V18.3 Ground Combat Balance Discussion

[Max_Caine]

At the moment alien armour has the same resistance for all 4 major damage types, which goes up sequentially with each new class. I think it would add a lot of character if the different races had different armour values for damage types. For example, the Sebillian armour looks good verses kinetic and energy impacts, but there's little protection verses chemicals and Caesan jumpsuits would probably either be a) fire resistant or b) highly flammable.

[Sathra]

Yeah, rockets are a bit too good. The only real downside to them is that they destroy alien equipment and equipment/corpses on the ground.

They're also really cheap to fire.

[Lightzy]

Ok now I'm sure what it is.

If guns had 0% of hitting beyond their max range, ground combat would be fixed.

:0)

[StellarRat]

Ok now I'm sure what it is.

If guns had 0% of hitting beyond their max range, ground combat would be fixed.

:0)

I already proposed a change the accuracy calculation that would do almost exactly what you're saying. I even researched the formula somewhat to make sure it worked correctly. However, I don't think it's going to happen. The discussion was in the shot scatter thread.

http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/4275-Shot-Miss-Scattering?p=56691&viewfull=1#post56691

Edited May 7, 2013 by StellarRat

[GizmoGomez]

I'm gonna PM Chris and ask him what he thinks about it.

I mean, it doesn't change anything major, right? No adding on other variables, right? It just modifies the formula to actually work right, right?

Since it's that simple, and it actually works really well, I say why not?

It'd be easy, I'd expect. Just copy and paste the new formula. Of course, it's probably more complex than that, I'm not a coder by any means, but I don't think it'd be difficult.

[StellarRat]

I'm gonna PM Chris and ask him what he thinks about it.

I mean, it doesn't change anything major, right? No adding on other variables, right? It just modifies the formula to actually work right, right?

Since it's that simple, and it actually works really well, I say why not?

It'd be easy, I'd expect. Just copy and paste the new formula. Of course, it's probably more complex than that, I'm not a coder by any means, but I don't think it'd be difficult.

No new external variables are added. It just changes the accuracy formula to a curved function that rapidly falls to zero accuracy when the range increases past the effective weapon range. It also solves the wild shots problem at close range because it rapidly increases accuracy when you get closer than about 1/2 the effective range of a weapon (point blank so to speak.) You can see how it works in the link I provided. Gauddlike's variation is somewhat better for the really long range weapons like the sniper rifle. The only implementation issue I can see is if the is used as non-common function (meaning it's written separately into the code in many places) vs. just calling the function from different parts of the code (i.e. it's really only written in one spot.) Obviously many locations would need to changed if it's not a common function. Other than that I doubt many people will notice much of a difference in weapon accuracy except at the extreme ends of the range scale. My guess is that Giovanni could probably drop this into the game and have it running in an hour or so. I really don't think it will cause a lot of re-balancing issues. Even if it did, we don't have the game balanced yet anyway, and if indeed this were a good change better to do it now than if get even further down the road on balancing. I know for sure it will end a lot of the across the map out of black sniping that is happening now. Edited May 7, 2013 by StellarRat

[erutan]

It'd make things clearer too, right now range is often more important than accuracy (a sniper that has moved will be more accurate than a rifleman at range), and we wouldn't have to have the ~5 tiles accuracy boost hack. I feel like the range of weapons should be boosted a bit if we use your formula - or maybe have the out of range taper down to 5% or something. Those wild across the screen shots that saved your ass are part of the xcom fun to me, but I agree that range makes things a little too accurate as is.

[StellarRat]

It'd make things clearer too, right now range is often more important than accuracy (a sniper that has moved will be more accurate than a rifleman at range), and we wouldn't have to have the ~5 tiles accuracy boost hack. I feel like the range of weapons should be boosted a bit if we use your formula - or maybe have the out of range taper down to 5% or something. Those wild across the screen shots that saved your ass are part of the xcom fun to me, but I agree that range makes things a little too accurate as is.

The formula can also be alternated slightly to accomplish a range "boost". Although, I don't consider that a "clean" way to do it. Better to change the weapon stats. Also, there is no reason why you still couldn't have the occasional wild across the screen shot. A minimum "to hit" chance can always be hard coded into the game. There is already a max. cap of 95%. I'd say a minimum of 5% wouldn't be out of the question. Very easy to code that. It's a lot more sensible than the 20% a plasma cannon has all the way across the map right now. Also, don't forget that stray shots (misses) are still going to hit your soldiers from time to time particularly if you bunch up your squad (almost always bad tactics.) Edited May 7, 2013 by StellarRat

[erutan]

Yeah I was thinking weapon stats for range boosts. A minimum chance to hit sounds like a good simple solution - though re: the max I had a rooftop sniper that had a 117% chance to hit in 18.1 so there still might be some niggly modifiers out there.

[Lightzy]

gun ranges are just too long!

1) it removes much of the thrill in the ground combat game when you can shoot across the map with 95% accuracy with a rookie sniper with the starting sniper rifle. I don't know what the accuracy score is even for if you always hit.

2) the fact that you can shoot beyond max range for the gun means that you get shot from all across the map and I think aliens even shoot at you when there are walls in the way I think.

I think the formula should be that the guns max range means THE BULLET TRAVELS NO MORE, and that accuracy should start falling towards the guns max range, and not after. that way even the current gun ranges are 'ok' for a more thrilling combat game (units have to be a bit closer to each other, everyone is a little more at risk and tactics is more than sighting and then bombarding from a safe distance

[Max_Caine]

I'd love to know who in your starting team is getting 95% accuracy with a precision rifle. Can I have them? My vets could use guys like that. And, yes, a shot can travel further than its operational range, but the moment it does, damage starts dropping off, quite quickly as well. So a long-range shot from, say, a plasma pistol, doesn't mean very much, if anything.

[erutan]

@lightzy, if bullets don't travel beyond the current range that's way too short imo. It's more the "effective" range of the weapon, after which your chance to hit dramatically drops but the bullet still travels. Accuracy starts dropping every tile as is - check the charts @ http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/4275-Shot-Miss-Scattering?p=56691&viewfull=1#post56691

[Lightzy]

Any starting soldier sniper who shoots an enemy within his weapon effective range with no interruption between will get 95% chance to hit if he aims a little

On the flipside, if there's any cover or hinderance in the way, then forget about hitting at all.

Which is why my playstyle is thus:

Spot an enemy with a soldier, and run away (the enemy will almost always be waiting in cover)

Since you can't really kill anyone in cover, I have 2 rocket guys waiting to shoot at it (and they can shoot across the map pretty accurately too), either killing it or destroying any cover.

If it's not dead, then my snipers then shoot (across the map) at the now uncovered enemy until it dies.

Basically I never engage an enemy with riflemen because it's suicide (reaction fire one hit kills). I only take 2 anyway to use as spotters, and now that I think about it, it would be better to give them RPGs or sniper rifles too, then I could use them however I like... I suppose I only took the rifles out of some internal 'logic' that balance should be geared towards a mostly-rifle team with snipers and other specialized roles... well, for more specialized needs.

You don't need rifles in this game currently because using them is pretty much suicide

[Max_Caine]

It's a good playstyle because it works. Although I'd take issue with saying attacking with riflemen is suicide, and that all cover and intervening props mean "forgetting" about to-hitting. Commander Badass started off as a riflewoman, and my best troops are riflemen, but that's by the by. When shared sight is adjusted, how will you approach combat then? And wouldn't your spotters have difficulty with precision rifles due to the 50% to-hit penalty each time they move?

EDIT: Acutally, come to think on it - how does that work in UFOs? I can see it working in the field, but how does that work in the cramped interior of a UFO?

Edited May 8, 2013 by Max_Caine
edited for inappropriate content

[StellarRat]

It's a good playstyle because it works. Although I'd take issue with saying attacking with riflemen is suicide, and that all cover and intervening props mean "forgetting" about to-hitting. Commander Badass started off as a riflewoman, and my best troops are riflemen, but that's by the by. When shared sight is nerfed, how will you approach combat then? And wouldn't your spotters have difficulty with precision rifles due to the 50% to-hit penalty each time they move?

When shared sight is "fixed" (well at least as well as it can be) then you will have to use proper tactics to fight. Like point man and covering fire/overwatch. Casualties among the Xenonauts will probably increase.

[Lightzy]

What I think needs to change in ground combat according to importance:

1) hit chances on targets out in the open should be much reduced (so that not every single reaction shot by aliens have 70%+ chances of hitting a person who's advancing out in the open, which is the only way to advance in many maps.

At 60 aim score, a soldier (or enemy) should have max 60% chances of hitting a target within its gun operational range and with no cover at all. A 60 score is the way soldiers start, after all.

conversely, hit chances on targets behind cover would be raised slightly, so that you don't need a whole team of 4 expert snipers to sit and spend all their points on shooting a single guy behind cover, destroying his cover slowly and then getting 90% chances of hitting him when the cover is gone, which is what I do now if I don't feel like just using a rocket, which would take care of the problem easily.

2) weapon ranges should be reduced significantly (the current 'yellow' range should be the area where the bullet does not even travel that far and hit chances are 0%), so that you and the aliens don't completely abuse reaction fire to all shoot from across the entire map and have to at least advance on the target to a point where you might be in some danger, and your team remains coherent. This also prevents abuse of sqad-sight to some degree.

having 0% chance to hit beyond the guns 'green' range means a more sensible ground combat game without shots from the edge of the map

3) all sight ranges need to be uniform, regardless of armor and regardless of anything. everyone spot each other at the same range (this is something which really breaks the game.. currently you actually need to have your point-men unarmored expendible rookies in order for them to have *better* survivability! ... otherwise they get too close to aliens, which spot them first and kill them)

4) aliens should not always sit at the same place so that I can fire rockets at them without ever even trying to get a visual on them (currently when I start a map I know exactly where to shoot rockets at even if I can't see that place yet..)

5) rockets need some costs involved with them and weren't the only way to go, and were much more inaccurate as well as hard to fire (perhaps requiring 50, 55 TUs). Personally I would remove them from the game completely or make them so inaccurate that firing them is a pointless misadventure

6) The AI needs to be improved in several ways but I don't really count this as a necessary change because it's something that's going to be done anyway and is not a 'balance' issue so much

7) maps... with the game already 4.5gigs (HOW??), maps remain very repetitive and you can't have random ones apparently so I dunno about this one.. are map files expensive to draw? can you randomize anything in them? like the ufo position etc?

random maps are definitely the way to go

8) grenades should have sane ranges, and be used for close combat to remove enemies from cover (currently this is completely pointless because if you get that close to an alien, ur already dead (because being shot at in the open means you get hit maybe 75% of the time

[Ol' Stinky]

The formula can also be alternated slightly to accomplish a range "boost". Although, I don't consider that a "clean" way to do it. Better to change the weapon stats. Also, there is no reason why you still couldn't have the occasional wild across the screen shot. A minimum "to hit" chance can always be hard coded into the game. There is already a max. cap of 95%. I'd say a minimum of 5% wouldn't be out of the question. Very easy to code that. It's a lot more sensible than the 20% a plasma cannon has all the way across the map right now. Also, don't forget that stray shots (misses) are still going to hit your soldiers from time to time particularly if you bunch up your squad (almost always bad tactics.)

As it happens, there's already a minimum to-hit of 1% in the game at the moment, although I haven't played with it much at all. I loaded a small scout map to see whether it's up and running and it looks like it. It's <MinChance>1</MinChance> in config.xml if you want a look. So not even that would have to be coded in.

[Sathra]

There's something odd going on with randomisation of spawns. In my messing around I added even more aliens and only the extras spawn in different areas.

And I agree, rockets are too cheap to fire. Though they do seem more inaccurate now.

The rest is stuff that the AI changes might fix or are waiting on balancing on.

[Iskandar]

You know what would help? Only applying the to hit cap to the final result, not the intervening steps. As it stands, it is way too easy to cap out at 95% on anything in the open, but have 15% or worse when you have ground clutter to worry about. Would make higher accuracy mean something.

[StellarRat]

What I think needs to change in ground combat according to importance:

1) hit chances on targets out in the open should be much reduced (so that not every single reaction shot by aliens have 70%+ chances of hitting a person who's advancing out in the open, which is the only way to advance in many maps.

At 60 aim score, a soldier (or enemy) should have max 60% chances of hitting a target within its gun operational range and with no cover at all. A 60 score is the way soldiers start, after all.

conversely, hit chances on targets behind cover would be raised slightly, so that you don't need a whole team of 4 expert snipers to sit and spend all their points on shooting a single guy behind cover, destroying his cover slowly and then getting 90% chances of hitting him when the cover is gone, which is what I do now if I don't feel like just using a rocket, which would take care of the problem easily.

2) weapon ranges should be reduced significantly (the current 'yellow' range should be the area where the bullet does not even travel that far and hit chances are 0%), so that you and the aliens don't completely abuse reaction fire to all shoot from across the entire map and have to at least advance on the target to a point where you might be in some danger, and your team remains coherent. This also prevents abuse of sqad-sight to some degree.

having 0% chance to hit beyond the guns 'green' range means a more sensible ground combat game without shots from the edge of the map

3) all sight ranges need to be uniform, regardless of armor and regardless of anything. everyone spot each other at the same range (this is something which really breaks the game.. currently you actually need to have your point-men unarmored expendible rookies in order for them to have *better* survivability! ... otherwise they get too close to aliens, which spot them first and kill them)

4) aliens should not always sit at the same place so that I can fire rockets at them without ever even trying to get a visual on them (currently when I start a map I know exactly where to shoot rockets at even if I can't see that place yet..)

5) rockets need some costs involved with them and weren't the only way to go, and were much more inaccurate as well as hard to fire (perhaps requiring 50, 55 TUs). Personally I would remove them from the game completely or make them so inaccurate that firing them is a pointless misadventure

6) The AI needs to be improved in several ways but I don't really count this as a necessary change because it's something that's going to be done anyway and is not a 'balance' issue so much

7) maps... with the game already 4.5gigs (HOW??), maps remain very repetitive and you can't have random ones apparently so I dunno about this one.. are map files expensive to draw? can you randomize anything in them? like the ufo position etc?

random maps are definitely the way to go

8) grenades should have sane ranges, and be used for close combat to remove enemies from cover (currently this is completely pointless because if you get that close to an alien, ur already dead (because being shot at in the open means you get hit maybe 75% of the time

I agree with all your points except #1 and #3.

I haven't found a map yet that doesn't offer some covered path to the UFO. Also, I don't know how you are playing, but it's very rare for one of my guys to get shot out in the open. Perhaps that's because I will do just about anything to make sure my troops aren't out in the open EVER. Mostly I use the Hunter for scouting and save my soldiers from getting shot.

As far as #3 goes, I like spotting range being one of the variables. It makes things interesting. I really haven't noticed it affecting my game play much.

#8 is a big one for me. Grenades are too good and too bad right now. You can't throw them over anything, but you can throw them insane distances. It makes no sense.

[StellarRat]

You know what would help? Only applying the to hit cap to the final result, not the intervening steps. As it stands, it is way too easy to cap out at 95% on anything in the open, but have 15% or worse when you have ground clutter to worry about. Would make higher accuracy mean something.

Is that how it works? Because that would be wrong IMO. The cap should be at the end not at the beginning.

[StellarRat]

There's something odd going on with randomisation of spawns. In my messing around I added even more aliens and only the extras spawn in different areas.

Maybe it picks the optimum spawn points first and works it's way down to less desirable spots as it gets more troops? Hard to say. Also, since the AI is not finished maybe the "fix" is coming.

[Lightzy]

Should be completely random

it's enough that the maps are the same over and over again

[erutan]

In my 18.3 playthrough I skipped having a hunter and went 4x rifle, 2x sniper, 1 LMG, 1 Rocket. My snipers had the most kills, but in third was a riflewoman! If you don't use a hunter, you WILL get hit by reaction fire in the open... it's pretty unavoidable and agree it's a really strange incentive to your front line troops in light armor and your back line troops in heavy.

[StellarRat]

In my 18.3 playthrough I skipped having a hunter and went 4x rifle, 2x sniper, 1 LMG, 1 Rocket. My snipers had the most kills, but in third was a riflewoman! If you don't use a hunter, you WILL get hit by reaction fire in the open... it's pretty unavoidable and agree it's a really strange incentive to your front line troops in light armor and your back line troops in heavy.

Yes, I understand, but should the game be changed because the players chooses not to use the equipment and tactics at his/her disposal? You could also choose to equipment all your troops with no armor and a pistol. If you took a lot of casualties playing that way should the game be changed?