Jump to content

Tighten up fire accuracy


Recommended Posts

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.

Oh, so the game would be the mot fun for you if your units shot always hit and the aliens always missed? No RNG involved and a lot of alien kills for you.

*sigh*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would hope the aliens wouldn't miss at point blank range either. That's the big risk of not finishing the job when get there. Seriously though, Gollum, how could you possible miss a full-tile or multi-tile sized alien from 1 tile away? That's like shooting at the side of building that's right in front of you and missing! Is that what you want? If I saw those kinds of misses I'd probably not play the game anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point blank range would give you a pretty much guaranteed hit under ideal circumstances.

Modifiers like cover, smoke, injuries, moving and firing with heavy weapons etc might make you miss though.

It should never be impossible to miss, it should just be likely that you will hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point blank range would give you a pretty much guaranteed hit under ideal circumstances.

Modifiers like cover, smoke, injuries, moving and firing with heavy weapons etc might make you miss though.

It should never be impossible to miss, it should just be likely that you will hit.

Well, that would be OK with me IF AND ONLY IF we can have pass through shots or over/under shots. If I see a bullet going off at a 80 degree angle because I just missed something as big as a semi-trailer that I was 10 feet away from me I'm going to be one unhappy gamer. That would look completely idiotic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really sure if I would call that a strawman. I didn't make up something you didn't say (or made any logical fallacy), I just took you literally and conjectured an extreme case.

You said yourself that RNG was neither fun, challenging or rewarding at all. So the logical conclusion is that removing the RNG element would not impede your fun in any way, (it might even increase it).

Since "killing the alien, especially if you critically hit" is the only thing you listed as requirement for fun, making it easier would logically make it easier to have fun.

Ergo I have only used information from your post. I have not taken "I like sunny days" and turned it into "I want people to starve since I dislike rain".

I'm quite aware that you didn't mean it that way, and I tried to prove it to YOU that you didn't meant what you said in that post. But it looks like you just wave it away without seeing my point about RNG.

It was sarcasm used as an argument rather than a strawman argument.

Edited by Gorlom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really sure if I would call that a strawman. I didn't make up something you didn't say (or made any logical fallacy), I just took you literally and conjectured an extreme case.

You did actually. What you describe is at best Reductio Ad Absurdum.

If you make a parody of someones stance to pove your point, arguing a point that was never really made then it's a strawman.

You said yourself that RNG was neither fun, challenging or rewarding at all. So the logical conclusion is that removing the RNG element would not impede your fun in any way, (it might even increase it).

Since "killing the alien, especially if you critically hit" is the only thing you listed as requirement for fun, making it easier would logically make it easier to have fun.

Ergo I have only used information from your post. I have not taken "I like sunny days" and turned it into "I want people to starve since I dislike rain".

We both know what I mean.

You beating aroudn the bush and nitpicking isn't helping anyone.

I'm quite aware that you didn't mean it that way, and I tried to prove it to YOU that you didn't meant what you said in that post. But it looks like you just wave it away without seeing my point about RNG.

It was sarcasm used as an argument rather than a strawman argument.

It's not an argument of any kind.

It does your own point no service whatsoever.

It doesn't change my stance or oppinion at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did actually. What you describe is at best Reductio Ad Absurdum.

If you make a parody of someones stance to pove your point, arguing a point that was never really made then it's a strawman.

Yes, I did make a parody of your point by taking your words literally. That doesn't make it a strawman or reductio ad absurdum. you chose to include "at all" in your own post making my post a plain logical conclusion.

You made a point about not wanting RNG because you don't see the challange, fun or reward in RNG "at all". For some reason you only wanted to apply that point to close ranges (but did not mention that fact). I extended it to all combat to attempt to show you your folly. That your point does not apply, that this is really about something else. Probably your insistence that that realism or verisimilitude should take precedence over other things.

We both know what I mean.

You beating aroudn the bush and nitpicking isn't helping anyone.

I doubt that.

I'm nitpicking? You were the one that brought it up and strong armed me into arguing on the subject, despite my attempts to steer it back to what I was actually discussing when you jumped into the discussion. wouldn't that mean YOU are the one nitpicking? Or is this some kind of extension from the callsign thread and you are challenging me because you misunderstood my intentions in that thread? this whole argument feels pretty petty from my point of view really.

It's not an argument of any kind.

It does your own point no service whatsoever.

It doesn't change my stance or oppinion at all.

what is my point? Do you even know that?

no, I didn't really think it would. This is the internet after all and you seem happy just to banter with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I did make a parody of your point by taking your words literally. That doesn't make it a strawman or reductio ad absurdum. you chose to include "at all" in your own post making my post a plain logical conclusion.

You made a point about not wanting RNG because you don't see the challange, fun or reward in RNG "at all". For some reason you only wanted to apply that point to close ranges (but did not mention that fact). I extended it to all combat to attempt to show you your folly. That your point does not apply, that this is really about something else. Probably your insistence that that realism or verisimilitude should take precedence over other things.

I doubt that.

There was no folly and you deliberately twisted the meaning of my words.

Period.

The "at all" reffers to the specific situation. And you knew that.

I'm nitpicking? You were the one that brought it up and strong armed me into arguing on the subject, despite my attempts to steer it back to what I was actually discussing when you jumped into the discussion. wouldn't that mean YOU are the one nitpicking? Or is this some kind of extension from the callsign thread and you are challenging me because you misunderstood my intentions in that thread? this whole argument feels pretty petty from my point of view really.

Strongarmed you?

Lest I checked I'm not holding a pistol to your head. I didn't force you to do anything.

If you insist to blame everyone else for your own failings, that's your problem. Not mine.

The nitpick is YOURS because you know very well what I wanted to say (you admitted that yourself) and still proceeded to nitpick.

So yes. It is very petty from you.

what is my point? Do you even know that?

no, I didn't really think it would. This is the internet after all and you seem happy just to banter with me.

What a hypocrite.

You presume to know what I want better than me and than call me out on "now knowing what you want"?

You are seriously irrirating me Gorlom.

Enough that I'm contemplating putting you on my ignore list, just so that I don't have to deal with you.

Edited by TrashMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will agree there are some issues with fire accuracy. I was standing next to an alien with a shotgun, litrally the next tile and had a 0% chance to hit (WTF sprung to mind) took the shot anyway and hit and killed it.
Usually when you're close and it says zero chance it's because there is an object blocking the line of fire.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Ofc there should. This isn't real life. this is a game and you have to balance it as such. If the devs find that its balanced then fine.

But the mechanics is flawed when it causes misses to hit.

There is a problem with using the argument "this isn't real life" as a defense for "Clown Accuracy". And asking something to be realistic is not necessarily asking for it to model real life exactly. I would like for common sense to apply to the games I play and not rely on nonsensical implementations like the "Toothpick of Awesomeness + 999" to kill a baddie or balance a game.

Close enough to physically touch something is 100% accuracy and the unwillingness to accept that would indicate someone that is not willing to take the time to balance things the correct way and acceptable to cheapening the gaming experience in a shallow balancing attempt.

I am well aware that this existed in X-Com original as well and I didn't agree with it then either.

Edited by SirAstral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir Astral you do know that the units are on the move in the game, right? ;) they are just standing still because it is a turn based game rather than real time. as such close enough to touch isn't garanteed to hit, because it only last a fleeting moment and then they either move or shoot your face off with their weapon.

I don't rally care if you can't wrap your head around the concept that I think game balance > realism, that I find realism to be cheaper of the two. what you think of me I think of you for insisting that you can't find missing from that point with an alien in your face trying to kill you to be likely/possible.

If it's beliveble in the Alien, Predtor, starshiptroopers etc movies/games etc I don't see why the chryssalidlike shouldn't be able to do it here.

Edited by Gorlom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir Astral you do know that the units are on the move in the game, right? ;) they are just standing still because it is a turn based game rather than real time. as such close enough to touch isn't garanteed to hit, because it only last a fleeting moment and then they either move or shoot your face off with their weapon.

I don't rally care if you can't wrap your head around the concept that I think game balance > realism, that I find realism to be cheaper of the two. what you think of me I think of you for insisting that you can't find missing from that point with an alien in your face trying to kill you to be likely/possible.

If it's beliveble in the Alien, Predtor, starshiptroopers etc movies/games etc I don't see why the chryssalidlike shouldn't be able to do it here.

I do not mean to be insulting when I say this and I apologize if it sounds harsh, but I do see your point, I just do not want to accept it!

Yes, I understand that they are moving, but keep in mind that the trade off is my own units getting shot/killed in the most obscene situations. The end result is that we are not only ignoring reality we are actually turning it on its head and instead made more sacrifices than gains for the sake of balance. Yes in some cases you have to trade off some realism for the sake of balance and expediency... it is a game after all, I just am not for sacrificing it to the absurd degree in which I see it in game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not mean to be insulting when I say this and I apologize if it sounds harsh, but I do see your point, I just do not want to accept it!

Yes, I understand that they are moving, but keep in mind that the trade off is my own units getting shot/killed in the most obscene situations. The end result is that we are not only ignoring reality we are actually turning it on its head and instead made more sacrifices than gains for the sake of balance. Yes in some cases you have to trade off some realism for the sake of balance and expediency... it is a game after all, I just am not for sacrificing it to the absurd degree in which I see it in game.

There are solutions for this problem that will satisfy both sides of the argument. They have been posted in the threads that Gorlom posted. I've heard nothing about a final solution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not mean to be insulting when I say this and I apologize if it sounds harsh, but I do see your point, I just do not want to accept it!

Yes, I understand that they are moving, but keep in mind that the trade off is my own units getting shot/killed in the most obscene situations. The end result is that we are not only ignoring reality we are actually turning it on its head and instead made more sacrifices than gains for the sake of balance. Yes in some cases you have to trade off some realism for the sake of balance and expediency... it is a game after all, I just am not for sacrificing it to the absurd degree in which I see it in game.

I'm not sure why you'd think I would find it insulting or sound harsh that you don't agree with me :P You are free to do so. Although I do find it kind of funny that we think different things are more realistic :D (ie posibility of missing from one square away vs sure hit at that distance)

I guess if Chris and the gang could do something about how the game handles collisions or generate tile hits they could open up deviations to modders so that I could get my preferred large deviations and StellarRat gets his minimal diviation.

There are solutions for this problem that will satisfy both sides of the argument. They have been posted in the threads that Gorlom posted. I've heard nothing about a final solution.

StllarRat: that was in a different thread though. Just type in "deviation" in the search field and they will all show up. I lft som of the threads that showed up out of that post so you might find some other interesting bits.

Edited by Gorlom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why you'd think I would find it insulting or sound harsh that you don't agree with me :P You are free to do so. Although I do find it kind of funny that we think different things are more realistic :D (ie posibility of missing from one square away vs sure hit at that distance)

I guess if Chris and the gang could do something about how the game handles collisions or generate tile hits they could open up deviations to modders so that I could get my preferred large deviations and StellarRat gets his minimal diviation.

StllarRat: that was in a different thread though. Just type in "deviation" in the search field and they will all show up. I lft som of the threads that showed up out of that post so you might find some other interesting bits.

I just have strong opinions and a mouth that gets away from me. I just do not want anyone to get the idea that I am trying to personally insult them or anything when I am only upset about the situation. I do hope they can find a good way to balance it out.

The other thing is that my standards are usually unreasonably high as well, but that is just because I am a picky person and I accept that.

My idea on how to balance this out would be the closer a person gets to an enemy unit the higher risk they take in getting a first hand ventilation experience. This would include sneaking up behind an enemy. I think it would be reasonable for a an Enemy with enough reserve TU could turn around and blast someone because they hear a unit with a lot of noisy equipment trying to ninja them from behind.

As things stand, ground combat is best fighting long range and sniping everything down. It really makes it a walk in the park and we all know that in real combat situations no one would ever send a whole squadron of snipers to the front line.

It might be a nifty change to give snipers a long but narrow view range of 1~3 squares wide with double the distance where you have to spend TU to look around through the scope and where your peripheral vision is then obscured.

It would also be cool to be able to use binoculars as well. These implements of war have long been missed in most war games, but I also understand that that also runs counter of the desire to create an edgy and fear provoking combat atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As things stand, ground combat is best fighting long range and sniping everything down. It really makes it a walk in the park and we all know that in real combat situations no one would ever send a whole squadron of snipers to the front line.

Not snipers perhaps but certainly with optics. In 1979, not so much.

The ranges in this game don't really spec out for a dedicated sniper.

It might be a nifty change to give snipers a long but narrow view range of 1~3 squares wide with double the distance where you have to spend TU to look around through the scope and where your peripheral vision is then obscured.

That would be overcome by a spotter.

---

I think the cone of variance should begin a lot farther from the shooter than it currently does. A sniper rifle should have the cone beginning *behind* the target.

An assault rifle should have the cone of variance begin *at* the target. Maybe at halfway to target on a snap shot.

A pistol/shotgun should have the cone begin *halfway* to the target.

Not really sure about rocket launchers.

The cone should have a max width of 3 tiles, a max height of 4 tiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original X-com had a mechanic where the maximum cone of fire tightened as the base hit chance increased (and the maximum maximum cone of fire was about 30 degrees). Does Xenonauts do something like this? The wiki doesn't seem to say so...

Edited by AvistTorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir Astral you do know that the units are on the move in the game, right? ;) they are just standing still because it is a turn based game rather than real time. as such close enough to touch isn't garanteed to hit, because it only last a fleeting moment and then they either move or shoot your face off with their weapon.

I don't rally care if you can't wrap your head around the concept that I think game balance > realism, that I find realism to be cheaper of the two. what you think of me I think of you for insisting that you can't find missing from that point with an alien in your face trying to kill you to be likely/possible.

So how exactly does it improve balance?

You and the enemy play by the same rules. If the enemy gets close, he too is practicly guaranteed to hit. Balance.

Please, explain to me how missing at point blank is more balanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing that it is better balance/mechanic I'm arguing that the decision should be based on game balance/mechanics rather than realism/versilimitude.

Sorry if I haven't made that clear enough.

(on the side I'm also arguing that getting a sure hit at that range isn't realistic)

Edit:

Hmm seems there might be some confusion about the use of the word "balance". I don't mean fairness that both sides can do it. That isn't the only balance that needs to be considered.

Edited by Gorlom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing that it is better balance/mechanic I'm arguing that the decision should be based on game balance/mechanics rather than realism/versilimitude.

Sorry if I haven't made that clear enough.

(on the side I'm also arguing that getting a sure hit at that range isn't realistic)

How does this affect balance? The aliens will have the same advantage/disadvantage. Even if that were not true, if the soldiers were winning all the time it would be a simple matter to make the aliens tougher, better, or more numerous. If something looks stupid and unrealistic there is no reason not to change it if it's possible. It should be done now before the balancing begins in beta.

I have no problem with the aliens drilling my troops at point blank range if I'm dumb enough to run up to them without killing them. Likewise, if I can get a guy right up to an alien without him being killed I'd expect to put a bullet or five right between it's antennae, eyes, etc... What's the problem with that?

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...