Burst Fire Update

[StellarRat]

Or they are built with the ability to change barrels.

You can change the barrel of an MG3 (nearly unchanged from the MG42, "Hitler's Buzzsaw") in way under 10 seconds.

Back then they had a higher rate of fire, too (hence the nickname), so it wouldn't have been nearly as scary if the soldiers had had to wait for the barrel to cool.

Oh, and when you have to carry the cursed thing you quickly realise that it's not an assault rifle. Only takes a few kilometers.

Yep. The MG42 fire 1200 per minute, but they slowed that down on purpose in the M60 because the Army said it wasn't needed and wasted ammo. For the bigger machineguns sometimes a whole team hauls the pieces around. I think the tripod for a .50 cal weighs 50 lbs. by itself.

[Gauddlike]

No I just don't understand what your suggestion is meant to do.

Why would the number of rounds you can fire per burst in a turn be linked to the number of rounds in a clip?

Then you mentioned the firing rate of the weapon which is what the AP per round represents.

If you want to conserve ammo use the more precise and efficient single shot.

If you want to give lead poisoning to a large amount of the local population use full auto.

AP cost for the round can easily take into account the things you are talking about.

If you can fire 20 rounds in a turn with one weapon but only 10 with another then that represents a faster fire rate yes?

It doesn't matter in game terms if that is because that is as fast as the mechanism can kick out rounds or if that is as fast as the soldier carrying it can point it back towards the target and pull the trigger again.

[StellarRat]

I think you're not understanding what I'm saying. Let me try and re-state it. We should have more rounds per burst for weapons with larger amounts of ammo because the shooter knows he has a bigger "ammo budget". So, those bursts should be a little more liberal with ammo. Due to the high firing rates of most weapons the amount of time spent holding the trigger down is insignificant in relation to the amount of time spent doing the other things required to get a good shot off. I think you're putting too much weight on the actual time to release X number of rounds when you are considering the amount of AP autofire takes. The difference a three round burst and a six round burst in the M-16 is a 1/3 of a second. How many action points is a third of a second? 1, .5, 12?? My guess is not many. It actually takes training to fire short bursts unless your weapon has a mechanical limiter. If the time it take for each individual could somehow be calculated in AP then I'd wouldn't be saying all this, but that is not the case if Chris leave things as they are. We will only have ONE autofire setting for each weapon so a number the of rounds has be predetermined.

Edited August 27, 2012 by StellarRat

[Gauddlike]

And how would you represent taking more time to aim the burst?

I would assume you would increase the AP cost?

In that case the AP cost is directly related to how many rounds the weapon can fire in a turn.

Regardless of the factors that limit this.

A weapon that is harder to get back onto the target between shots would take more AP per round.

A weapon that fires slower due to mechanical speed would take more AP per round.

I don't think the amount of ammo should affect burst rounds fired.

If that was the case it should also be affected by how many rounds I have in my backpack.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Gauddlike

[StellarRat]

I think you're missing the point here that I'm assuming Chris is going to leave autofire as is. So, really I'm only talking about tweaking the XML file for weapons a little using the clip size as a guide.

And how would you represent taking more time to aim the burst?

I'm not. We only get one autofire option. There is no snap autofire vs. aimed autofire. So, the only thing that is changeable are the autofire accuracy for the weapon and the number rounds per burst. Both have to be preset in weapon file.

If that was the case it should also be affected by how many rounds I have in my backpack.

You're partly right, but we can't do that and you have to consider reaction fire. I'm assuming the careful Xenonaut doesn't want to empty his clip on one shot and have to reload or not be able to reaction fire.

Edited August 27, 2012 by StellarRat

[Max_Caine]

There's one thing I've come to realise in this discussion. I believe everyone is talking from a Tier 1, ballistic weapon point of view, and I don't believe we've given the higher tiers sufficent consideration. Consider that in tier 2, the damage potential of laser weapons starts at the same level as machineguns and high-powered rifles, with a similar penetration rate, but are more portable and 3 of those laser types have a burst fire. An autofire on a laser weapon would be deadly, and a higher burst rate (taking into account the battery size) would make laser only slightly-less deadly. What about plasma guns? They're on-par with alien plasma weaponry. Can you imagine a high burst rate or autofire on them? Actually, can you imagine a high burst rate or autofire in the hands of the alien? If GJ does his stuff, the aliens may very well be mowing us down, instead of vise-versa! Then the tier 4 weapons, all of which have the hypervelocity tag. Oy. One of those with an autofire or even a 3-round burst would probably be more than enough to collapse buildings! Is a high burst rate/autofire what we want going into the higher tiers?

[StellarRat]

What about plasma guns? They're on-par with alien plasma weaponry. Can you imagine a high burst rate or autofire on them? Actually, can you imagine a high burst rate or autofire in the hands of the alien? If GJ does his stuff, the aliens may very well be mowing us down, instead of vise-versa!

And that's a problem? Obviously, play balance is going to have to be taken into account. I'm assuming that the continued inaccuracy of autofire will help somewhat and hopefully the Xenonaut armor will help too. Also, any squad leader (e.g. you) worth their salt knows that you should never bunch up your troops! That prevents them from being "mowed" to a great extent. Really, in the end, the civilians and property on the map are what's going to suffer the most from better weapons, as it's always been. It ought to be interesting. I'm actually fairly happy with the firing rates on the ballistic weapons right now, although, I'm not happy with how wide the bursts/misses are.

[Gauddlike]

I think you're missing the point here that I'm assuming Chris is going to leave autofire as is. So, really I'm only talking about tweaking the XML file for weapons a little using the clip size as a guide.

I understood your assumption.

The clip size is as much placeholder as any other number in the balance game at the moment.

Number of rounds in the clip is an important number but not really a defining characteristic of the weapon that others should be based round.

I would personally balance the weapons so that AP cost, accuracy, number of rounds, suppression potential, and round damage were right before I even looked at the number of rounds in the clip.

I'm not. We only get one autofire option. There is no snap autofire vs. aimed autofire. So, the only thing that is changeable are the autofire accuracy for the weapon and the number rounds per burst. Both have to be preset in weapon file.

Incorrect.

You can also adjust suppression amount and AP cost for burst fire separately from single shot values.

For example the AR fires 3 shots at a cost of 35 AP (11.6 AP per round) while the MG fires 5 shots at a cost of 45 AP (9 AP per round).

There is a balance between AP cost and number of rounds that reflect how the weapon performs in burst mode.

Why would that balance be dependant on the clip size?

Bigger clips don't equal weapons that can fire faster.

Now if you had said weapons with faster firing rates or longer bursts should have bigger clips I could follow your reasoning.

However that is already the case.

I don't really understand why you spent so many posts talking about the reasons why some guns fire faster than others when your suggestion has nothing to do with any of those reasons.

Accuracy is also not set for the weapon but for individual fire modes, not sure if that was what you were trying to say.

You're partly right, but we can't do that and you have to consider reaction fire. I'm assuming the careful Xenonaut doesn't want to empty his clip on one shot and have to reload or not be able to reaction fire.

No one has suggested that emptying a full clip in a turn would be a good idea, or even possible.

I think the closest suggestion was when someone mentioned a burst using up 2/3 of a clip as a special mode.

If the time it take for each individual could somehow be calculated in AP then I'd wouldn't be saying all this, but that is not the case if Chris leave things as they are.

I am assuming you mean individual AP cost per round?

You divide the AP cost for a burst by the number of rounds fired in that burst.

If you want a weapon that fires at a different rate you can adjust either value to reflect that.

Whatever real world justification you use for that firing speed is immaterial.

[Gauddlike]

There's one thing I've come to realise in this discussion. I believe everyone is talking from a Tier 1, ballistic weapon point of view, and I don't believe we've given the higher tiers sufficent consideration. Consider that in tier 2, the damage potential of laser weapons starts at the same level as machineguns and high-powered rifles, with a similar penetration rate, but are more portable and 3 of those laser types have a burst fire. An autofire on a laser weapon would be deadly, and a higher burst rate (taking into account the battery size) would make laser only slightly-less deadly. What about plasma guns? They're on-par with alien plasma weaponry. Can you imagine a high burst rate or autofire on them? Actually, can you imagine a high burst rate or autofire in the hands of the alien? If GJ does his stuff, the aliens may very well be mowing us down, instead of vise-versa! Then the tier 4 weapons, all of which have the hypervelocity tag. Oy. One of those with an autofire or even a 3-round burst would probably be more than enough to collapse buildings! Is a high burst rate/autofire what we want going into the higher tiers?

Slower burst fire could be a downside of the higher tiers.

Ballistics can kick out a lot of fire for little damage.

Maybe the hyper weapons can't come close to matching their rate of fire.

Plasmas may have incredibly poor deviation in burst, lasers may be less precise in burst etc.

Remember also that the enemies you are fighting will also have far more armour and health when you have the higher tier weapons.

A few shots from the biggest guns could have the same effect on them that a few shots from a tier 1 AR have on an Andron.

[StellarRat]

There is a balance between AP cost and number of rounds that reflect how the weapon performs in burst mode. Why would that balance be dependant on the clip size? Bigger clips don't equal weapons that can fire faster.

No, I'm getting into the mind of the soldier not physical stuff. What I'm saying is that doctrine, training and experience are far more important in determining how many rounds a soldier is going to fire per burst (one trigger pull). I understand weapons have different firing rates, but my take is that the firing rate pretty immaterial when you consider the tiny amount of time it takes to fire off a ton of ammo. Most autofire weapons can get off 600 rounds per minute so my opinion is that the AP to fire 3 or 6 or even 9 is probably all the same i.e. less than 1 AP to hold the trigger down a bit longer. So, in my opinion, the soldier is going to limit his fire probably based on the amount of ammo he has and to keep from having to reload at a critical moment. This is strictly from a military perspective.

Now if you're talking about balancing that's whole different story. If you don't like the idea of someone firing 6 rounds into an alien vs. 3 for the same AP because it unbalances the game I can understand that. It is very difficult to make a scientific mathematical argument for all this as we don't have a time scale, map scale, etc... If I knew one turn was one second or 1/10 of a second, etc... then we could figure this out pretty easily. The fact one soldier can fire three bursts while another can only fire two in the same amount of time seems a bit odd to me too. If we're just talking about cranking out rounds it should be the same for all soldiers. After all, in my example suddenly the weapon has a 50% higher firing rate in the hands of a soldier with more action points. That doesn't compute at all.

Somehow I get the feeling we're not ever going to agree on this. That's OK.

Edited August 28, 2012 by StellarRat

[Gauddlike]

I don't think it is so much that we disagree on it I think we are just looking at it from completely different angles.

Don't think it helps that I was trying to get my point across while half asleep.

I see the option of conserving ammo or going full out should be the players and not pre determined for them by the weapon.

We cannot see the situation the player will find themselves in so there is no way we can decide that a certain number of shots per turn, per burst, or in the magazine will not leave them running out of ammo at a critical time.

At some point there are going to be less rounds in the magazine than the player needs.

Unless magazine sizes are so large that you don't need to reload.

Weapons are better off balanced in the game by their damage, AP, number of rounds fired, suppression etc and then a magazine size allocated to them.

Doing it the other way round makes no sense.

If the player wants to conserve ammo they can use single shots or only fire when they have a good chance to hit.

If they don't want to, don't need to, or the situation is dire enough so ammo conservation will likely lead to death then they can open up with everything.

I don't really understand how altering weapons based on their magazine size will work to give the kind of feel you seem to want.

Altering their magazine size to keep them useful once they have been balanced seems like a much more sensible approach.

As you say though, doesn't much matter if we agree, putting more ideas forward is always better than fewer.

[Gauddlike]

I was thinking the current method of burst fire could be retained but the mechanic could still be updated to use the other method I suggested earlier.

Initial shot cost plus cost per round would allow different length bursts depending on your situation and more versatility.

Note that I am not suggesting adding multiple burst settings, just that your remaining AP would be a factor in determining how many rounds are fired.

Examples:

Soldier armed with an MG, 80 max AP.

Current method (CM): 5 round burst, 45 AP per burst.

Suggested method (SM): Initial round cost 17 AP, subsequent round cost 7 AP per round (to equal 45 AP for 5 rounds).

The MG has a max burst size of 5 rounds.

Scenario 1.

Your soldier is kneeling behind cover with an enemy in view.

The enemy can see you and has not used his reaction fire.

It is too dangerous to move.

CM:

You fire a 5 round burst for 45 AP.

You have 35 AP remaining.

You now have insufficient AP to fire, 35 AP wasted.

SM:

You fire a 5 round burst for 17+7+7+7+7 (45) AP.

You have 35 AP remaining.

You fire another burst of 3 rounds at 17+7+7 (31) AP.

4 AP wasted.

Scenario 2.

You run into cover after using 36 AP, leaving you with 44.

You now have line of sight to the enemy.

The heavy weapon flag is in effect, this is giving you an accuracy penalty for moving before firing.

CM:

You have insufficient AP to fire a complete burst.

You cannot fire partial bursts, 44 AP wasted.

SM:

You have 44 AP which allows you to fire 17+7+7+7 AP worth of rounds, or a 4 round burst.

Your accuracy is reduced by moving.

6 AP wasted.

I feel that this is even more important in assault riles or carbines as they are not static weapons so should be able to be used with more versatility.

Personally I would also add an AP penalty to the first shot fired after moving on to the heavy flag.

This would apply to single shots from heavy sniper rifles as well as to the initial shot of a machine gun burst.

[StellarRat]

I was thinking the current method of burst fire could be retained but the mechanic could still be updated to use the other method I suggested earlier.

Initial shot cost plus cost per round would allow different length bursts depending on your situation and more versatility.

Note that I am not suggesting adding multiple burst settings, just that your remaining AP would be a factor in determining how many rounds are fired.

That would work for me, although, from my perspective the additional rounds ought to be super cheap in AP, like 1 each. But, let's say Chris doesn't want to change the burst fire mechanics, what, if any, changes would you like to see then? At that point the only things we could change would be the parameters in weapons XML.

[Quartermaster]

My problem with the method you are discussing, Gauddlike, is that it either lacks as much control as burst fire currently does or it becomes really difficult to control depending on what route is taken. I really like the idea of how you are calculating the AP for that many rounds fired, but the loss of mobility after firing worries me. For example if you don't move to start with and fire, you have lost the entire round of combat and cannot move. Personally, I would prefer the ability to fire a burst and then duck behind cover. On the other hand if you do add a method that allows one to control how many shots you fire it could get complicated depending on the interface. To simplify that, it just seems easier to have two burst fire modes for some weapons and we end up back with the current method.

[Gauddlike]

That would work for me, although, from my perspective the additional rounds ought to be super cheap in AP, like 1 each. But, let's say Chris doesn't want to change the burst fire mechanics, what, if any, changes would you like to see then? At that point the only things we could change would be the parameters in weapons XML.

I can't see why they would be super cheap, you are assuming that those AP are purely to represent the mechanical action of the gun cycling rather than the whole action the soldier takes between one squeeze of the trigger and the next.

You are also not taking into account game balance.

A weapon that can kick out 100 rounds in a turn would need a massive penalty to make any other weapon worth using.

My problem with the method you are discussing, Gauddlike, is that it either lacks as much control as burst fire currently does or it becomes really difficult to control depending on what route is taken. I really like the idea of how you are calculating the AP for that many rounds fired, but the loss of mobility after firing worries me. For example if you don't move to start with and fire, you have lost the entire round of combat and cannot move. Personally, I would prefer the ability to fire a burst and then duck behind cover. On the other hand if you do add a method that allows one to control how many shots you fire it could get complicated depending on the interface. To simplify that, it just seems easier to have two burst fire modes for some weapons and we end up back with the current method.

If you want to move after firing but would not have enough AP then click on the reserve AP slider.

There is nothing overly complicated about that and it doesn't require any new mechanic adding.

It may require a little mental adjustment to reserve AP to move after firing rather than to fire after moving but not much.

That is not possible with the current system which would not allow you to fire if you had insufficient AP for the full burst.

If you read my scenarios you would also notice that the proposal costs exactly the same as the current method for the same number of rounds fired.

Firing a burst in the current method costs 45 AP, firing the 5 round burst that the weapon has set as its maximum burst costs 45 AP in the proposed method.

The major difference is that you can easily fire partial bursts.

You can also mod weapons to have full auto fire if you want to.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Gauddlike

[Gauddlike]

Maybe I should have added a scenario 3.

You are stood in the open at the start of your turn with an alien in sight.

CM:

You fire a 5 round burst for 45 AP which kills the target.

You use your remaining 35 AP to run for cover.

SM:

You fire a 5 round burst for 17+7+7+7+7 (45) AP.

You have 35 AP remaining.

You use the remaining 35 AP to run for cover.

[StellarRat]

I can't see why they would be super cheap, you are assuming that those AP are purely to represent the mechanical action of the gun cycling rather than the whole action the soldier takes between one squeeze of the trigger and the next.

You are also not taking into account game balance.

A weapon that can kick out 100 rounds in a turn would need a massive penalty to make any other weapon worth using.

First of all there aren't any level 1 weapons that can fire 100 rounds without reloading. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "between one squeeze of the trigger and the next." A burst is ONE squeeze. If you want more rounds down range you just hold the trigger down a bit longer. However, long bursts are wildly inaccurate. You will probably be far more dangerous to any civilians and follow soldiers in front of you than your alien target. That's why short controlled bursts are the normal way of firing fully automatic weapons.

[Gauddlike]

No a burst is only one squeeze if you want it to be that way.

You could quite happily call the burst 'rapid fire' instead.

Then it isn't holding down the trigger it is squeezing the trigger as fast as you can manage to get the weapon back onto target.

It is a method of getting multiple shots into the target in a short time.

It could be fanning the hammer of a revolver, firing a timed full auto burst, firing a set three round burst.

The game will not have systems in place to for lots of different methods of accomplishing the same thing so it will have to have one that REPRESENTS the intention behind them rather than the exact mechanic.

There may not currently be a weapon that can fire 100 rounds without reloading but if shots cost 1 AP each and a trooper can have over 100 AP (speculation) then what makes you certain that ammunition amounts would stay at their current values?

You have already suggested increasing the number of rounds in the MG magazine for example.

[Quartermaster]

If you want to move after firing but would not have enough AP then click on the reserve AP slider.

There is nothing overly complicated about that and it doesn't require any new mechanic adding.

It may require a little mental adjustment to reserve AP to move after firing rather than to fire after moving but not much.

That is not possible with the current system which would not allow you to fire if you had insufficient AP for the full burst.

Yes but it seems like this will be difficult for new players, more prone to error than the current method, and less controllable than simply adding a second burst option for some weapons (i.e., the machine gun, carbines). Fiddling around with the reserve AP slider (I am assuming you are talking about the current version) to simply set aside rounds will be prone to error. It will be easy to forget to set it and secondly there are limited options of which stop points you have for reserve AP and they are set by weapon. With the limited options it will be a more complicated system that is not as easily controllable as simply adding multiple burst aiming for certain weapons. Thus I do not se the advantage of this unless the AP reserve slider is also redone.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Quartermaster
Quote error

[StellarRat]

No a burst is only one squeeze if you want it to be that way.

You could quite happily call the burst 'rapid fire' instead.

Then it isn't holding down the trigger it is squeezing the trigger as fast as you can manage to get the weapon back onto target.

It is a method of getting multiple shots into the target in a short time.

It could be fanning the hammer of a revolver, firing a timed full auto burst, firing a set three round burst.

The game will not have systems in place to for lots of different methods of accomplishing the same thing so it will have to have one that REPRESENTS the intention behind them rather than the exact mechanic.

There may not currently be a weapon that can fire 100 rounds without reloading but if shots cost 1 AP each and a trooper can have over 100 AP (speculation) then what makes you certain that ammunition amounts would stay at their current values?

You have already suggested increasing the number of rounds in the MG magazine for example.

I don't believe I said anything about increasing the length of the MG belt. I did propose possibly increasing the number of rounds fired in an MG burst because they have more ammo in a magazine. As far as the bit about rapid fire, currently the only level 1 weapons have the burst fire option are weapons that have full auto capability in real life i.e. the assault rifle and M-60 (and VP70 in my mod) are you proposing to change that?

[Gauddlike]

Yes but it seems like this will be difficult for new players, more prone to error than the current method, and less controllable than simply adding a second burst option for some weapons (i.e., the machine gun, carbines). Fiddling around with the reserve AP slider (I am assuming you are talking about the current version) to simply set aside rounds will be prone to error. It will be easy to forget to set it and secondly there are limited options of which stop points you have for reserve AP and they are set by weapon. With the limited options it will be a more complicated system that is not as easily controllable as simply adding multiple burst aiming for certain weapons. Thus I do not se the advantage of this unless the AP reserve slider is also redone.

I don't see why you find it any different to the current method.

The bursts would cost the same and have the same number of rounds.

The maximum AP you would use in a burst would be the same as the current system.

The difference is that it would allow partial bursts.

Where in that do you see the problem?

[Gauddlike]

I don't believe I said anything about increasing the length of the MG belt. I did propose possibly increasing the number of rounds fired in an MG burst because they have more ammo in a magazine. As far as the bit about rapid fire, currently the only level 1 weapons have the burst fire option are weapons that have full auto capability in real life i.e. the assault rifle and M-60 (and VP70 in my mod) are you proposing to change that?

My only suggestion Chris, is to make the AP and numbers of rounds in the burst related to the firing rate of the weapon and amount of ammo per clip. I think a slight increase in both might be in order.

That was the way I read this, might have been wrong.

Either way it doesn't matter, I can't see why magazine sizes would be left alone while other aspects of the weapons will be balanced.

The roles you are talking about above have access to rapid firing weapons.

I don't personally think it matters what real world mechanic you suggest as being behind that rapid firing.

Once you get past the starting weapons you lose the 'real weapons do this' justification so why bother hanging on to it at all?

Might as well make a game mechanic that works.

[StellarRat]

That was the way I read this, might have been wrong.

Either way it doesn't matter, I can't see why magazine sizes would be left alone while other aspects of the weapons will be balanced.

The roles you are talking about above have access to rapid firing weapons.

I don't personally think it matters what real world mechanic you suggest as being behind that rapid firing.

Once you get past the starting weapons you lose the 'real weapons do this' justification so why bother hanging on to it at all?

Might as well make a game mechanic that works.

I was assuming that since Chris et al have only made level 1 weapons with autofire capable of burst fire in the game that they were trying to stick with real world capabilities at least for those. Once we are in the high tech stuff they can make up whatever they want. Also, the only level 1 weapons in the original XCOM were the rifles and autocannon (if I remember right) both of them looked like assault and gatling gun respectively, so it made sense. Personally, I think have the level 1's representative of the actual weapons adds to the immersion.

[Quartermaster]

Where in that do you see the problem?

To make this clear let's pretend that we are cooking and need to measure. Which would you prefer to use if you have to cook quickly, two measuring cups that measure 1/2 cup and a full cup (adding more than 1 burst option) OR having 1 cup and 3 smaller cups, but the smaller cups can only be used to remove things from the full cup (your proposed method). The second option is innately more complex and difficult to use. Yes there are more potential combinations that can be used to measure the perfect amount, but how how often do you need the 'perfect amount' and is it worth the amount of complication? I lean towards 'No' which is why I am arguing against it. I can understand that some people might like it the way you are proposing, but I don't. If you can describe a way to do full auto using your method that has controls that are as intuitive as the current burst fire method or one that would also allow multiple burst modes, than I will be all for it.

[Gauddlike]

Sorry don't follow that.

Why does allowing a partial burst only remove from anything?

It would be fairer to say the current method is one cup that you can only use when full and that my proposed system is one cup that can be used as long as there is anything in it at all.

You can't always use exact amounts but wasting half a turn of AP to me means a poor mechanic.

If you are standing there with 44 AP and a machine gun you are completely unable to fire it.

Or to use your phrasing not allowing you to add flower because the cup is only 98% full.

I don't find this intuitive at all and am actually quite frustrated by it on occasion.

With my system you would be able to fire it with reduced rounds.

I don't see how it is more complicated to use either, that could be because I am already familiar with it though.

Why is it complicated that a weapon which can fire 5 rounds in a set time could fire 4 rounds in a slightly shorter time?

Chris doesn't want multiple burst modes and I feel that not being able to fire because you don't have enough AP to fire 5 rounds is less than ideal (MG example).

This problem could be worse if any of the higher tier weapons are balanced to have larger bursts.

This system is a balance between the two that allows for more flexibility.