Jump to content

Equipment: personal optic devices


Recommended Posts

Two types:

- binocular: improves daytime sight range (3-5 squares)

- night googles: eliminates nighttime sight range penalties

Both can be equiped/activated during combat, but not simultaneously.

Both have a penalty to viewing angle.

Both has no affect on weapon range and accuracy.

Maybe some high-tier armour have one of them (or both) included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Max_caine, no. Armor's sight range (per se) is fixed.

You cannot switch armor during battle (or all aliens will see solder's underpants, smell soldier's socks and run away in fear and tears, leaving you without trophies )

My idea is: You want to see far? Open your bag, spend some TUs, get binoculars. Now you see far, but don't see enemy flanking you.

You want see normally wide? Open your bag, spend some TUs, put binoculars.

When optic device (in my idea) is integrated into armour, it does not mean "it's always on".

It's mean "It's not consume space of your bag, it is joint-hinged to helmet. To put it on or off you simply turning a little lever. For very small TUs".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm unsure about this - I feel like it might just slow down the game. Instead of that tension of having someone scout ahead you just have everyone use their binos. The sniper scope is similar but a bit more restricted in use, and adds flavour to a weapon / playstyle.

Not saying this is a bad idea, but I think I'd be against trying to implement it at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a_beorning, regarding armour integrated optics. If for a one-off small TU expenditure my squaddie gets to see further, why would I want to turn it off? So that my squaddie can see in a wider angle? But I have other squaddies who can cover the angles that he cannot see. In fact, being able to see further is more valuable that being able to see in a wide angle, because for the cost of 1 TU per click, I can rotate my solider so he covers all the angles I need. I can see binoculars would occupy one or two hand slots, meaning I cannot use rifles, so there is a clear trade-off, but if there is no such penalty for integrated optics, I really don't see why I would never switch it off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Max_Caine, you will turn your integrated binocular off because you not only cannot see sides (teammates can help), but also you cannot see what is directly under your feet. And a wrong step can cost you not only minor damage but broken binocular and automatically switch option off till return to base :)

In game terms, no movement with optics on, only rotate and crouch/stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To balance this I would be expecting aliens with infra vision and some aliens who can see even further than normally - perhaps using their own weapons, but perhaps simply naturally.

At least the movement restrictions, and time units for each use provides a bit of balance. But how long before a xenonaut simple tapes a customised scope to their rifle for easier use? There would have to be penalites approaching using alien plasma weaponry for that sort of thing.

In game play, say it's a night mission. I use the above idea to have a spotter pick out the aliens, he wouldn't have normally seen. Do they stay completely spotted for every other Xenonaut too? I can understand a bit of hand waving about radio communication, but with no penalty at all ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the difference then between seeing the enemy at 15 tiles or at 10 tiles?

Either way you can't be effectively supported by the rest of your squad.

How would adding an additional sighting mechanic but reducing the effectiveness of supporting fire influence gameplay in a good way?

Basic armour has a sight range of 16, the assault rifle has a range of 18.

Anyone with that gear may get an accuracy penalty for shooting at a target outside of view range and a penalty for shooting at a target outside of weapon range.

That would mean anyone more than two tiles behind your scout (also with that gear) could be ineffective at supporting the scout.

If you increased the scouts view range further then anyone who wasn't in front of the scout would suffer from the same issue.

You may want to only apply the biggest penalty but that would still adversely affect snipers as they cannot see as far as their weapon range.

In fact any weapon that has a range longer than the sight range of the trooper carrying it would have increased accuracy penalties out at long range, even if that range was within the effective range of the weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.

Gauddlike, long-range sight is good not only to know where to shoot.

It is useful to know where to move.

"Boys, there is an ambush - it's four of them and they waiting us from here. Lets flank them, hide behind those rocks and try to lure them with flares"

2. To me, shot range greater than sight range is nonsence. If you don't see it - how do you aim it?

By friend's orders - "two feet right from that big tree, just behind a middle of bush"?

It's possible but without any precision, just trying your luck.

All RL shooting from closed position (artillery etc.) is not a target-shooting, it's an area coverage.

It's possible to fire to area out of your sight. It's possible to lucky hit someone in that area.

As a result, I think, any weapon range must be equal or lesser than sight range.

Equal to sight range - for sniper rifles, 80% for heavy MGs and Bazookas, 60% for ARs, 30-40% for Shotguns and Pistols.

With normal aiming penalties for bigger range and triple penalties for out-of-sight.

Out-of-sight suppressing fire still possible, out-of-sight hunting must die.

Of course, same penalties must be applicable to aliens too!

And fog-of-war must return as soon as nobody raise it. You go forward - you see them. You step back - you don't see them again.

When aiming, it's not a same to see target and to know where target is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.

Gauddlike, long-range sight is good not only to know where to shoot.

It is useful to know where to move.

"Boys, there is an ambush - it's four of them and they waiting us from here. Lets flank them, hide behind those rocks and try to lure them with flares"

Which is fine if you cannot shoot the enemy with other people.

Using the current mechanics that would not be the case.

The original post actually states 'no affect on accuracy or weapon range'.

The suggestion to limit weapon ranges to sight range would effectively make scouting meaningless.

If you cannot engage anything outside of 16 tiles then why bother to carry anything with longer range?

If you cannot support your scout then why bother using one?

Heavier armours have shorter view range and (in later tiers) can carry heavier weapons.

The only viable scouting tactic would appear to be moving up a tile or two at a time with as many people as you can keep together.

Anything else leaves your scout unsupported and those heavier weapons unable to be used until you run into the enemy view range in an attempt to catch up.

2. To me, shot range greater than sight range is nonsence. If you don't see it - how do you aim it?

By friend's orders - "two feet right from that big tree, just behind a middle of bush"?

It's possible but without any precision, just trying your luck.

Just because you cannot make something out from your current position doesn't mean that you would be completely unable to see it once someone points out its location to you.

You can see the bush but until someone with a better location tells you that something is there you don't dedicate your attention to trying to make out the partly hidden shape behind it.

Like walking in the woods with someone who points out the deer standing watching you that you would have otherwise wandered past without seeing.

You would be perfectly able to see and shoot at a target like that, once it had been brought to your attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is fine if you cannot shoot the enemy with other people.

Using the current mechanics that would not be the case.

The original post actually states 'no affect on accuracy or weapon range'.

Activation/deactivation of optics do not affect accuracy and weapon range.

I did'nt write something type of: "Implementing this feature do not affect game mechanics" :)

The suggestion to limit weapon ranges to sight range would effectively make scouting meaningless.

Thousands of years there were no weapon with effective range more than 100 meters. Do you think scouting was invented in 18th sentury?

To the contrary: ancient Romans and Greeks used scouts.

Artillery spotters became meaningless, but we have no over-the-hill artillery

If you cannot engage anything outside of 16 tiles then why bother to carry anything with longer range?

If you cannot aim something outside of 16 tiles, why bother to invent personal weapon with longer range?

Just because you cannot make something out from your current position doesn't mean that you would be completely unable to see it once someone points out its location to you.

You can see the bush but until someone with a better location tells you that something is there you don't dedicate your attention to trying to make out the partly hidden shape behind it.

Like walking in the woods with someone who points out the deer standing watching you that you would have otherwise wandered past without seeing.

You would be perfectly able to see and shoot at a target like that, once it had been brought to your attention.

It's a very attractive conception, but it need even more changes in game mechanics.

You need several "sight ranges" for every unit to be calculated and considered when draw a screen:

- Range when you can see landscape and big objects: buildings, hills, big trees.

- Range when you see medium-sized objects: bushes, trucks etc.

- Range when you see human-sized details: truck driver, someone near the bush,...

- Range when you see small details: you can distinguish soldier from civilian, adron from human.

Friend's message allow you to improve your attention one range step, no more.

How attentively you need look to aim "an alien near corner of the barn" from a distance you do not see barn at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Activation/deactivation of optics do not affect accuracy and weapon range.

I did'nt write something type of: "Implementing this feature do not affect game mechanics" :)

True except that you then went on to suggest that in order for your initial suggestion to make sense weapon range should be limited to sight range and accuracy reduced significantly outside of that range.

To my mind this translates to the suggested optics mechanic having a knock on effect to both accuracy and range.

Thousands of years there were no weapon with effective range more than 100 meters. Do you think scouting was invented in 18th sentury?

To the contrary: ancient Romans and Greeks used scouts.

I am not sure how this ties in with the suggestion.

If the suggested optics were to be used in the game then you would lose the need to use the same kind of scouting both of those armies used.

You would not need to send men into a risky environment in order to uncover the enemies location.

Think more along the lines of using UAV's to attack those Romans and Greeks.

Yes it would be fantastic for any real world general to be able to kill his enemy from well outside of their own engagement range and keep his troops out of harm while doing it.

Wouldn't make for much of a game though.

If you cannot aim something outside of 16 tiles, why bother to invent personal weapon with longer range?

Again I am a little confused because currently you can in fact aim at enemies outside of the 16 tiles, it is only with your range suggestion that this would become impossible.

The longer range weapons, like the MG, rocket launcher, and precision rifle are currently the only ones that can reach past visual range.

It's a very attractive conception, but it need even more changes in game mechanics.

You need several "sight ranges" for every unit to be calculated and considered when draw a screen:

- Range when you can see landscape and big objects: buildings, hills, big trees.

- Range when you see medium-sized objects: bushes, trucks etc.

- Range when you see human-sized details: truck driver, someone near the bush,...

- Range when you see small details: you can distinguish soldier from civilian, adron from human.

Friend's message allow you to improve your attention one range step, no more.

How attentively you need look to aim "an alien near corner of the barn" from a distance you do not see barn at all?

Actually the concept is fairly well represented already.

Once the shroud is uncovered you can see as far as you need to in any direction.

If a friendly sees an enemy that is inside of your potential field of vision they draw your attention to it.

You are then free to engage that enemy regardless of range.

The only limitation is that you cannot see (and therefore attack) anything out of your line of sight

As weapons have differing performance at range and different aiming methods (scope for precision rifle, iron sights for pistol etc) the range at which your accuracy begins to suffer is based on the weapon.

I think that is a much simpler method than additional restrictions on the weapons based on the sight range.

As for not being able to see the barn at all that only happens when the shroud is in place which is a mechanic to prevent the whole map being known from the start.

Edited by Gauddlike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The shroud is an abstraction to making exploration more meaningful and interesting. Realistically, you could argue that the shroud shouldn't exist because the troops presumably looked out the chinook windows on the way in and know where the UFO is and what the terrain looks like. I think having to explore makes the game more fun, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True except that you then went on to suggest that in order for your initial suggestion to make sense weapon range should be limited to sight range and accuracy reduced significantly outside of that range.

Maybe I write it not clear enough.

"1.Weapon range must be limited to normal, not-instrumentally-improved, sight range

2. Shot outside of weapon range is possible but punished with drastical inaccurateness

3. Aim a target outside of sight range - impossible, aim an area outside of sight range - possible".

If the suggested optics were to be used in the game then you would lose the need to use the same kind of scouting both of those armies used. You would not need to send men into a risky environment in order to uncover the enemies location.

Yes, field optics IS to uncover enemy location without (or with lesser) risk.

But to engage enemy you still need to enter weapon range and take a risk.

Again I am a little confused because currently you can in fact aim at enemies outside of the 16 tiles, it is only with your range suggestion that this would become impossible.

Yes, now I can. It's wrong and must be fixed.

How (in game terms)?

Variant: if a soldier shoot enemy out of his sight range, game (secretly and randomly) select a tile from some range around target, and aim there. As greater range, as greater 'error ellipse'. Up to 20 tiles - tile for aim selected from 9. Up to 30 - from 25.

Chances to hit still are. But very low. Chances to suppress are better then to hit.

The longer range weapons, like the MG, rocket launcher, and precision rifle are currently the only ones that can reach past visual range.

Is it so? Now assault rifles and even shotguns can reach past visual range too.

Once the shroud is uncovered you can see as far as you need to in any direction.

If a friendly sees an enemy that is inside of your potential field of vision they draw your attention to it.

You are then free to engage that enemy regardless of range.

So, game need to calculate practical field of vision (where you see anything), potential field of vision (where you see big objets, terrain, but not human-sized until attention drawn), and outside (where you do not see). And draw accordingly.

As for not being able to see the barn at all that only happens when the shroud is in place which is a mechanic to prevent the whole map being known from the start.

As I see it, whole map represents an area at least several hundred meters wide, maybe a kilometer or two.

For such area it's normal you can not see other board of area nor aim through all map.

Edited by a_beorning
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, now I can. It's wrong and must be fixed.

How (in game terms)?

Variant: if a soldier shoot enemy out of his sight range, game (secretly and randomly) select a tile from some range around target, and aim there. As greater range, as greater 'error ellipse'. Up to 20 tiles - tile for aim selected from 9. Up to 30 - from 25.

Chances to hit still are. But very low. Chances to suppress are better then to hit.

How does your variation on aiming with randomly selected tiles and so on differ from the current system where a missed shot deviates?

How would it work with aiming at one of those randomly selected tiles if the shot were to miss and deviate into the target?

What difference does it make over aiming at the tile you click on but having reduced accuracy due to range?

If you can still aim at the target but stand a low chance to hit, as you point out, then how does it differ from the current system at all?

Is it so? Now assault rifles and even shotguns can reach past visual range too.

Neither of those weapons has an optimal range longer than the basic armour view range, the shotgun for example has a range of 7 tiles.

They can be aimed at a target outside of this range but have very small chance or no chance to actually hit that target.

As per your suggestion above that would be acceptable and would work the same way.

The only weapons that would have a reasonable chance to hit are the weapons that are designed for long range combat.

Limiting those weapons to short range makes little sense to me.

So, game need to calculate practical field of vision (where you see anything), potential field of vision (where you see big objets, terrain, but not human-sized until attention drawn), and outside (where you do not see). And draw accordingly.

Not really.

The current system has visual range (where you see anything), previously uncovered areas of the map covered by fog of war (where you see big objects but not human sized unless seen by another soldier), and outside of those areas is the shroud (where you do not see).

Everything you wanted is already present.

As I see it, whole map represents an area at least several hundred meters wide, maybe a kilometer or two.

For such area it's normal you can not see other board of area nor aim through all map.

Each tile is 1.6 m across.

The light scout maps you will encounter first are around 60x60 tiles.

That makes the combat area somewhere near 100x100 metres.

Sight range for basic armoured troops is 25 metres or approximately a quarter of the map in the open.

Sure you can abstract it out to any range you want in your mind to justify the suggestion but it doesn't fit with the short ranged combat envisioned by the dev team.

The weapon ranges are already incredibly short compared to real life weapons in order to give any meaningful difference between the weapons at the sort of ranges combat takes place at in the game.

Reducing the assault rifle further to 15 metre range (9-10 tiles) and the precision scoped rifle to 25 metres (16 tiles) as you suggested would appear to be a little bit short.

If you multiply those measurements by 10 in order to fit your idea of scale then each house becomes a mansion, each small wall used as cover becomes the great wall of china, your troops can cross this 1km space in a matter of seconds and throw grenades hundreds of metres and so on.

This discussion isn't really going anywhere though.

You like the idea, I don't see it improving gameplay, I think everyone is clear on that by now ;)

I will summarise my feelings about the suggestions and move on to give others a chance to join in.

Night vision:

Removes the tension felt on night missions

If there is no downside then everyone would have them and night missions become day missions.

Decreased viewing angle (no numbers on how reduced) is only a real penalty when the soldier with it is alone and in the open and only then if there is an enemy in his blind area (1 AP turn cost).

Binoculars:

Detecting enemies from outside of their own range removes risk and tension from the game.

Currently this would allow the enemy to be killed with no risk.

Discourages scouting by other means.

Discourage firing at enemies outside of view range:

Weapons already have an accuracy penalty for firing outside of their optimum range, another penalty is not required.

Long range weapons, such as precision rifles, allow you to aim at targets that you would not be able to make out properly with the naked eye, this reduction (to use a real world analogy) removes the scope and forces use of iron sights when aiming.

If the triple penalty for firing at anything outside of 16 tiles was to be used then scouting and support from your own troops has reduced importance in the game.

Reducing accuracy of long range shots does not mean that it will be impossible to kill the enemy without risk, it just makes you carry extra ammunition or more rocket launchers for area damage on a near miss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, Gauddlike, maybe you are right and I'm wrong.

But now (6th month of game) when my well-trained soldier aim a target 20 tiles away with AR, he get ~60% probability to-hit (by digits shown by game).

And on greater distances, even when game shows "5%", he still hits at least one aimed shot of three, assuming line of fire is unobstructed.

Moreover, AR's "60%" often gives better chanses than Sniper's "95%".

I do not know game's mechanism well enough to understand why it is so, but I'm positively sure something is very wrong and must be fixed.

I think we begin to discussing something away from starting idea. We did not perusade one another. Maybe it's time to stop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we were just starting on game development I wouldn't be opposed to something like this, but this late in the game it seems like it isn't going to happen. I have serious doubts Chris is going to be to open to adding a new fairly major feature to the game when we are one build from beta. I'm pretty much opposed to it too. As it can only delay the release of the game. You have to remember that this would also require interface changes unless it was always "ON" for snipers. Maybe if there is an expansion or II.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a_beorning, Chris has said that the accuracy calculations are bad in the current build. You may also have noticed that the sniper rifle frequently says "0%" chance to hit for shots that would be fairly trivial for other weapons. Sometimes you shoot objects right next to you (that is not intended). Hopefully we'll see some fixes early in beta.

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...