Accuracy fire cone and other observations

[Gauddlike]

Yeah the previous limit on the deviation angle was too far in the opposite direction.

Even when you missed your target the bullet wouldn't deviate far enough to go past so it still hit and did damage to them.

Finding the middle ground is important and will probably be done as the alpha progresses.

At least if it is done before beta then if any major changes, like adding a visual element, are needed it gives more time to iron out any bugs that might introduce.

[RustableAnt]

You should...but as it is, practicly everyone is in your line of fire... Like I said.. I saw my soldiers hit someone who was 60° to the side.

A person would have to be drunk, dizzy and spinning to miss like that.

Hi all, just played a round and already love this game. However the firing cones don't really seem appropriate. Sounds they will be tuned later but I agree with the drunk comment. I recently shot some clay pigeons with a shotgun for the fist time and to my surprise I hit quite a few. I accept that its a bit nostalgic to use the wide arcs but a soldier should be able to put a rifle bullet to within 2 or 3 tiles at range of about 20 tiles and certainly on the tile at close range. Sure he can still miss the alien but not by much. I just saw a rocket hit the side of a building 1 over and 7 in front killing my dude in shelter. I was aiming at one over and 20 ahead. It can be funny but putting in the effort to move people around carefully and then have them shoot like they're high is a bit much.

Anyway love the re-make/re-imagining, especially the art work and writing. The additional reading is something most games overlook but it makes the game much more engaging and believable. The original XCOM and Mass Effect did this really well. Happy to pay for another Kickstarter round as I missed the first one, have been waiting a long time for something like the original.

Cheers

[Sneakingviper]

Perhaps the diviation should be in the 90 degrees facing forward from the Xenonauts. I too have had 1 guys shooting a teammate in the back on 2 separate occasions , in 45-60 degrees angles and within 2 fields from him, with a sniper riffel... Damned I wished there was a demotion button in the game there.. didn't seem right that he was a lieutenant.

[AvistTorch]

The original X-Com actually didn't have *that* large of a firing cone, if this page is accurate:

http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Accuracy_formula

0% stated accuracy: roughly a 6.2% chance of firing within a degree of your target, worst possible shot being about 28.4 degrees off.

Based on that, I think the accuracy cone should be tightened up at least a little.

Edited October 3, 2012 by AvistTorch

[StellarRat]

I already suggested that the amount a soldier can miss by is WAY off. Personally, I'd much rather have misses pass right through an enemy tile (i.e. it looks like it SHOULD hit, but doesn't) then the way it is now. My I idea was not popular in some circles.

[Gauddlike]

Remember that it was difficult to miss in a previous version due to the deviation angle being narrowed.

At the moment the 50% displayed over your target is the chance of the shot hitting where you aim.

A miss can still go through that tile and generate a secondary hit though so the chance to hit your target is actually over 50%.

With a tighter miss deviation angle that chance is increased by quite a lot.

For example your displayed 50% accuracy on the target plus a 5% (random number for example) chance that a miss will go through the target tile would give a 55% hit chance.

With a tighter deviation angle you may have more like a 30% chance of a miss passing through the tile so you would have an 80% hit chance while still displaying 50%.

So my suggestion would be:

Take the deviation angle of a miss into consideration when calculating the hit chance.

If the angle of deviation is known and the range to target is known then couldn't those numbers be used to work out how likely the bullet is to travel down a path that will hit the target (on a miss)?

If that number is used in the accuracy calculation then you can have a tighter deviation cone along with realistic accuracy values.

There would need to be an accuracy cap, in fact the actual accuracy on the target may need to be reduced in line with the tightening of the deviation angle.

It sounds counter intuitive but the tight deviation cone unrealistically boosts your accuracy as even a missed shot can have a high chance to hit the tile.

The easiest way would probably be to calculate and display the accuracy as now but subtract the deviation hit chance from the chance to hit the target behind the scenes.

To use the previous example, if you had a 50% chance to hit the target and a 30% chance that the shot would deviate through the target on a miss then behind the scenes you would have a -30 modifier to your accuracy.

That would leave you with a 50% (roughly) chance of hitting your target.

That modifier would need to be tweaked though, a 30% accuracy reduction would make you miss more and rely on the deviation more so is actually a bigger reduction than is necessary.

There is probably a better way to do it but maths was never my strongest subject.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Gauddlike