the tile, right? Can I also assume that all aliens occupy the exact center of a tile? If this is all true then why can near misses just go through the edges of a tile while hits go right through the middle (where the alien is located.) If it's that simple why hasn't this been fixed already?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does that mean only a dead centre shot would hit someone you weren't aiming at?

If you missed your target, or someone was stood in the way of your shot, would that unintended victim need to be hit dead centre of the tile in order to be hurt by the shot?

Remember that hits can be generated on anyone standing in the shot path.

Even if the direct line is drawn anyone standing between the end points is unlikely to be hit dead centre.

I believe at the moment shots go from the centre of the originating tile to the centre of the target tile (where the image representing your target is located) on a hit.

On a miss a random angle (within the set deviation limits) is generated from the centre of the originating tile.

On a deviant shot it could pass through any part of the tile, including empty space, and generate a hit (or it could pass through an occupied part and generate a miss when stopping chance <100%).

If a near miss goes through the edge of a tile it becomes a hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does that mean only a dead centre shot would hit someone you weren't aiming at?

If you missed your target, or someone was stood in the way of your shot, would that unintended victim need to be hit dead centre of the tile in order to be hurt by the shot?

Well, the programmer has the option of running all the calculations about who got hit before the shot is drawn, so if the someone in the way gets nailed the shot can be drawn to go through the center of the THEIR tile and hit them instead of the intended target. Obviously, you check the people in front first then the target then the people behind the target. Even with the current system some shots must pass through occupied tiles and appear to be hits, but then continue on to the target tile and beyond possibly.

This is really a scaling problem that some how needs to worked around. If we could zoom up closer you could see the shot just whizzed by someone that appeared to be hit when zoomed back. I believe in the simulation world it's called a "granularly" problem i.e. problems that arise due to limit of a system to simulate small and large particles and time slices.

Edited by StellarRat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I also assume that all aliens occupy the exact center of a tile? If this is all true then why can near misses just go through the edges of a tile while hits go right through the middle (where the alien is located.) If it's that simple why hasn't this been fixed already?

If I understand you correctly you would have near 100% chance to hit an enemy the size of Xenonaut's ferret if you targeted it's center tile? Or would aliens that take up more space than a single tile be unhurt if it hit them right between 2 of the tiles it occupies?

Edited by Gorlom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I understand it that is the current method. The complaint that people have is that

1) if the deviation is too small, then you hit the original target more often than the hit percentage would suggest (since the shot could miss on step 1, then hit the original target on step 3-4). The fix to that was to make the deviation larger, leading to

2) if the deviation is too large, the soldiers look like utter incompetants.

Nope

the current method also spawns a bullet actor that flies towards the target; that actor causes problem (1)

by using a hitscan method (think the weapons in Wolfenstein 3-d), which by definition is invisible outside of any reaction animations that get spawned, your soldiers can quite cheerfully shoot through things without the player going 'hey wait a minute' because the bullet actor clearly struck the enemy actor ie. you can make the deviations essentially as small as you want

I would also suggest that this method would also mitigate perturbation at problem (2) due to the fact the bullet's flight path is no longer obvious

out of sight, out of mind, as they say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand you correctly you would have near 100% chance to hit an enemy the size of Xenonaut's ferret if you targeted it's center tile? Or would aliens that take up more space than a single tile be unhurt if it hit them right between 2 of the tiles it occupies?
That's where the granularity problems come into to play. I don't have a good answer for that because I don't know the actual ground scale. My first reaction would be that anything large enough to completely fill a tile or more than one tile would be nearly 100% hit probability out to a very long range. That's on APPARENT Xenonauts ground scale. Their defense would not be a small target silhouette, but would rely on using cover and their armor or other defenses. However, I don't have an accurate ground scale to base my comments. A tank like vehicle/alien is going to almost impossible to miss under 100 yards or so IRL. The Xenonauts maps APPEAR to represent a urban fighting at ranges so close that cover and concealment are the only way to survive. Range would appear to play little part in the tactical calculations. This actually boosts my small dispersion argument IMO. Any large object that remains exposed would be nearly impossible to miss. So, you tell me :-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that level of verisimilitude very boring. I still want the crazy misses. I guess we just don't see eye to eye about this.

Your whole argument seems to be what would be realistic rather than if it would be fun gameplay. You might consider that the same thing but you don't include that bit in the argument for others to consider / argue against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that level of verisimilitude very boring. I still want the crazy misses. I guess we just don't see eye to eye about this.

Your whole argument seems to be what would be realistic rather than if it would be fun gameplay. You might consider that the same thing but you don't include that bit in the argument for others to consider / argue against.

Gortburg, I'm actually on your side. I'm searching for a way for them to miss, but not have it look ridiculous at the same time. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gortburg, I'm actually on your side. I'm searching for a way for them to miss, but not have it look ridiculous at the same time. :)

..... but that is the opposite of what I want. how can you be on my side when we want different aesthetics?? o.0

And I should stomp on your toes for that name thing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that level of verisimilitude very boring. I still want the crazy misses. I guess we just don't see eye to eye about this.

Your whole argument seems to be what would be realistic rather than if it would be fun gameplay. You might consider that the same thing but you don't include that bit in the argument for others to consider / argue against.

What makes point-blank misses fun gameplay? I'm sorry, I just don't see any fun in it.

If you closed at point blank range, it should be a guaranteed hit. After all, you risked a lot to get that close to the alien and your soldiers aren't rookies - they are seasoned veterans. They know how to handle a gun.

A sure hit is the reward for gettnig close to the killer alien.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes point-blank misses fun gameplay? I'm sorry, I just don't see any fun in it.
Being able to miss at that range makes the hits all that much sweeter, ergo the game will be more fun for me. It should be likely to hit, not be a sure thing. You seem to be thinking bout this from the point of a player whose objective is to win. Not from the point of creating a challenge that will be rewarding to overcome. Just closing the distance is not in itself enough.

But that is besides the point since I'm not talking about the hit % but the deviation angle of misses.

If you closed at point blank range, it should be a guaranteed hit. After all, you risked a lot to get that close to the alien and your soldiers aren't rookies - they are seasoned veterans. They know how to handle a gun.

A sure hit is the reward for gettnig close to the killer alien.

I'll refer you to Belmakors post about that:

http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/3454-Tighten-up-fire-accuracy?p=42942&viewfull=1#post42942

Edited by Gorlom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being able to miss at that range makes the hits all that much sweeter, ergo the game will be more fun for me. It should be likely to hit, not be a sure thing. You seem to be thinking bout this from the point of a player whose objective is to win. Not from the point of creating a challenge that will be rewarding to overcome. Just closing the distance is not in itself enough.

The roll of a RNG is not a challenge.

It's neither fun or rewarding. At all.

Killing hte alien is. Especially if you hit criticly.

It's not like aliens are likely to die from one shot anyway, so by closing the distance you are indeed risking much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...