Cover and accuracy poll

[TrashMan]

I'm interested what people think

[Sheepy]

Again?  Well, since this is not a first person "strategy" game, I opt for fixed and reliable calculation.   Planning is the fun part for me, not throwing half the soldiers' actions against a fence with an unknown and unpredictable block %.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Sheepy
Add link to related discussion.

[Wyldefyre_CP]

Other.  Can I see them?  Yes, you can.  Great !  What is my chance to hit, then?  What do you mean, there's a shrubbery in the way, do you think I care about the shrubbery getting hurt?  Start Shooting!

[Pave]

4 hours ago, Wyldefyre_CP said:

Other.  Can I see them?  Yes, you can.  Great !  What is my chance to hit, then?  What do you mean, there's a shrubbery in the way, do you think I care about the shrubbery getting hurt?  Start Shooting!

This kind of makes me wonder if we eventually have a "piercing"-attribute alongside the "Armour Penetration"-system that is going to be improved upon.
http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/index.php?/topic/14352-weapon-armour-penetration/

E.G. the shrubbery while could allow the bullet to pass-by, would also possibly change the trajectory depending on how "healthy" the shrubbery is.

Of course this could also mean that all the ammo-types would need to have different attributes too.
I already mention bullet-behaviour in case of shrubberies. But in case of "plasma" for example, that would cause it to burn until "killed". "MAG"-ammo-possibly could have the best piercing-capabilities, but otherwise wouldn't cause that-much-of-damage.

(( I am aware I am repeating a lot of things from other topics when it comes to damage-types, but I'd say it is worth to mention in "world-objects-vs-player-guns"-topic. ))

---
---
---

[Sheepy]

9 hours ago, Wyldefyre_CP said:

Other.  Can I see them?  Yes, you can.  Great !  What is my chance to hit, then?  What do you mean, there's a shrubbery in the way, do you think I care about the shrubbery getting hurt?  Start Shooting!

Hmm. How is that different from a (fixed) low to zero shrubbery block chance?

[Wyldefyre_CP]

In some cases, even though you could see the alien on the other side of the shrubbery, you couldn't shoot at that alien b/c of the borders of the tiles around the shrubbery, unless of course you'd already given the plants a taste of lead salad, and then you'd get your chance to hit.  This wasn't just limited to shrubs, there were other obstacles that it would seem you could shoot by (or through) with an alien perched on the edge, but the shrubs were the most aggravating b/c it seemed like a rather flimsy excuse for solid, shot-blocking cover.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Wyldefyre_CP

[TrashMan]

On 08/03/2017 at 0:20 PM, Sheepy said:

Again?  Well, since this is not a first person "strategy" game, I opt for fixed and reliable calculation.   Planning is the fun part for me, not throwing half the soldiers' actions against a fence with an unknown and unpredictable block %.

And what's wrong with not having 100% accurate data or all the information? When in life do you ever have them?

Use your own brain and judgment - even without the computer calculating it for you, you should have a rough estimate of how difficult it would be to hit someone based on cover and angle. Spatial reasoning is something a human brain does naturally.

Do you need an exact number? Does a commander in the field have those numbers? No. But you can judge comparatively (I'll have a better shot from point A then from point B, but C would probably be best - you can make those judgments without even knowing the exact value at any of those points).

And don't give me the BS "but it's a game" non-argument. Where does it say that you need those numbers because it's a game. You just got accustomed to having them, even though you don't need them.

[TrashMan]

On 08/03/2017 at 6:45 PM, Pave said:

This kind of makes me wonder if we eventually have a "piercing"-attribute alongside the "Armour Penetration"-system that is going to be improved upon.
http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/index.php?/topic/14352-weapon-armour-penetration/

E.G. the shrubbery while could allow the bullet to pass-by, would also possibly change the trajectory depending on how "healthy" the shrubbery is.

Of course this could also mean that all the ammo-types would need to have different attributes too.
I already mention bullet-behaviour in case of shrubberies. But in case of "plasma" for example, that would cause it to burn until "killed". "MAG"-ammo-possibly could have the best piercing-capabilities, but otherwise wouldn't cause that-much-of-damage.

(( I am aware I am repeating a lot of things from other topics when it comes to damage-types, but I'd say it is worth to mention in "world-objects-vs-player-guns"-topic. ))

Cover penetration? Yes, a thousand times yes. Cover would have material type and thickness, which would determine how it reacts to damage.

Wood would be penetrated easily by bullets, and can burn and splinter. Metal would bend (melt when plasma'd). A bullet punching trough a wall cover would also loose speed and thus damage.

Plasma itself would be shit at penetrating cover, due to no density to speak off, but it would be great at destroying it (and due to splash damage, the sorounding too)

Hypervelocity weapons are an interesting question though - would cover act as whipple shielding? Interestingly enough, it might cause a shotgun-effect, as the hypervelocity bullet fragments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield

 

[Sheepy]

18 hours ago, TrashMan said:

And what's wrong with not having 100% accurate data or all the information? When in life do you ever have them?

Do you need an exact number? Does a commander in the field have those numbers? No. But you can judge comparatively

And don't give me the BS "but it's a game" non-argument. Where does it say that you need those numbers because it's a game. You just got accustomed to having them, even though you don't need them.

Your argument is so logically sound, and your statement so sincere, that they are the bane of all non-arguments.

Enlighten me, please.  What is wrong with having accurate data or all the information on the board?  Chess, draughts, go, these real life games give accurate position of every pieces on the board.  Does a commander in the field play in turn?  Does soldiers in the field avert their glaze at ground further than 18 squares and never see the smoke from the crash site?  What makes shot accuracy so special in a game that you feel compelled to single it out?

Of course this is a game, to me.  I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I got accustomed to having shot accuracy, since most games I play do not have them.  What I am saying is the ground combat is a grid based, turn based, layered 2D, non-simulation game, with very inaccurate shooters, made on a very limited budget, and I think the simple percentage is more beneficial in this context to the big picture.  I get in this game better with it than without.

This is not really an argument, of course, as you stated, which is why I want to hear more of your exemplar arguments.  But if you think what I said is stupid, I would understand if you don't feel like wasting your great intellect on my non-sense babbling.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Sheepy

[Ninothree]

On 08/03/2017 at 8:52 AM, TrashMan said:

I'm interested what people think

 

On 04/04/2017 at 9:53 AM, TrashMan said:

And don't give me the BS "but it's a game" non-argument.

?

[TrashMan]

@Ninothree - it's a non-argument because it's can used to justify anything and nothing. Just like saying "it's fantasy!"

 

 

@Sheepy -

Quote

 

Enlighten me, please.  What is wrong with having accurate data or all the information on the board?  Chess, draughts, go, these real life games give accurate position of every pieces on the board.  Does a commander in the field play in turn?  Does soldiers in the field avert their glaze at ground further than 18 squares and never see the smoke from the crash site?  What makes shot accuracy so special in a

game that you feel compelled to single it out?

I single it out because generally one tackles one thing at a time. A thread about EVERYTHING would be incredibly non-specific and bloated.

A game needs rules and sometimes abstractions depending on complexity. Do I think view distance is necessary? No. I'd be fine with seeing from one end of the map to the other by day (without obstacles, of course). However, if ranges are compressed it makes sense to compress view distance - it also adds to the atmosphere and sense of danger. Also, a crash site doesn't have to be smoking.

But why do you think having such calculations is better? It certainly gives the player more information, but why is it better? Is more information always better? Is relaying more on your brain and common sense worse?

Take for example MMO's - you always see the name, alignment, level and HP of other NPC's and player. Why is that good? Wouldn't it be more interesting and exciting not having all the info served? Suddenly, you're not sure if that guy you see is a player or a NPC. You're not sure how strong he is, so you rely more on information gathering, observation and deduction, rather than just knowing everything. Suddenly, in a MMO you start acting more cautious and more "real". Suddenly, there's an extra layer of unknown and danger in every raid or fight. Suddenly, the only people who's names show up are people you actually talked to or have seen before.

[Sheepy]

18 hours ago, TrashMan said:

Take for example MMO's - you always see the name, alignment, level and HP of other NPC's and player. Why is that good? Wouldn't it be more interesting and exciting not having all the info served? Suddenly, you're not sure if that guy you see is a player or a NPC. You're not sure how strong he is, so you rely more on information gathering, observation and deduction, rather than just knowing everything. Suddenly, in a MMO you start acting more cautious and more "real". Suddenly, there's an extra layer of unknown and danger in every raid or fight.

A good question.  The short answer is not always, you don't always see everything.  The first MMO (arguably), Ultima Online, did that - no HP, no level, no always-on name.   Powerful players can and do freely roam around and kill noobs for fun, which is also real for a world without governments, too.  Asheron's Call is another example.

They are old because the MMO trend - the money - moved away from realistic simulation.  MMO is very sensitive to what is fun for enough players to be economically viable.   Time has proven that game-ish worlds with colour-coded overhead names hold enough unknown and danger for many players to keep paying.  This does not mean you need to feel the same as an individual.  Different gamers has different tastes and play different games.  Have you tried The Division?

Note that ships do display their names, flags (alignments), and tons (level) out in the real life sea, so the labels at least is not a phenomena limited to games.  Radar screens in airports display even more, so the lack of overhead bars in real world is may be not because people don't prefer more information when they make plan.

 

18 hours ago, TrashMan said:

It's a non-argument because it's can used to justify anything and nothing. Just like saying "it's fantasy!"

Why do you think having such calculations is better? It certainly gives the player more information, but why is it better? Is more information always better? Is relaying more on your brain and common sense worse?

My last post may be rich in sarcasm, but I mean it when I said I wasn't presenting an argument.  You said you are interested in what people think, and this is simply what I think.  Last I check the thesaurus, argument is not a synonym of opinion.  So of course opinions should be non-arguments.

Your great mind asked quite a few question on what I think, but my humble mind have had enough intellectual entertainment from our last exchange in the translocator thread.  Like how a causal wow player can be satisfied with the horribly shallow and world shattering health bar, this time I am happy enough with the simple answer of this is what I think.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Sheepy

[TrashMan]

The lowest common denominator?

 

Alas, we live in a world were you can sell garbage and convince people they need garbage. Powerful advertising and peer pressure, and people will purchase crap just because everyone else is doing it. And they will convince themselves it's not crap.

 

Note that ships do display their names, flags (alignments), and tons (level) out in the real life sea, so the labels at least is not a phenomena limited to games.  Radar screens in airports display even more, so the lack of overhead bars in real world is may be not because people don't prefer more information when they make plan.

Those are informations those veihilces transmit - give freely.

Normally, via radar you can only have limited information, like current speed and course. Aligment, name, tons? Not unless it's transmitted. Although you can say they have "names" as every contact that doesn't transmit it's ID is assigned a temporary one

[Ninothree]

I think that data on the battle is an intrinsic part of the gameplay. There is a space for games without those interfaces (Black and White is a prime example) but the feel they give is far less about strategy which is at the core of xcom. As the commander, you can't guess that much based upon what a shot looks like from a top down view, or really know what cover elements are in the way - those are just graphical representations (which are less likely an issue for the AI). You need some kind of crutch to know what your decisions relate to in the game world. Obviously, more realistic cover seems better but I think an understandable set of game mechanics is more important in order for you to make well thought out decisions as opposed to going with gut instinct - the latter making for a decent enough combat simulator but not a strategy game.

[Sheepy]

5 hours ago, TrashMan said:

The lowest common denominator?  Alas, we live in a world were you can sell garbage and convince people they need garbage.

Don't despire!  If a MMO concept has enough of a niche to be viable, you can find an MMO with it.  From Sword of the New World, which let you control multiple characters, to Eve Online, which is so successful as the hardcore MMO that it's hard to remember it is a niche.   Game design is an art partly because there is no average gamer and no one feature sets to please them all.  That's why we have so many games!

Anyway, my main point on the radar is that people naturally want info to help them plan, and this is the fun for me in X-1. This is not to say I don't appreciate some game's decision to hide the numbers.

For example, Valkyria Chronicle does not show you TU numbers on the ground, and has firing cone with actual 3D bullet tracing.  You can do the numbers but the intention is for players to get the "feel" of your weapons and your enemies. This two-layer strategy game aims for a different game experience from Xenonauts, and has different balance (e.g. accurate soldiers) and different game mechanisms.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Sheepy

[Chris]

The reason why accurate data in a game is very important is because it's the only reliable way to know how a game works. In real life you don't need 100% accurate data because the world operates according to various scientific laws that you can use to predict the outcome of a battlefield event - e.g. if you fire a rifle and a bullet falls short of a target, you don't need any accurate computer data to know that you need to aim a bit higher with your next shot (or get closer). The laws of physics apply on the battlefield just as they do in real life.

That's not the case in video games because you don't know how far the developers have gone to model reality. If the bullet falls short twice in a row, it could be because the developers have accurately modeled weapon range and bullet drop, so the next shot needs to be taken from closer in. It might be because you got unlucky with the RNG, so you should stay where you are and keep shooting. It might be because one of the intervening cover objects is massively reducing your chance-to-hit, so you need to move a few squares laterally to shoot around it. It might be because there's some kind of bug in the game and there's literally no way you'll ever be able to hit that shot.

As a player, I definitely want to know which of those it is - particularly if it's an unforgiving strategy game that sets out to punish me for planning badly.

[desertoth]

Nineofthree and Chris are exactly right. Without information and feedback on the player's actions in Xenonauts as it is, we might as well watch the game be played by a computer roulette. Games purporting to involve or depict strategy or tactics must  be data driven on their inputs and outputs, even if some of that data is not available in the real world. 

The Combat Mission franchise, or at least least the original trilogy for it's part, considered cover and concealment mechanics important to the game design, and so provided the player several crucial tools. One being the ability to obtain a unit's line-of-sight and range to any point, another being an "exposure" percentage on a fire target and an abstract "firepower" value for the intensity of fire that a unit can deliver to one location from another. Without these details, the game would just be hard-to-see blobs popping in and out around the map for inscrutable reasons. 

[TrashMan]

Wouldn't it be part of the basic game description/tutorials and something one can find out by observation and practice? "Realistic ballistic modeling" would be on the game cover.

So many old games didn't even have any tutorials or detailed explanations of mechanics. And they certainly didn't have numbers. You learned them by observing. Getting the "feel" is more important that having exact calculations and spreadsheets.

For example, do you really need to know the exact HP of the enemy, when you can know the approximate? Not only by observing the visual cues (bleeding, wounds) but also by simply having prior experience with the enemy (AHA..this one usually takes 4-5 bullets and I shot hims three times).

 

Just saying, any accuracy model worth anything will have increased accuracy from logical actions anyway (for example, getting closer; fireing from a more stable position; shooting at a static enemy) - the difference is that with realistic simulations those are more accurate rather than approximations.

 

It might be because there's some kind of bug in the game and there's literally no way you'll ever be able to hit that shot.

How does having a % solve that, given that that can be bugged too? A game can show you a wrong percentage (happened in NuCom).

Bug are something to fix, not something to be used as an argument against a system, given that ANY system can be bugged.

[desertoth]

Logically then, we should never need statistics on weapons or armor, only verbose descriptions of capabilities. That would be fun. 

[Pave]

---
In relation to accuracy-numbers and such. we do this in real already as it has been already pointed out. But not necessarily as "binarily" but we still do it.

Big difference being of course the availability of the data which especially is influenced by the perspective of the one doing the mental-calculations.


"Artillery" as whole is a great example in which the results vary depending on the calculations and skills of everyone, with the slight amount of luck involved of course.

(( I think the "mobile command post"-things are called as "artillery reconnaissance vehicles" (ARVs), or the older pulled-ones are "trailers"; I only know the Finnish-word equivalent "tulenjohtovaunu".
Some modern'ish examples include "BMP-1TJJ" and "BMP-1TJ "Tuija"". ))


Basically you could consider that all the available "calculable"-data is already given to the players ("commanders"), alongside having soldiers that won't question the commander
(imagine you select a guy in Xenonauts and they are going to be like "Screw you" and they won't go; special credits to "Rym DeCoster" for making me to semi-quote this line.
Well granted, probably the closest to something like this is the "Forgetful"-stat in "Jagged Alliance", although I do recall in some games the units starting to "solo" when the commander didn't have the trust or otherwise control over their units).

"Xenonauts" is one those games in general in which "more data is better", if not only to appeal "geeks" or generally people who like to have stats and numbers to begin with (in fact, there is still not enough game with enough stat-pages and such).
---
---
---

[TrashMan]

18 hours ago, desertoth said:

Logically then, we should never need statistics on weapons or armor, only verbose descriptions of capabilities. That would be fun. 

Well, weapon statistic is something you CAN get in real life. Things like caliber, muzzle velocity, ammo capacity, weight, etc..

[Sheepy]

14 hours ago, TrashMan said:

Well, weapon statistic is something you CAN get in real life. Things like caliber, muzzle velocity, ammo capacity, weight, etc..

But this is not a game that aims to simulate real life.  May I challenge you to name a game that plays like Xenonauts (turn based, grid based, tu or ap based, bullet sponge, low hit rate), that do 3d bullet tracing and hide shot percentage to good result?

 

On 08/04/2017 at 2:21 AM, TrashMan said:

How does having a % solve that, given that that can be bugged too? A game can show you a wrong percentage (happened in NuCom).

Bug are something to fix, not something to be used as an argument against a system, given that ANY system can be bugged.

It is relatively hard to bug the display than bullet tracing, and relatively easy to fix too.  And like Chris said, I get closer to the abstraction of the game through the percentage and can immerse myself better in the numbers.  As a gamer, thinking in game terms is not alien to me.

What you are arguing is the game (every game?) should get rid of abstraction by making things realistic (and fixing any immersion breaking bugs).  What I am saying is like how MMO always have health bars (even Eve), games like Xenonauts also have common features that better fit the narrative.  If you keep disregarding or sidesteping our points (by seeing the fallen leaves and not the forest), you are not making an argument, but an exercise in self-convincing.

Anyway.  There are many other games that pursuit realistic simulation if you look beyond this genre.  Arma have already been proposed in the translocator thread.  Squad is on free weekend on Steam.  Don't confuse what is good for them as what is good for every game.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Sheepy

[vlad6300]

While I know it would be hard, I think a system like the one in Silents Storm would be really fun.

[TrashMan]

On 07/04/2017 at 0:32 PM, Ninothree said:

I think that data on the battle is an intrinsic part of the gameplay. There is a space for games without those interfaces (Black and White is a prime example) but the feel they give is far less about strategy which is at the core of xcom. As the commander, you can't guess that much based upon what a shot looks like from a top down view, or really know what cover elements are in the way - those are just graphical representations (which are less likely an issue for the AI). You need some kind of crutch to know what your decisions relate to in the game world. Obviously, more realistic cover seems better but I think an understandable set of game mechanics is more important in order for you to make well thought out decisions as opposed to going with gut instinct - the latter making for a decent enough combat simulator but not a strategy game.

Please, don't assume I want to remove all data. That's driving a point to absurdity.

But I could do with removing some if I get something better (a proper accuracy/ballistic model) in return. And you could guess much. A simple cone projection or a line from the gun barrel to the enemy, along with a rotating map, and there's no way you wouldn't have a good idea of how clean of a shot you have.

The idea that a strategy game requires 100% accurate and complete data is bogus. What is strategy by definition? Where is that definition is perfect knowledge?

Besides, you speak is if the player has no data at all - it's not gut feeling, but rather approximation from data you have.

[TrashMan]

On 09/04/2017 at 3:34 AM, Sheepy said:

But this is not a game that aims to simulate real life.  May I challenge you to name a game that plays like Xenonauts (turn based, grid based, tu or ap based, bullet sponge, low hit rate), that do 3d bullet tracing and hide shot percentage to good result?

It's not been done, therefore it cannot be and shouldn't be done? With arguments like that, creativity will surely reach new heights.

 

What you are arguing is the game (every game?) should get rid of abstraction by making things realistic (and fixing any immersion breaking bugs).  What I am saying is like how MMO always have health bars (even Eve), games like Xenonauts also have common features that better fit the narrative.  If you keep disregarding or sidesteping our points (by seeing the fallen leaves and not the forest), you are not making an argument, but an exercise in self-convincing.

And you think MMO's having health bars is a good thing? News flash - they didn't always. Some of the first one had a rough description (Healthy, slightly injured, Injured, Badly Injured, Near Death) and they were better for it.

"Better fit the narrative" is nothing more than your personal taste, a taste that you developed by consuming a specific, same-y products. In other words, a habbit, that leads to thinking that system X is the only system that works.

Perhaps you should heed your own words.

 

Anyway.  There are many other games that pursuit realistic simulation if you look beyond this genre.  Arma have already been proposed in the translocator thread.  Squad is on free weekend on Steam. 

Don't confuse what is good for them as what is good for every game.

Right back at you.