Chris Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 OK, here's where we'll continue the discussion on manual kneeling. You can see the previous thread here, which contains every post from the discussion going on on the pre-migration forum. It's a long one. To help clarify the discussion and kick start the wiki, I'm producing a couple of pages which describe the accuracy and cover mechanics in the game in detail. That should give everyone a framework to work within. Accuracy calculation, including cover save - http://xenowiki.goldhawkinteractive.com/index.php?title=Accuracy_Calculation Terrain Objects - http://xenowiki.goldhawkinteractive.com/index.php?title=Terrain_Objects Cover System - http://xenowiki.goldhawkinteractive.com/index.php?title=Cover_System Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweakd Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) Suggestions for manual kneeling combined with autocover: I think once we have all digested the wiki and understand completely the current mechanics all of us with an opinion on how it could be implemented should post a clear no-nonsense suggestion. Then perhaps we can see clearly what everyone wants and come to some sort of agreement with help from Chris. I also appreciate that these kind of "Give me features!" threads are sometimes annoying for devs but in the long run, if it gets implemented, I believe it will save some pain. The principle of the matter is do you believe manual kneeling is needed? If so why and how would you implement it? If not then why not? Edited October 19, 2011 by Tweakd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauddlike Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Quick question for Chris. In the wiki should one of the modified accuracies quoted below be unmodified? Thus, when a shot is fired, a random number between 1 and 100 is generated and compared to the numbers generated in the formulae above to see what happens to it. If: Modified Accuracy was 80% Modified Accuracy was 50% Chance to hit cover was 30% Master Accuracy would be 20% Therefore if the number generated was: 1-20 - The shot would successfully hit the target. 21-50 - The shot would hit the cover the unit was hiding behind. 51-80 - The shot would hit one of the intervening obstacles along the fire path. 91- 100 – The shot would miss the target, and scatter down a different fire path entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweakd Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I was thinking the same. I expect it should be : UnModified Accuracy was 80% Modified Accuracy was 50% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted October 19, 2011 Author Share Posted October 19, 2011 Yes, you guys are correct. I've updated the wiki accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherdevil Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Ok well after reading the wiki, it appears that with some minor modifications my idea will still work. I will post more about it when I am not supposed to be working though, so have a gander later! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamren Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I'm going away on a trip and I won't be back for a month! I'm gonna miss out on the discussion for sure Hope this is still around by the time I get back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauddlike Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Oh yeah, we will still be talking about it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweakd Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Oh yeah, we will still be talking about it No doubt about that =) I'm busy for a few days so I'll get back to this at the weekend. Hope I don't miss too much. A small absence usually results in 5 pages to read! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherdevil Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Sorry for the long post... I’ve had a go at rewriting my idea from the old thread, with a bit of new knowledge from the wiki (in Chris’ first post), so hopefully quite refined. Now again I’ll start without any talk about AP cost, as this can be discussed at the end, and should also hopefully be irrelevant if my system is as balanced as I hope it to be. There are three types of stances your soldiers can take, kneeling in cover (aka in cover), kneeling out in the open (kneeling), and standing in the open (standing). In cover: -You get much better protection from the direction you are covered in (ie the direction the cover is in relation to you), as well as lesser cover in any other directions the cover might protect you from. -However, apart form 45 degree turns from the direction of cover (see brackets below), further turning of the soldier will cost extra, to represent the cover being in the way while your soldier is trying to remain crouched. (the idea of this is that when your soldier stands to shoot, he will be shooting over the cover, or close to the direction of the cover, so that should cost about the same AP wise. Shooting in a completely different direction however should be costly, so as to promote other soldiers protecting their flanks. If needs be, and it would be easier to implement and understand, all turning costs can be made the same) -Shooting costs a little more because you have to stand to shoot, but these shots are also a little more accurate as you have something to lean on (all shots or burst? sort that out later). This mode of firing makes any intervening waist high cover have no additional effects on the shot (see kneeling), only if the target is in cover themselves behind a waist high cover will it factor into the shot (cover save system, see wiki). Kneeling: -Slightly better protection due to the reduction in body size - slightly more accurate (burst or all shots? Again wait for balancing) - no additional AP cost to turn - However, because you are kneeling, any low objects (ie waist high cover), now affect your chance to hit the target. This can work 2 ways. It can either completely add the additional objects as potential disturbances to the shot, or it can make the amount of cover they provide (wiki = stopping value) higher. Whichever is easiest. Standing: -no extra protection -no extra accuracy -no additional AP cost to turn -regular stopping value for objects, no increases as your soldier will attempt to shoot over them at a much better angle. Now here is the wiki part on stopping values (heading ‘Modified Accuracy’): “The modified accuracy calculates the chance to hit, taking into account the intervening battlefield props. If the target is not in cover, this is the final accuracy value for the shot. The variables are: • Unmodified accuracy, from the formula above. • Stopping value attributes for each object along the fire path, as a percentage (this is set for each object in the terrain editor). The game traces the fire path for a successful hit on the target, and identifies any objects along the path. Each of these has a stopping value. For each object, the game compares its stopping value to the highest stopping value previously tested against the shot. The difference between the two is applied to the shot to see if the projectile strikes that item of cover. If the highest previously tested value is higher than the object’s stopping value, no test is performed. As stopping value is derived mostly from the height of the object, this is to prevent a shot flying over a tall wall and then hitting a small object on the other side of it (which would be impossible). Battlefield units of any description that are not in cover have a stopping chance of 100%. The only special case for this formula is units in cover. If a unit is in cover and the shooter is firing at them, the cover the unit is hiding behind is not taken into account in this calculation as it is covered in the Cover Save section (below). If a unit is in cover and the target is firing past them, the higher of the cover object’s stopping value and the stopping value for a crouching soldier (60%) is used for the combined ‘object’. If a shot hits the combined object, the cover save mechanic below is used to assign hits.“ By kneeling you get an accuracy boost, but it also increases the difficulty of hitting a target behind any cover, whether they are crouched behind it or not. How much more accurate your soldier is and how much higher the stopping value is, obviously would need to be balanced. Standing or being in cover (and therefore standing to fire) doesn’t have this problem because the stopping value would be lower. Even for characters in cover, it would still be easier to hit them as you should be able to see a bit more with that extra bit of angle. We could even go a bit further with this and say anyone on a first or second floor (ie. Not the ground floor for any Americans out there), would get reductions to the stopping value given to the cover someone is in, because they should have an even greater angle, and therefore be able to see even more of the enemy. This cover and kneeling system also rewards good tactics. You need to position your troops to cover the flanks of those in cover who can’t do it themselves, you need to position kneeling troops to minimize objects between them and their targets. Depending on the situation, standing to fire may well be the best option, but then reaction fire might get you, so make sure you’ve still got some walls /objects between you and the enemy, even if you’re not directly next to them. Hopefully this all makes sense, intuitively. There is a little picture below which hopefully will explain why standing gets you a better angle than kneeling, if you don’t get it (it’s not very good, but I think you’ll get the drift). Now to the cost of kneeling vs cover. I think that it doesn't really matter with this system either way, as everything has up sides and down sides, so there is no one position that is best all the time. It depends on how much cover you want for your soldier, and how the enemy are protecting themselves, and it can easily and fluidly change as any skirmish takes place... If I had to choose, I would say have a small (2AP) cost for kneeling, and have it automatically apply when moving next to an object that applies cover. So long as the amount of AP that will be used up is displayed prior to the player agreeing to move into cover, they cannot really moan about not having enough AP left... But this system, in my mind, could just as happily work without any AP cost attached to any change in stance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sathra Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Sounds usable. For this, I'll refer to manual kneeling or kneeling in the open as 'kneeling', and hunkering down in cover as 'crouching'. I'd probably have turning in cover have a flat increase of AP cost, to simplify it and avoid any weird bugs and exploits. I still like the idea of kneeling and crouching only accuracy-boosting burst fire. You can't focus bursts, so having some way to do it would be good. Having firer and target height affect the stopping value of intervening objects sounds like a good idea. Hopefully it'll be included, it adds an extra layer to positioning. A few questions: -Would crouching and kneeling give the same acc bonus? Or would one be higher than the other? -When in cover and facing away from the cover object, would the unit be treated as crouching or kneeling? -Related question: Would the stance they use to fire effect what affects their shooting? So stand-and-fire increases shot cost, but crouch-firing increases obstacle obstruction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherdevil Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) Ah good questions! 1. crouching in cover would give a slightly better accuracy cost in my opinion, because you have something which isn't wobbly like a knee. But at the same time, you're also standing up to fire, so maybe the same accuracy would be easier and fairer to implement. 2. when facing away, well it depends where they are getting shot from. if from the side of the cover, then they get the usual cover bonus. If from the side with no cover, they get the kneeling bonus. Can't get both. BUT, if you're next to cover, whether facing away from it or not, you still get the increased cost of turning (all that stuff in your backpack has got to be maneuvered without hitting the wall too!) 3. shooting from a standing position is no more expensive, however if you are kneeling then wish to stand up to shoot then that might cost, but obviously only if AP costs are made part of it. So essentially you play off kneeling = slightly more accurate, but harder shot; standing = less accurate but easier shot. Obviously this sounds like a moot point now, but it really depends on how much of an increase in accuracy and the stopping power of objects is, and how accurate your troops are etc. And sorry I should have made that evident in my last post (I missed it instead). If there is no AP cost assigned to changing stance, then it makes no sense for standing up to shoot while in cover costing more than just shooting normally. If an AP cost is given, then this should apply here as well, otherwise you're essentially getting the best of both worlds, and the negatives of neither (except for being flanked, which should be punishable by death, and suitably will be I'm sure) Also I agree on you about the burst firing accuracy boost, but whether that adds enough difference between each stance will be up to balancing Edited October 21, 2011 by anotherdevil Thought of more stuff to say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sathra Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Ah, for question 3 it was more to do with how the current animations work. If you fire over cover, you do a stand-and-fire-then-crouch animation. I'm assuming that would be under an increased shot cost for being in cover. But if you fire away from the cover you're using, the trooper doesn't stand up. Would they still count as being 'in-cover' for any obstruction purposes? Or would obstructions be treated as if they were kneeling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherdevil Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) Ah ok, Hmm multi part answer here: Now for standing shoot crouch would cost no more than a regular shot, IF there is no cost to change stance. If there is a cost, well... Otherwise it wouldn't be intuitive. BUT if you stand, turn (so say the enemy isn't directly on the opposite side of the cover, but 45 degrees to the side), shoot, turn crouch (because you have to turn back so you're facing the cover you're taking cover against) then the additional cost of the two turn movements would be applied. Unsure how this would work if you were in the inside of an L shaped corner though, maybe no need to turn back? If you fire away from cover, they don't count as being in cover in any regards. They get no 'in cover accuracy bonus' only the kneeling one. Any objects between you and the alien get higher 'stopping values.' This is because you don't stand up to take the shot. Actually thinking about that, maybe the penalty for being considered as kneeling (and therefore higher stopping values) when firing any direction except over the cover is enough detriment, that the additional cost to turning should be scrapped? Will have to see how it works from balance, but it is an idea... Edited October 21, 2011 by anotherdevil Flash of briliance, or so I think... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sathra Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Hmm, maybe if you shoot at a target outside of Arc of Fire/AOF (so having to turn), you don't turn back? I always operated under that assumption for my earlier concept. Its to make the direction you look more important, especially for reaction fire (assuming Xenonauts using a priority score system like X-com). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherdevil Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 While in theory I agree with this, there is the problem of the animation. If to recognise you are in cover, you have to lean against the wall, then if you turn diagonally clipping etc may become a problem... How about this, if you right click and turn your soldier first, then tell him to shoot, he'll stay facing the way you told him to face. If however he is taking cover against a wall, and you tell him to shoot over the wall somewhere, he will, but hen return to lean on the wall again. Lastly, if he is leaning on the wall, and you tell him to shoot somewhere not over the wall, (ie behind him) he will turn, shoot, and stay facing that direction and stay kneeling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sathra Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Hmm, that could work. We'd need a feasibility update from Chris about the whole thing though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauddlike Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 You would need to alter the the accuracy calculation to take into account the size of the trooper. If a kneeling soldier is 60% sized then any object between himself and his target that is 60% or over would effectively make the shot impossible. If you are standing then only 100% objects would do the same. Behind cover you stand to shoot so you would have the benefit of small size when being fired on, a cover save AND being able to fire over objects. That certainly seems to make cover the preferred option over kneeling. If you had no other way of altering the trajectory for elevated troopers firing down onto cover you could give them a size bonus in the same way. Say 50% 'bigger' for each floor they are above the target. I also still think a reaction bonus for standing would at least give a reason to stand in some situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherdevil Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 You would need to alter the the accuracy calculation to take into account the size of the trooper.If a kneeling soldier is 60% sized then any object between himself and his target that is 60% or over would effectively make the shot impossible. If you are standing then only 100% objects would do the same. Behind cover you stand to shoot so you would have the benefit of small size when being fired on, a cover save AND being able to fire over objects. That certainly seems to make cover the preferred option over kneeling. Well I'll leave the specific number of how it works up to the programmers, but yeah I agree with you there. Also, cover should be the preferred option over kneeling, well ever really! unless maybe you feel like you're going to be flanked, in which case you've played badly. This thread isn't to make cover less awesome, in my opinion it should be the best (for obvious reasons), but kneeling should be a close second defensively I also still think a reaction bonus for standing would at least give a reason to stand in some situations. Well there is no additional turning cost which sort of plays into this. Plus you're more likely to hit anyone you fire at while standing if there are any obstacles in the way. On the down side you're also more likely to be hit, so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweakd Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 You've been busy anotherdevil! And I really like what I'm seeing so far. Seems like you have the best parts of most of the arguments from the old threads. Now a couple of questions if you will indulge me. Please bare in mind I've managed a whopping 4 hours sleep total over the last two days so I may have missed something along the way. I did try my best to get all the info I could. First off if the map has sparse cover and mostly wide open streets like the 7.5 streets then, as far as i can tell, kneeling will always be prefferable to standing. The only negative I can see being low obstacles blocking the shot which of course will be sparse in some areas. So.. I would suggest having a turning AP penalty on kneeling in the open as well. Think about the extra difficulty in moving 90 degrees from your current kneeling position. This would result in facing being an important factor when deciding when to kneel and it also means flanking will be a little more dangerous even in the open. Flanking being one of the concepts I liked the most. I think it can and should be applied to kneeling too. Even if it's somewhat less dralatic than being flanked from behind cover. Secondly if we have a slight accuracy boost to kneeling then it should cost a small amount in AP. I wasn't certain from your post if you think so. I guess you could see it as the soldier taking advantage of his low profile and using the extra few seconds he has to line up a more accurate shot. Glad you're on board with standing to shoot costing more from cover (asuming a stance change cost is added). I am hesitant to add an accuracy boost to firing from cover though. While cover should be the ultimate position I think it's too good now? I guess it depends on how much of a boost we are talking. As you stated all figures are up for balancing so that's not something we can really discuss. But I think the advantage of being behind a wall is enough to warrant the extra cost to firing and enough of an incentive to get behind it. While it does make sense to have an accuracy boost I would say it's simply not needed. With cover being quite strong defensively I imagine popping up to take a quick shot at the enemy and getting back into cover asap. The action costs the player meaning they can fire less shots in total but be happy that they have reasonably good protection. Well at least until grenades and rockets start flying! Does that make sense? So to sum up in a very simplistic manner. Cover should be the best defense. Crouching should be a little defensive and a little offensive. Standing should be the best all round offense and the most flexible as you spend less APs in general. But everything costs the player. Meaning they need to choose their options carefully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherdevil Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I would suggest having a turning AP penalty on kneeling in the open as well. Think about the extra difficulty in moving 90 degrees from your current kneeling position. This would result in facing being an important factor when deciding when to kneel and it also means flanking will be a little more dangerous even in the open. Flanking being one of the concepts I liked the most. I think it can and should be applied to kneeling too. Even if it's somewhat less dralatic than being flanked from behind cover. I don't see why that can't be applied Secondly if we have a slight accuracy boost to kneeling then it should cost a small amount in AP. I wasn't certain from your post if you think so. I guess you could see it as the soldier taking advantage of his low profile and using the extra few seconds he has to line up a more accurate shot. That's fine, as I said previously I think it should cost a small amount to change stance, not really too much that if you mess up you're annoyed, but enough to make you think about it. But at the same time it could work without said cost. It's just a matter of either still maintaining autocover, or having to manually choose cover, and I am heavily into the autocover idea (and therefore either no cost, or automatic cost) Glad you're on board with standing to shoot costing more from cover (asuming a stance change cost is added). I am hesitant to add an accuracy boost to firing from cover though. While cover should be the ultimate position I think it's too good now? I guess it depends on how much of a boost we are talking. As you stated all figures are up for balancing so that's not something we can really discuss. But I think the advantage of being behind a wall is enough to warrant the extra cost to firing and enough of an incentive to get behind it. While it does make sense to have an accuracy boost I would say it's simply not needed. With cover being quite strong defensively I imagine popping up to take a quick shot at the enemy and getting back into cover asap. The action costs the player meaning they can fire less shots in total but be happy that they have reasonably good protection. Well at least until grenades and rockets start flying! I tend to agree with you, but only because the animation shows no leaning on the cover etc. I don't want to limit cover too much though, and while it is undoubtably the best defence wise, your unit is an offensive, and often outnumbered unit... Might I suggest perhaps a compromise of sorts, just for discussion. Perhaps taking a shot from behind cover gives the opposition less chance of a reaction shot? This represents them not being able to see you fully, and therefore not being able to tell what you're going to do. This allows cover to protect you even while you are being offensive, rather than making you a better shot. Good compromise, or not what people are looking for? Cover should be the best defense.Crouching should be a little defensive and a little offensive. Standing should be the best all round offense and the most flexible as you spend less APs in general. But everything costs the player. Meaning they need to choose their options carefully. That sounds about right, but again there is the sorting out whether things should cost or not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherdevil Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Hmmm just went and played a whole ground mission, and found a few things to discuss... Any idea when the pre-order only forums are coming online? The reason I did that was to watch the animation for being in cover, and I never actually saw the guys behind cover (a) lean towards it or (b) stand up to shoot. Have I been following the wrong assumptions this whole time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sathra Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 That's....really odd. Were they facing the cover object directly and firing in that direction? Just checked and its working fine in my build. Ran the pistol guy to the nearby sign, r-click behind the sign, then fired a few tiles along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherdevil Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 How do you manual fire at nothing? That would be really useful... My guys were hunkering down behind those transformers on the bottom left of the screen, shooting at the alien building... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sathra Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Just click on the weapon in the window to go into aim mode manually. Huh, they should have been standing up and firing at least some of the time from there. Leaning too. I'll try to take a pic of some doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.