Three basic graphical features

[Gorlom]

why would strafing out of a corner give the soldier partial cover? There is mechanic wise no difference between strafing out and taking a step out from a corner and then turning. There is no added cover and it does not make the soldier less visible. It only looks silly imo. Who strafes around corners in real life? (side stepping without first leaning around the corner)

Leaning around a corner would indeed be safer (unless you balanced it). It would break the flow of the game. It would not put your soldiers at risk and would diminish the atmosphere of danger lurking around every corner etc.

I do not think that leaning around corners would make it a better game. It would make it safer, but that doesn't equate better.

I personally don't like the idea. It gives me nothing, and all I see is problems with it.

[Gudadantza]

why would strafing out of a corner give the soldier partial cover?

Because in this case it would be an interpretation of the leaning feature. Read in order the topic.

There is mechanic wise no difference between strafing out and taking a step out from a corner and then turning.

Of course there is difference. If it has been said the reaction fire is triggered by the second movement, this is, turning the soldier, strafing should be the first movement in the open and the turning in one step but no triggering the reaction fire.

Who strafes around corners in real life?

I imagine it is done in places where leaning is not allowed. No, seriously, What is not done in real life is to be exposed in the open without watching.

It would break the flow of the game. It would not put your soldiers at risk and would diminish the atmosphere of danger lurking around every corner etc.

I do not agree. I am very happy with crouching and protecting my soldiers behind walls and it does not break nothing in xcom stile games. The games would be worse whitout that features. Too conservatism lacks good projects.

I do not think that leaning around corners would make it a better game. It would make it safer, but that doesn't equate better.

Maybe, I can agree, but my point of view is that a game of this characteristics would be richer. You do not consider it, I respect it.

[Gorlom]

Because in this case it would be an interpretation of the leaning feature. Read in order the topic.

This was never explained as far as I can tell... If you insist that it was you have to point out which post that was in.

Of course there is difference. If it has been said the reaction fire is triggered by the second movement, this is, turning the soldier, strafing should be the first movement in the open and the turning in one step but no triggering the reaction fire.

It has been explained in this thread that turning does NOT trigger reaction fire. So there is no difference mechanic wise.

Maybe, I can agree, but my point of view is that a game of this characteristics would be richer. You do not consider it, I respect it.

I agree to disagree

[Gudadantza]

What has been explained is that :

turning around a corner should not trigger reaction fire

And then has been said :

The tile movement may trigger reaction fire but the soldier turning won't.

(It has been my fault in my last topic, a confusion between the first and secon turning according to what Khall was saying. but the idea is the same. Al least what I mean originally. one of the movements trigger the fire)

Later I have proposed that if this last one assumption is true, strafing a corner (due to lack of animations) can be a new maneuver to move and turn in one step without triggering fire or, as another option, trigger fire but having some partial cover and/or oportunity to be safe.

The point is that the reasons to be against these ideas are not the lack of animations or mechanic details, the reason is that it is perceived as a destruction of the game feature; but the AI in game, if I am not wrong, is not complete yet. And all of this has to do with enemy AI too, I guess.

Greetings.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Gudadantza

[Gauddlike]

Stepping out might get you killed by something you don't see.

Strafing out might get you killed by something you do see, for a fraction of a second.

I don't see how that would be much of an improvement, especially taking into account the work required to add that feature.

[Gudadantza]

Stepping out might get you killed by something you don't see.

Strafing out might get you killed by something you do see, for a fraction of a second.

I don't see how that would be much of an improvement, especially taking into account the work required to add that feature.

Not exactly. The first sight is and advantage against reaction fire, but forget it.

Yes, I´d prefer leaning around corners, it would be more natural and tactic. Future will say ( or time will tell, I am not sure about the correct expression ) .

greetings

Edited August 30, 2012 by Gudadantza

[Gorlom]

Not exactly. The first sight is and advantage against reaction fire, but forget it.

Yes, I´d prefer leaning around corners, it would be more natural and tactic. Future will say ( or time will tell, I am not sure about the correct expression ) .

greetings

It's only an advantage because you decide it to be. It's a bit hard to discuss with you because you don't seem to be explaining the ground rules about your suggestions or the assumptions you make. You are discussing the rules you make up while we assume we are discussing the rules that are currently present in the system.

"Time will tell" is the correct expression.

[Gauddlike]

Not exactly. The first sight is and advantage against reaction fire, but forget it.

Yes, I´d prefer leaning around corners, it would be more natural and tactic. Future will say ( or time will tell, I am not sure about the correct expression ) .

greetings

Seeing what shoots you is only an advantage in this type of game because once you die others will still be able to hit it as if it could still be seen.

If strafing out was implemented I would also like the enemy unit to fade from sight as soon as the person who could see it died, or maybe even not be shown until after the reaction fire shot had been calculated.

If your soldier died they would remain unseen.

It would be a more natural thing to be able to imitate the movement of real people in the game.

It is impractical to do it though.

I would like to see crawling, going prone, vaulting through windows, and climbing to higher levels as options before I considered leaning round corners.

Each one of those actions is several thousand new sprites (apart from the windows, that would just need work done to mitigate the clipping issue) so would take a lot of work.

[Khall]

I seem to remember a "surprised" mechanic in X-com. It's where when you first come into the alien's field of view (e.g. Stepping from a corner and coming face to face with an alien) it would be "surprised" and wouldn't reaction fire, however subsequent actions could trigger it (and vice versa). If this is in Xenonauts it should clear up any problems you have with corners, as long as you take one step and turn instead of two steps around.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Khall

[Gudadantza]

Seeing what shoots you is only an advantage in this type of game because once you die others will still be able to hit it as if it could still be seen.

If strafing out was implemented I would also like the enemy unit to fade from sight as soon as the person who could see it died, or maybe even not be shown until after the reaction fire shot had been calculated.

If your soldier died they would remain unseen.

It would be a more natural thing to be able to imitate the movement of real people in the game.

It is impractical to do it though.

I would like to see crawling, going prone, vaulting through windows, and climbing to higher levels as options before I considered leaning round corners.

Each one of those actions is several thousand new sprites (apart from the windows, that would just need work done to mitigate the clipping issue) so would take a lot of work.

I understand your point. But just a question, Should it be impractical by the lot number of animations?

about the animations, an icon over the leaning soldier, as an abstract advice, could make the job. Just for testing purposes it would be the way to have the feature visually in game and see how it works.

No much Internal rules should be changed, the mayor change is the AI that is being developed. So Alpha versions are the perfect moment to trying things.

When an alien is detected it is detected. If it moves from sight it dissapears.

If a soldier detects an alien he stops and gets an advantage possition or, in the worst case depending the alien FOV and distance, he is shot by reacton fire.

What a soldier sees is seen by all the team but if the soldier dies the menace can dissapear from sight.

I guess all of this is valid for strafing and leaning a corner.

Obviously without changing the cover rules in the strafing possition it would be less advantageous than leaning. Without cover change at all in the strafe, the result could be two different and compatible movements to use and choose from.

greetings!

[Gudadantza]

I seem to remember a "surprised" mechanic in X-com. It's where when you first come into the alien's field of view (e.g. Stepping from a corner and coming face to face with an alien) it would be "surprised" and wouldn't reaction fire, however subsequent actions could trigger it (and vice versa). If this is in Xenonauts it should clear up any problems you have with corners, as long as you take one step and turn instead of two steps around.

It is true. Interesting.

But in xcom it only aliviated the problem of crossing a corner without watch

Because sincerely no idea what was the way xcom choose for trigger surprise. It was almost random.

A tactic to aleviate the problem was the use and abuse of smoke bombs, and I say aleviate because the visibility penalty was mutual and not sure.

Greetings!