Another plea to change the accuracy formula! :D

[StellarRat]

The squad sight thing is an issue, because there's no way you can remove squad sight from the player. You can see everything your soldiers see, and it's therefore always going to be possible to shoot at an alien in sight range of one of your soldiers due to force-fire mode. So we have to give it to the aliens too. There may be tweaks to it though.

If you change the weapon accuracy formula to the one I sent you these squad sight problems mostly disappear along with the close range fire being inaccurate problem. Even though a soldier could shoot at something across the map spotted by someone else the chance to hit it would be so low it wouldn't be worth the ammo. I know I sound like a broken record, but I have faith...

[GizmoGomez]

Can you send me the formula as well? I can't remember exactly where/what it is, tbh.

Thanks!

[StellarRat]

Can you send me the formula as well? I can't remember exactly where/what it is, tbh.

Thanks!

http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/4275-Shot-Miss-Scattering?p=56806&viewfull=1#post56806

Synopsis:

As range increases past the effective range of the weapon the chance to hit will drop off steeply. As range decreases to about 1/2 the effective weapon range accuracy will increase rapidly (you are moving to point blank for the weapon.) Gauddlike did some excellent graphs in the original thread which show the flaws in the original formula as well as the effect of the new formula.

The formula:

NOTE: I have incorporated Gauddlike's slight change to divide by the WER instead of 4. It smoothes the drop off slightly for really long range weapons. This wasn't in my original formula, but I think it's an improvement.

Chance to hit = Soldier Accuracy * (Base weapon chance - ((Range - (Weapon Effective Range +1))^3 / Weapon Effective Range ))

Here is the Excel version: =ROUNDUP(A2*(B2-(POWER((C2-(D2+1)),3)/Weapon Effective Range )),0)

Where cell A2 is the soldier accuracy in decimal (.5 = 50), cell B2 is Base Weapon Chance (shotgun snapshot = 90), cell C2 is the range in tiles, cell D2 is the Weapon Effective Range in tiles. You can paste the formula into cell E2 which is the final chance to hit. There are some very slight rounding differences with my posting from a calculator, but it's close enough.

The only time this formula will have a problem is if any of the input values are zeros or negative which should be impossible.

Edited July 9, 2013 by StellarRat

[GizmoGomez]

For those interested, here is a graph Gauddlike made. It showcases the difference between the current accuracy formula vs the formula StellarRat suggests, giving the example of the Plasma Cannon (the ultimate alien weapon).

Plasma Cannon used by Andron Support:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2074[/ATTACH]

For accuracy the x axis is percent, for damage it is a flat number.

I stopped the graph at 100 tile range.

As you can see, under the current system, aliens can and will one-shot you from across the map consistently.

Under StellarRat's formula (StellarRat (mod) line) the accuracy drops off sharply after the max range, making such "shot-from-the-dark" shots almost impossible to hit.

EDIT:

Here is another graph Gauddlike drew up, showcasing a precision rifle.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2061[/ATTACH]

The graph compares the three accuracy formulae using a precision rifle with 80 weapon accuracy (between step one and two as currently balanced) and a soldier with 60 accuracy.

I also added the current damage formula for the precision rifle, not taking into account target armour.

Edited July 10, 2013 by GizmoGomez

[DNK]

For the accuracy, we should first discuss priorities/goals. In my opinion:

1. Long range weapons (assumed to have enhanced optics) should be inaccurate at short ranges, above average accurate at medium ranges, and have a strong benefit at long ranges compared to other weapons.
   
2. Rifles and MGs (assumed to have basic optics only) should be moderately accurate at short ranges, average at medium range, and fairly inaccurate at long range.
   
3. Carbines and shotguns (assumed to have lower precision of the weapon and ammo but easier to wield) should be highly accurate at short ranges, below average at medium range, and totally inaccurate at long range.
   
4. Soldier accuracy should be highly limiting and not able to be mostly compensated by weapon accuracy. Soldiers with terrible accuracy and a sniper rifle should still have very poor accuracy.
   

I think something like this would help balance sniper rifles as mostly useless in CQC situations:

[accuracy formula] - ((weaprange / 20) / distance) * (weapacc / avgacc))

"avgacc" refers to the average accuracy of all weapons in this weapon's category (laser, plasma, etc). Not exactly that - a multiplier needs to be added to the total to put it in line with the rest of the accuracy formula.

[Gauddlike]

Sniper rifles also get a 50% accuracy reduction when you move in the same turn as shooting remember so they should only be useful in close quarters if the enemy runs into your line of fire.

I don't know if that also applies to just turning on the spot but it probably should.

I agree that different range performance would allow better adjustment of weapons into roles however when I suggested a three stage accuracy system (short, medium, long range with a modifier or set value for each stage) Chris stated that he didn't want to make that adjustment and felt it was over complicated.

That may not be as true now but no one at Goldhawk has said anything about it for a while.

Weapon accuracy is a modifier value of the soldiers accuracy.

If your soldier has 60 accuracy and uses a 100% accuracy weapon he will be classed as having his full 60.

If he was to use a weapon with 80% accuracy he would be classed as having 48 accuracy for that shot.

[Gauddlike]

Another point to consider is that the current game engine and the stopping chance calculation make very short range misses difficult to do properly.

Either the missed shot passes through the target tile and is classed as a hit anyway (due to the 100% stopping chance of a standing human sized target) or it has to deviate out to completely miss the targeted tile which can give a deviation of over 45 degrees and cause some pretty nasty friendly fire that is completely unexpected and unrealistic.

That was the reason that missed shots are supposed to deviate around the target tile now and why short range shots were all supposed to get a massive accuracy boost (think it was 40% at one tile distance but could be wrong) so that misses would not be an issue.

Forcing misses from a precision rifle would send powerful shots in some very random directions.

[StellarRat]

Before we get too far on this thread let me quote Chris's most recent about the formula: "The current formula already causes accuracy dropping off steeply beyond effective weapon range, so I don't see that it particularly needs fixing in this instance. Perhaps the weapon ranges need to change tho."

So, I'm confused now. I've asked for Chris to post the current formula because the one in the Wiki definitely does not drop off steeply past effective weapon range. I can only assume the formula has been changed at some point and we don't know what it is now.

[GizmoGomez]

That seems to be the case.

One question I have for those who play more than I: Does it seem like the accuracy formula has been fixed/changed, based on your experiences in gameplay? Since it's not the formula, apparently, perhaps the weapon ranges need adjusting, as Chris stated.

[200down]

Simple fix to keep the balance is to work with the props range and AP's usage. It really isn't so bad the way they have it. What I did with mine was simply increasing AP costs on weapons like the Sniper, Rocket Launcher, and MG's. If it takes nearly an entire turn to fire at max accuracy with a sniper, very seldom will you use it in close range engagements. As long as the sniper doesn't kill in one turn, this works well.

I actually raised my AP costs to the point where rookie soldiers may not even be able to use the last "focused" shot and will need to increase their AP count first. There is a fine line between balance and just plain annoying though. We don't want it to feel like the player's options are too limited. Obviously when your soldiers grow to the point where they have 70+ in AP you don't want them to still feel like a rookie. So just be careful how much you raise or lower things.

For example, this is what my numbers look like for the ballistic sniper(although this is on a heavily modified version of the game).

props range="33"

<Set1 ap="36" accuracy="60" />

<Set2 ap="46" accuracy="80" />

<Set3 ap="56" accuracy="100" />

Granted, I'm still fiddling around with the balance in mine so I may even make it more expensive to fire heavies eventually.

Although you don't have much for a low AP cost shot, it does feel bad ass like a sniper should at range. And with these high costs, it gives a real incentive to take a pistol along for the random close encounters. The best part though, is that(along with the heavy weapon strength movement penalty) it keeps people from bringing NOTHING but snipers or MGs only. Well, at least until their soldiers are all godly vets.

Edited July 11, 2013 by 200down

[Gauddlike]

If the precision rifle has a good accuracy at long range using a high AP shot wouldn't it also potentially have a good hit chance at short range using a lower AP shot?

That would suggest that you could still use it effectively in close, even with increased AP costs.

Using your numbers it would be two (60 accuracy) pistol shots for around the same AP as a single (60 accuracy) precision rifle shot.

Seems to lean in favour of the precision rifle still unless you move in that turn.

A single hit from a precision rifle is likely to be at least as good as two pistol shots, assuming the armour mitigation is set properly again anyway.

[StellarRat]

Also, the fact the remains that if the current formula is indeed the one in the Wiki (something now in doubt) then several weapons have a decent chance of hitting you ANYWHERE on ANY MAP. This enhances the effect of squad sight shots and leads to people being "one shotted" from across the map. Something that I think shouldn't happen but once in a blue moon. It also means there is no way to move around the enemies flank out of weapon range, so in essence, you are always conducting a frontal assault on the enemy. The only advantage to moving around the side might be eliminating one angle of the enemies cover, but it's hardly worth it most of the time since it's so TU consuming currently.

[200down]

If the precision rifle has a good accuracy at long range using a high AP shot wouldn't it also potentially have a good hit chance at short range using a lower AP shot?

That would suggest that you could still use it effectively in close, even with increased AP costs.

Using your numbers it would be two (60 accuracy) pistol shots for around the same AP as a single (60 accuracy) precision rifle shot.

Seems to lean in favour of the precision rifle still unless you move in that turn.

A single hit from a precision rifle is likely to be at least as good as two pistol shots, assuming the armour mitigation is set properly again anyway.

Sorry I'm not the best at explaining things. What I meant with pistols still being a viable backup weapon for heavies is simply TU costs. The larger weapons take so many TUs to fire that they leave you almost completely vulnerable if you move at all because you can't move and fire effectively. This is where the pistols come in. If that makes sense at all. Not very good at explaining myself. But it feels pretty good if you try it out. Granted I'm using those numbers on a highly modified game where everything is rebalanced according to weight, projectile speed(lead times), and general weapon types.

General idea behind what I did with my weapon stats:

Weight controls aiming times, burst fire accuracy, and reloading time(to some extent).

Projectile speed controls, general accuracy(relates to how hard it is to lead targets), and mitigation values.

Weight and Projectile speeds I figured had less to do with weapon types and more to do with the effects on our troops using them. Which seems to work well for a benchmark to work off of that helps keep some balance between the weapon types.

Unfortunately, you can probably guess that trying to completely balance weapons with some "formula" doesn't always work. You'll still need to fine tune weapons with some trial and error in the field.

In all honesty though, weapon balance really doesn't make much difference because they made the game so easy to mod. I'm just hoping they release a fairly stable game so modders have a good platform to work from. A few months after release, I'm sure there will be plenty of "re-balance" mods for everyone's tastes.

As far as the accuracy formula goes, I think it's fine where it is. They just need to explain, in depth, how it works. The more complicated it gets, the harder it will be for people to mod or even understand. I'll try to explain it real quickly but it may just makes things worse lol.

OK this is all based on a perfect 100 accuracy soldier, on open ground, with perfect unhindered vision(nothing altering vision like smoke or objects).

In your weapons_gc.xml you'll see a "props range" which would be better described as "Optimal Range".

Props range refers to the range at which a particular weapon's accuracy and damage will start to decline when fired beyond(this has no correlation with your soldier's stats).

Still with me? Hope so.

Let's use the basic pistol for reference. I can't remember what the default pistol values are so I'll just post my current ones.

<Weapon name="weapon.pistol" bulletType="normal" emptySound="Empty Click 1">

<props range="16" hands="1" recoil="0" weight="2" isHeavy="0" clipSize="12" reloadAPCost="20" reloadSound="Weapon Pistol Reload" reactionModifier="1.75" hpLimit="60" />

<SingleShot sound="Weapon Pistol Single" delay="0.6" suppressionValue="9" suppressionRadius="1">

<Set1 ap="11" accuracy="40" />

<Set2 ap="21" accuracy="60" />

<Set3 ap="31" accuracy="80" />

</SingleShot>

<GUIImage name="gui/weapons/pistol" />

<GroundImage name="grounditemimages/pistol.png"/>

<Ammos>

<Ammo name="ammo.ballistic.pistol" type="kinetic" damage="15" mitigation="5">

<Projectile spectre="projectiles/bullet/bullet" speed="800"/>

Now lets go through a few of those values and how they effect accuracy and work in combat:

props range="16" (The optimal range at which the weapon can fire without loosing accuracy or damage. Read below for more on how this relates to actual accuracy values.)

<Set1 ap="11" accuracy="40" /> (This value relates to the first "step" of aiming time if you fire the weapon with the lowest amount of TUs used. 11 TUs in this case, plus any additional movement time added on. In relation to "props range", you will have a 40% chance to hit an unobstructed target at 16 tiles(the weapon's props range or "Optimal Range") with a soldier possessing a perfect 100 accuracy stat. If your troop is firing beyond 16 tiles in range, the accuracy will decline in amounts relative to the actual distance past 16 tiles the target is. Beyond your soldier's control)

<Set2 ap="21" accuracy="60" /> (The second step in accuracy which takes a few more TUs)

<Set3 ap="31" accuracy="80" /> (The final step which uses the most TUs to fire but has the best chance to hit. Note; the default game doesn't have a third aiming value for pistols so you likely won't see this in your xml unless you've added it.)

damage="15" (The damage value shows the "raw" damage of the weapon(before any armor or mitigation) that will be done to the target as long as your troop is not beyond the props range value. In this case 16 tiles. If your troop is firing beyond 16 tiles in range, the damage value is then lower the farther out the target is.)

Anyways, hopefully this is a bit easier to understand... wordy as hell I know. There are more variables at work here like crouch vs prone but this should be enough to start modding weapons to your liking. Also, the reason you never see the accuracy values in the xml in actual combat is simply that they are all based on a 100% accuracy soldier. So you will usually see around 50-60 percent of these values with your starting troops. Needless to say, your soldiers can become quite god-like IF they survive enough battles.

Edited July 12, 2013 by 200down

[StellarRat]

As far as the accuracy formula goes, I think it's fine where it is. They just need to explain, in depth, how it works. The more complicated it gets, the harder it will be for people to mod or even understand. I'll try to explain it real quickly but it may just makes things worse lol.

That's all very well and fine. We understand how it works, but problem is that it is a mostly linear formula AND the slope decreases with range. That means for most weapons it never reaches zero accuracy for anyone at any distance. For longer range weapons there is decent chance to hit anyone anywhere on the battlefield. You don't see a problem with that AND squad sight together??? Edited July 12, 2013 by StellarRat

[Gauddlike]

I have a good understanding of the structure and function of the xml files.

My previous post was asking about the relationship between the pistol and precision rifle in your version of the balance (200down).

You suggested that setting the precision rifle to use about double the AP of the pistol for the same accuracy shot made the pistol more likely to be used up close which doesn't appear to be the case from those numbers.

Maybe if you have already moved or are short enough on AP to be unable to get a basic precision rifle shot off.

You answered that in the first two lines of your post

I disagree that two shots for minimal damage would persuade me to switch out my precision rifle unless I had no other choice at all.

A single change at doing decent damage and possibly getting a kill would make me lean more towards sticking with the precision rifle.

The pistol would need to provide me with a realistic chance of a kill to get me to use it which in general is not the case.

For example a single precision rifle hit on an enemy with 10 kinetic resist would do 30 damage, the two pistol shots for the same AP would do 10 damage each.

Ignoring the 20% random deviation and range modifiers for the examples.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Gauddlike

[Gauddlike]

Well off topic though really.

Back to the actual accuracy formula then.

It would be nice to see what is actually used if the wiki formula is in fact incorrect.

Shooting from massively outside of the weapons maximum range should be possible but difficult, with the wiki formula it is quite easy to do.

[200down]

That's all very well and fine. We understand how it works, but problem is that it is a mostly linear formula AND the slope decreases with range. That means for most weapons it never reaches zero accuracy for anyone at any distance. For longer range weapons there is decent chance to hit anyone anywhere on the battlefield. You don't see a problem with that AND squad sight together???

Ah, I see what you're saying now. Sounds like we just need better AI opponents honestly. Instead of aliens that hide miles away like little girls. See that's what happens when people whine about blind firing aliens... they don't do shit now when they could be squad siting just like our troops instead of sitting there like dip shits. You're saying you want a more extreme penalties for shooting outside the weapons range right? I could get on board with that sense the aliens AI is such a puss at the moment. Should be an awfully simple change for them I would think.

[200down]

I have a good understanding of the structure and function of the xml files.

My previous post was asking about the relationship between the pistol and precision rifle in your version of the balance (200down).

You suggested that setting the precision rifle to use about double the AP of the pistol for the same accuracy shot made the pistol more likely to be used up close which doesn't appear to be the case from those numbers.

Maybe if you have already moved or are short enough on AP to be unable to get a basic precision rifle shot off.

You answered that in the first two lines of your post

I disagree that two shots for minimal damage would persuade me to switch out my precision rifle unless I had no other choice at all.

A single change at doing decent damage and possibly getting a kill would make me lean more towards sticking with the precision rifle.

The pistol would need to provide me with a realistic chance of a kill to get me to use it which in general is not the case.

For example a single precision rifle hit on an enemy with 10 kinetic resist would do 30 damage, the two pistol shots for the same AP would do 10 damage each.

Ignoring the 20% random deviation and range modifiers for the examples.

Like I said, my game is modified in so many areas....

Not even sure what the accuracy penalty for moving and shooting in the same turn with heavies is. It must be awfully large though.

Entirely possible that we play snipers differently to. I move often with mine so I'm always cover to cover with just enough AP's to fire 1-2 pistol rounds and no snipe rounds. Maybe 1-2 low damage shots isn't worth the time to some. Is for me though, sense it's saved my troops more times than I can remember. Aliens have a much larger advantage than normal in my config file so I need every bit of help I can get .

[StellarRat]

You're saying you want a more extreme penalties for shooting outside the weapons range right? I could get on board with that sense the aliens AI is such a puss at the moment. Should be an awfully simple change for them I would think.

Yes, I think you've got it now. What I want is to make it impossible to one shot someone from across map just some guy two miles away has spotted a target for you. That goes for both sides, alien and human. If that couldn't happen or would take a miracle shot, you can actually try to outflank the enemy just by staying out of range. Right now there is no "out of range". Of course, this all assumes the Wiki formula is the current formula. If they've changed it I could be all wet.

I'm playing right now like you hit and get hit from any distance, therefore my moves take a long time and I don't bother to out flank and I never move in the open unless I know there are no aliens around. If I knew their weapons had a range limit I'd be moving guys around the side MUCH faster while staying out of range. With the current long range abilities there is also little reason to move your snipers up after initial deployment unless the LOF is blocked. So, I'm maximizing squad sight with them because I can.

Edited July 12, 2013 by StellarRat

[200down]

Yes, I think you've got it now. What I want is to make it impossible to one shot someone from across map just some guy two miles away has spotted a target for you. That goes for both sides, alien and human. If that couldn't happen or would take a miracle shot, you can actually try to outflank the enemy just by staying out of range. Right now there is no "out of range". Of course, this all assumes the Wiki formula is the current formula. If they've changed it I could be all wet.

I'm playing right now like you hit and get hit from any distance, therefore my moves take a long time and I don't bother to out flank and I never move in the open unless I know there are no aliens around. If I knew their weapons had a range limit I'd be moving guys around the side MUCH faster while staying out of range. With the current long range abilities there is also little reason to move your snipers up after initial deployment unless the LOF is blocked. So, I'm maximizing squad sight with them because I can.

Agree with you. Some maps really are just a snipe fest(not enough cover to flank like you said). I never thought about the range being the problem until you mentioned it. Honestly, I started using the hunter for cover moving forward but that only works for a few turns if your lucky. I've officially given up on this last build though. Don't think I even got to lasers before it got crash happy so I wouldn't know ether if they changed it. Hard to tell how bad it is on the first weapons because their damage is already quite low. Here's to hoping the next build is a stable one.

[200down]

What I want is to make it impossible to one shot someone from across map just some guy two miles away has spotted a target for you. That goes for both sides, alien and human. If that couldn't happen or would take a miracle shot, you can actually try to outflank the enemy just by staying out of range. Right now there is no "out of range".

Been racking my brain about a solution for this for awhile. Trying to figure out what would fix it without feeling too unrealistic. Maybe that's why I can't think of anything that would work and feel well. Trying to keep some realism in projectile physics in a video game is just lolz. Maps are just too small to support any realism with drop-off rates. Almost all of those weapons in a realistic world setting WOULD be able to shoot across these little maps and be fairly accurately with little to no drop-off. And soldiers LOS would be be even further than the entire map.

So screw realism. This is the only thing I could come up with but I can see how it could still be somewhat abused. Although it would still be much better than what it currently is:

Not allowing full vision of forward troop-sited enemies from rear troops by using fog of war and some kind of "cloned" enemy image when the rear troop is your active one.

For instance, a forward troop has an enemy sited but when you select your rear sniper it applies fog of war again for the sniper's normal vision and range, BUT 3+(dependent on range to sniper) enemy icons show in the general area in the fog of war representing imperfect accuracy(or guessing) vs enemies he can't actually see. You could target and shoot at any one of these icons as if they where all enemies and If you get lucky, you could still hit and kill it. But it would add somewhat of a guessing game and the decision of weather or not to waste ammo at all comes into play.

I for one, have no problem with the enemy using the current squad site. Vs a human they need any help they can get. The problem is, they will sometimes shoot at our troops even without having ANY visuals at all on us. At times, they seem to just randomly shoot at anyone on the map which just feels cheep(especially true in enemy bases). This would be fine IF they weren't so accurate with their shots so it felt like a guess rather than AI cheese. Maybe this is supposed feel like they have cameras up in their bases all over the place? Even so, it's not cool

Edited July 14, 2013 by 200down

[StellarRat]

You can assume drop though. All weapon ranges have been compressed by Goldhawk already. Otherwise nearly every weapon would 100% accurate at any range on these maps.

[200down]

True. Just feels odd that a rifle starts it's drop around the length of a building though. Not complaining. Just saying. It's tolerable in a game. Anyways, read the bottom half of the post. What do you think of the random icons in fog of war idea? Or post an idea of your own. Much more likely to see some changes if you post some suggestions for solutions to your request instead of leaving them to their own devices. And more likely to get something you may actually like. Follow? I'm honestly ok with the way things are if they added more cover. Was just trying to figure something out that the masses may like too. You know, something that could easily be done without taking up too much of their time.

[StellarRat]

True. Just feels odd that a rifle starts it's drop around the length of a building though. Not complaining. Just saying. It's tolerable in a game. Anyways, read the bottom half of the post. What do you think of the random icons in fog of war idea? Or post an idea of your own. Much more likely to see some changes if you post some suggestions for solutions to your request instead of leaving them to their own devices. And more likely to get something you may actually like. Follow? I'm honestly ok with the way things are if they added more cover. Was just trying to figure something out that the masses may like too. You know, something that could easily be done without taking up too much of their time.

Yeah, my calculations are that they even been compressed to about 1/15th of normal range. Chris has stated each tile represents 1.6 meters of "real" terrain, so I'll let you do the math.

[StellarRat]

True. Just feels odd that a rifle starts it's drop around the length of a building though. Not complaining. Just saying. It's tolerable in a game. Anyways, read the bottom half of the post. What do you think of the random icons in fog of war idea? Or post an idea of your own. Much more likely to see some changes if you post some suggestions for solutions to your request instead of leaving them to their own devices. And more likely to get something you may actually like. Follow? I'm honestly ok with the way things are if they added more cover. Was just trying to figure something out that the masses may like too. You know, something that could easily be done without taking up too much of their time.

I always just assume that the radio calls allow you to see something you didn't notice. Think about real life here. We go through life not seeing a lot of things at a distance until someone tells us exactly where to look then it's obvious all of a sudden. I'm assuming that is how squad sight works too.