Ground Combat Balance Discussion v19 Experimental Build 4

[Mytheos]

Well I dont think lowering the range of a sniper rifle is going to work well, I agree with Aaron on that...

However Sniper Rifles "should" be a poor choice in close combat.

Under the assumption of Melee - Close Range - Medium Range - Long Range - Extra Long Range...

Sniper Rifles should be effective in Medium to Extra Long Range.

Honestly the only way you are going to balance them is to change their usage.

The effective use should be, move into position, end turn, Take your shots at a known Alien, or have the scouts move forward and uncover an enemy and then take shots at it with your sniper.

The idea of moving and then shooting a sniper rifle should be a last resort.

Maybe make moving and shooting require Higher TUs as well as an accuracy Penalty? Then add in a close range penalty and lower suppression and that should just about do it.

In reality SWAT teams dont breach buildings with Sniper Rifles for a reason, they just simply arent as effective as a Pistol or Rifle.

Yes you can sight down the barrel, but its much harder to aim and fire one accurately in a combat situation vs a Shotgun, Pistol or Rifle.

At the very least a damage penalty at closer range, and a TU and Accuracy Penalty for moving...

[StellarRat]

Are you really sneaking up on Aliens trying to kill them with C4? 1 Grenade as I said can drop an Andron or Cyberdisk...

No, I'm not "sneaking up" on them really. I'm getting several guys to fire at them and keep them suppressed while sending a guy up (use covered hops) with C4 up to toss a charge in the door or window.

[StellarRat]

Well I dont think lowering the range of a sniper rifle is going to work well, I agree with Aaron on that...

However Sniper Rifles "should" be a poor choice in close combat.

Under the assumption of Melee - Close Range - Medium Range - Long Range - Extra Long Range...

Sniper Rifles should be effective in Medium to Extra Long Range.

Honestly the only way you are going to balance them is to change their usage.

The effective use should be, move into position, end turn, Take your shots at a known Alien, or have the scouts move forward and uncover an enemy and then take shots at it with your sniper.

The idea of moving and then shooting a sniper rifle should be a last resort.

Maybe make moving and shooting require Higher TUs as well as an accuracy Penalty? Then add in a close range penalty and lower suppression and that should just about do it.

In reality SWAT teams dont breach buildings with Sniper Rifles for a reason, they just simply arent as effective as a Pistol or Rifle.

Yes you can sight down the barrel, but its much harder to aim and fire one accurately in a combat situation vs a Shotgun, Pistol or Rifle.

At the very least a damage penalty at closer range, and a TU and Accuracy Penalty for moving...

I agree with most of suppositions of your post, however, I can see no logical reason to lower the damage of ANY weapon because it is used at close range. That is completely contradictory to the laws of physics and counterintuitive for the players.

Assuming the sniper rifle is OP (I don't think it is BTW) then the best way to balance the sniper rifle is to raise the TU costs to fire. It takes a long time to prepare and aim a long range shot. Several seconds, in fact, even under the best circumstances. So at a minimum the TU cost for an AIMED shot should be very high.

Also, I might be wrong, but doesn't the sniper rifle already receive the heavy weapon penalty where accuracy is substanially reduced for the turn where you move? Another penalty that could be applied is the "recoil" penalty, although, I'm not sure exactly how that one works, I just know it exists.

If people think the sniper rifle is too good compared to the AR and just want the AR to be more appealing then I think the place that needs to change is on the AR side not sniper rifle side.

One thing Aaron should strongly consider is applying the "heavy" weapon accuracy penalty ANY time a soldier is not crouched, even if they have not moved. And, potentially, increasing the amount of the penalty too. None of the heavy weapons is designed to be fired from a standing position much less on the move. (You'll never see a real life sniper firing from a standing position unless there is no other choice.) That would only take a minor code change. That would force people to properly set up heavy weapons and make them super lousy for close combat.

Edited July 19, 2013 by StellarRat

[Mytheos]

@StellarRat

Does the damage in the game vary? Yes.

Why?

"Winging" someone doesnt do as much damage as a headshot. (Its harder to headshot than to graze or cause a fleshwound, requiring a more accurate shot)

Less accuracy translates to a higher probably of you not hitting your target and therefore causing less damage because you shot them in the arm not the heart/head.

My thought would be in a combat situation, sighting down a barrel on a sniper riffle...would be difficult to move and and then take aim (TU Penalty) The shots you could take would be very low if bolt action, and if not then you probably dont see many sniper rifles with a 20 round clip, so you would try to get a good shot before you pulled the trigger.

The enemies are assumed to be in a combat situation and not standing still, of course making it a bit harder.

But would sighting down a sniper rifle give you better accuracy at 20 feet than a rifle sighted down the barrel?

Probably not, its more the gun's accuracy, so really they should be equal to a rifle at that distance. However you ARE taking more time to line up a shot due to bolt action or ammo, so with that you should get a bit more accurate shot...but you are really just trading Time for Accuracy.

The whole point of a sniper rifle really is the use of a scope, and if you arent using it, you loose a large bit of the gun's advantage...

So I see nothing wrong from it in a reality perspective, and the Devs want to balance Sniper Rifles, they dont want people to just use 2 "Classes" they want them to feel that each "Class" can bring something useful. The mix might be changed up of course due to play style...but for how popular Half Sniper and Half Machine Gun squads are now...means something is off.

I just thought if you specialized them more (Reduced Accuracy in Close Range, or closer to a rifle) and a bump in TU for a move n shoot would mostly do it, so Standing still you have the TUs = 30/50 so if you move its 45/65 or whatever.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Mytheos

[Mytheos]

I agree with most of suppositions of your post, however, I can see no logical reason to lower the damage of ANY weapon because it is used at close range. That is completely contradictory to the laws of physics and counterintuitive for the players.

Assuming the sniper rifle is OP (I don't think it is BTW) then the best way to balance the sniper rifle is to raise the TU costs to fire. It takes a long time to prepare and aim a long range shot. Several seconds, in fact, even under the best circumstances. So at a minimum the TU cost for an AIMED shot should be very high.

Also, I might be wrong, but doesn't the sniper rifle already receive the heavy weapon penalty where accuracy is substanially reduced for the turn where you move? Another penalty that could be applied is the "recoil" penalty, although, I'm not sure exactly how that one works, I just know it exists.

If people think the sniper rifle is too good compared to the AR and just want the AR to be more appealing then I think the place that needs to change is on the AR side not sniper rifle side.

One thing Aaron should strongly consider is applying the "heavy" weapon accuracy penalty ANY time a soldier is not crouched, even if they have not moved. And, potentially, increasing the amount of the penalty too. None of the heavy weapons is designed to be fired from a standing position much less on the move. (You'll never see a real life sniper firing from a standing position unless there is no other choice.) That would only take a minor code change. That would force people to properly set up heavy weapons and make them super lousy for close combat.

Yeah the have to be crouched is a good first thought, but being crouched in this game means having a hard time shooting over a Wall, other soldiers, cover, and so forth.

[StellarRat]

The whole point of a sniper rifle really is the use of a scope, and if you arent using it, you loose a large bit of the gun's advantage...

It really depends on how close you are and what kind of scope you have. For most scoped rifles getting close means that your shots can become even more lethal because you can easily take a head shot or aim for the heart (or whatever vital organs the alien has.) However, you are right at some point the scope will become a liability. It really just depends on the rifle and the scope. I think we're talking under 30 feet here though. Also, you can buy "see through" scope mounts that allow to you use the iron sights too. So, that problem can be easily overcome.

[StellarRat]

Yeah the have to be crouched is a good first thought, but being crouched in this game means having a hard time shooting over a Wall, other soldiers, cover, and so forth.

Yeah, and those are realistic problems a sniper has to deal with. Anytime you're standing up your accuracy is going to be decreased. That's true for all weapons, but it really affects snipers a lot more because they need solid positioning to hit with long range fire. It's very distracting to have your sight picture wobbling all over the place and it takes much longer to get off a good shot. Obviously you could use a wall or whatever you're shooting over as a brace, but Xenonauts doesn't take that into account for any weapon so I don't have a problem with it. I really think my crouching idea is the best thing I've come up with in a while. Edited July 19, 2013 by StellarRat

[svidangel]

Unfortunately it'd be more work, but I think another way to buff the regular rifle would be to give it a "Fire on the run" mode. You pick the target for burst fire, then pick the target square to run to (40 TUs worth of movement). In effect it would work as if you were shooting while running, but in game I expect it would be easier to implement by having the burst fire go off, then the run.

At least it is a way of buffing the rifle, rather than focusing on nerfing the sniping, and it helps with mobility which is a large part of what the rifle is good for anyway.

[StellarRat]

Unfortunately it'd be more work, but I think another way to buff the regular rifle would be to give it a "Fire on the run" mode. You pick the target for burst fire, then pick the target square to run to (40 TUs worth of movement). In effect it would work as if you were shooting while running, but in game I expect it would be easier to implement by having the burst fire go off, then the run.

At least it is a way of buffing the rifle, rather than focusing on nerfing the sniping, and it helps with mobility which is a large part of what the rifle is good for anyway.

Wouldn't cutting the TUs to fire the AR accomplish the same thing?

[GizmoGomez]

Wouldn't cutting the TUs to fire the AR accomplish the same thing?

Not quite, but essentially. It'd require more clicks of the mouse, but it'd be the same thing, more or less.

What if we made rifles require the same TUs per shot as a shotgun?

Basically, make shotguns a high damage, short range, high accuracy (only at short range) weapon.

Then make rifles a medium damage, medium range, medium/high accuracy weapon.

Since the factors balance out (damage vs range vs accuracy) should they get the same TU cost?

Carbines would have a lower cost-per-shot, because they operate more like pistols; volume of fire is the name of their game. Really, I think of them more like submachine guns. Relatively low power rounds (compared to a rifle and especially to a shotgun) that deal as much or just more damage than a pistol, with high capacity clips, and a low (not quite pistol low) TU cost per shot. They'd also be less accurate than a shotgun slightly, in that every shot wouldn't hit every time (but due to the sheer volume of shots you'd not have a less good gun). So, this'd give us low damage, short range, and medium/high accuracy, giving us a lower TU cost (since the factors are overall less than a shotgun or a rifle)

Pistols are low damage, short range, and medium accuracy, so they'd have an even lower TU cost-per-shot than a carbine (but they should be similar; remember, the pistol has an advantage in that it's one handed).

Snipers are high damage, long range, and high accuracy, meaning their TU cost-per-shot must be very high. Also, I like the idea of making the heavy weapon penalty apply whenever you're not crouching; that'd make sense.

[svidangel]

Wouldn't cutting the TUs to fire the AR accomplish the same thing?

No. There would be no change to lining up a snap shot or aimed shot, but it would give you autoshot for free, as you move

[Black Cat]

I could see an accuracy nerf for non crouched shooting to sniper rifles. But I have to echo the "Don't touch the damage at short" bit.

Our guys are elite soldiers. While it may be harder to be precise with a sniper rifle at 20 feet or less. The fact is our guys "should" be proficient enough that at 20 feet or less they aren't missing anyways unless under heavy fire. And while I am all for bending reality to make it fit the game. I guarantee you get hit by a 7.62 round from 20 feet you aren't going to care if it came from a sniper rifle, assault rifle, or some kind of whacked out modified SMG. It is going to hurt and hurt about the same regardless of platform used to deliver it.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Black Cat

[DNK]

Civ isn't a good example of a hardcore series, imo, because the latest iteration of the series is vastly simpler than its predecessor, in part to please the people who don't want to figure out all the complexities of a game.

And as StellarRat said, that was a huge problem. Additionally, CiV is still way more complex than Xenonauts by a large margin, especially with the newest expansion. They've been gradually reintroducing complexity into the game after the original launch. Says something.

It appears I'm defending a position no one's attacking anyway, so reading failure on my part.

I beg to differ that the AI is as good as XCOM's, whatever variant (I've played most variants I think). Yes, the XCOM AI did some equally stupid things, like standing in the open, but they at least moved when under fire, used grenades, used melee effectively, used rockets, used hover, and generally posed a much larger challenge (again, I think lowered accuracy was important as well as a lack of suppression since you'd actually have to face return fire regularly, which you don't in Xeno).

I've never really seen the Xeno AI do anything other than move a few tiles from their start position, then move back, crouch, uncrouch, crouch again, and occasionally enter a building. Maybe this has changed a lot since V18 stable.

[Mytheos]

And as StellarRat said, that was a huge problem. Additionally, CiV is still way more complex than Xenonauts by a large margin, especially with the newest expansion. They've been gradually reintroducing complexity into the game after the original launch. Says something.

It appears I'm defending a position no one's attacking anyway, so reading failure on my part.

I beg to differ that the AI is as good as XCOM's, whatever variant (I've played most variants I think). Yes, the XCOM AI did some equally stupid things, like standing in the open, but they at least moved when under fire, used grenades, used melee effectively, used rockets, used hover, and generally posed a much larger challenge (again, I think lowered accuracy was important as well as a lack of suppression since you'd actually have to face return fire regularly, which you don't in Xeno).

I've never really seen the Xeno AI do anything other than move a few tiles from their start position, then move back, crouch, uncrouch, crouch again, and occasionally enter a building. Maybe this has changed a lot since V18 stable.

A lot of what you are mentioning is based on the AI not being finished, and the Alien Stats being worked on.

Moved when under fire - I have seen Xenos in 19-4 retreat away from you when pinned down and force you to respot them (Giving them another reaction fire chance

Used Grenades - I assume they will use them at some point, but I think the Devs want to work out the foundation first before they add something as complex as this to the AI.

Used Melee Effectively - I think that is either due to stats and/or Alien Behavior AI. The Aliens have the same stats in v18 so they tend to act the same, even though they have VERY different roles and SHOULD use very different Tactics.

*Example is Chrysalids, they are melee and should have alarmingly high TUs, which allows them to run at your guys and get their zombie swarm on. However in 19-2 they didnt seem to have a lot of TUs, and I just saw them move to cover and just sit there crying, helpless as I casually shot and killed them. This could be lack of TUs to "Use" the proper AI/Tactics, or it could just be that the AI behavior is the same as a Caesan. Either way we have to expect stuff like that will function correctly at some point.

Used Rockets - Well the Plasma Cannon is the new Blaster Launcher...and they do use that..so...Hard to compare.

Used Hover - Aliens dont seem capable of climbing stairs, so lets assume use of hovering will come, 2nd level combat just isnt in the game yet.

Yes suppression gives soldiers a HUGE advantage, and it is OP right now, thus why I proposed....

Either adding multiple suppression levels, that once achieved limits the range they can reaction fire in.

So for example, say an Alien can see and Reaction fire 20 tiles. Suppression Level - 1 = They now can only reaction fire within 15 tiles, Level-2 = They can only reaction fire within 10 Tiles, and Level-3 = They can only reaction fire within 5 tiles.

This way there would be risk to clubbing Aliens to death, and it would take more that a single round of Machine gun fire to turn the Aliens completely harmless.

Or

Put a suppression bar above their head, and have it "fill up" and as it gets filled up, it drains away their TUs. So in order to render them "Harmless" you'd have to drain away their TUs instead of winning a dice roll and instantly being granted a Harmless Alien.

This would also allow more balance for the different types of weapons, an added layer to help differentiate them possibly.

Though I dont know if suppression works as, hit this #, say 50 and the Alien is suppressed and each weapon does suppression damage (Think stun damage and knocking an Alien out) or if each weapon just has a % Chance to Suppress.

[Mytheos]

I could see an accuracy nerf for non crouched shooting to sniper rifles. But I have to echo the "Don't touch the damage at short" bit.

Our guys are elite soldiers. While it may be harder to be precise with a sniper rifle at 20 feet or less. The fact is our guys "should" be proficient enough that at 20 feet or less they aren't missing anyways unless under heavy fire. And while I am all for bending reality to make it fit the game. I guarantee you get hit by a 7.62 round from 20 feet you aren't going to care if it came from a sniper rifle, assault rifle, or some kind of whacked out modified SMG. It is going to hurt and hurt about the same regardless of platform used to deliver it.

My point for lowering damage in close range for Sniper rifles is based on the idea, that the reason a sniper rifle does more damage vs a rifle is...

#1 Higher velocity and Caliber ( Force = Mass X Acceleration )

#2 Shots are more accurate, therefore hit more vital areas like the Head or the Heart.

If you graze a person with a rifle or a sniper rifle the damage is going to have a negligible difference, if any at all.

So if you are in close range with a Sniper rifle, you arent going to be using the scope, you have the same accuracy as a normal rifle.

(At 20-30 feet the sniper rifle has no accuracy advantage sighted down the barrel, at 1,000 feet tho it has a massive accuracy advantage)

However you are going to take better aim with a sniper rifle, so you spend more time to line up a shot, due to either ammo constraints or reload times (Bolt-Action).

Same with having a Dillinger 2 shot, you dont run in the room guns blazing...why? You miss you are screwed. You only have 2 Bullets in the gun so you have to make them count, so your accuracy would be better because you take more time to aim.

So yes you would hit more often, due to taking the time to aim, however I dont think you can expect head and heart shots as the norm.

I think you would see many more flesh wounds, and Arm/Leg wounds vs sitting back at 1,000 feet comfortably and using a scope which would result in mostly head and heart shots, IE more damage.

Does that make sense now?

[Mytheos]

@Devs and whoever can offer their experiences

What is the idea or goal with Psi attacks?

Pre-19-4 I have only ever been attacked 1 time, and it failed. With 19-4, once and it failed.

I noticed Caesan in Purple Shirts on the mission I was Psi Attacked...they are the ones responsible?

I have multiples of them on one mission, and still only ever the 1 attack, and I ended up fighting 2 purple shirts and 1 blue shirt all at the same time, and still no Psi attacks, and I spent like 3 rounds to kill them all.

Is my bravery too high so they dont even bother?

Can they do it multiple times like in XCOM? Or is it a 1 time per ground mission per Alien type of thing?

[Max_Smirnov]

1. You're forgetting that taking time to aim is represented by higher AP cost... Are you implying that a soldier is more accurate because he tries harder? And that he doesn't try that hard when firing an assault rifle, for example? I think your ideas are superfluous. Sniper rifles are unfit for CqC because of high AP cost, awful reaction time, low ammo reserves and lack of rapid fire. In short: LOGIC. Adding an extra, purely artificial mechanic to further decrease that usefulness is an insult to the existing combat system and the player, in my opinion.

2. Psionic attacks by Caesans are rare indeed, especially if your bravery is any good. Main psionic attackers are SPOILER ALERT, um, let's say, the Etheral-equivalents.

[Mytheos]

1. You're forgetting that taking time to aim is represented by higher AP cost... Are you implying that a soldier is more accurate because he tries harder? And that he doesn't try that hard when firing an assault rifle, for example? I think your ideas are superfluous. Sniper rifles are unfit for CqC because of high AP cost, awful reaction time, low ammo reserves and lack of rapid fire. In short: LOGIC. Adding an extra, purely artificial mechanic to further decrease that usefulness is an insult to the existing combat system and the player, in my opinion.

2. Psionic attacks by Caesans are rare indeed, especially if your bravery is any good. Main psionic attackers are SPOILER ALERT, um, let's say, the Etheral-equivalents.

I know this topic has run for several posts, but I did talk about the higher TU and what it represented.

And yes I am not implying, I am saying it is a fact a soldier would be more accurate when he takes more time to line up a shot.

Go grab a gun, stand around a corner, and then move around the corner and fire at a Static target, give yourself 2 seconds to take aim and fire, 5 seconds, and 8 seconds.

Do you really feel there would be no difference?

Now try the same thing with a "live" target.

And now once more against an armed human...

And finally against an Unknown Alien with a Plasma Weapon that can shot holes through buildings.

I think you'll find nothing surprising about the results.

So yes, I think spending 5 seconds to take a shot, when you are removed from danger, 1,000 feet away, using a scope will provide much better accuracy than running around an enclosed UFO, turning a corner and spending 5 seconds to take a shot, while sighting down a barrel and not using a scope.

But in any case Sniper Rifles ARE being used by people all the time, in nearly every situation, even in close quarters now, which is why the Devs are looking for ways to Nerf them.

I simply suggested a small damage reduction in close range, and perhaps more TU required if you move then shoot.

This would "help" keep the sniper rifle being used as a sniper rifle, which honestly has no business being used as a breach weapon...just like in real life.

[Mytheos]

But just to specify I was saying in close combat a 30 TU rifle shot would be equal to a 30TU Sniper rifle shot in terms of accuracy, as at the range of 20-30 feet the guns are equally as accurate, and the scope is not in use and therefore removes the primary reason sniper rifles are more accurate.

[StellarRat]

But just to specify I was saying in close combat a 30 TU rifle shot would be equal to a 30TU Sniper rifle shot in terms of accuracy, as at the range of 20-30 feet the guns are equally as accurate, and the scope is not in use and therefore removes the primary reason sniper rifles are more accurate.

OK, that post actually made sense! However, all things being equal, the sniper is still more deadly per shot due to a MUCH more powerful round. We're talking about a REAL rifle round vs. an AR round, BIG difference in terms of power. Yes, the AR will definitely trump the sniper rifle in close combat. Higher rate of fire, less recoil, auto fire option those are all advantages at close range. However, if you're trying to kill some big and tough, you'll want the sniper round. It's a medium sized BIG game round in some cases and could kill an elk or bear. If it's .50 cal like some of the sniper rifles they use these days, you're talking about killing a lightly armored vehicle with an AP round. You always have to bear in mind that assault rifle ammo is designed to kill and incapacitate puny HUMANS. It's basically designed for combat under 300m against HUMANS, with the thought in mind that smaller ammo means you can carry more rounds, make the weapon lighter, and make auto fire easy because of light recoil and plentiful ammo. In my State, .223 is the minimum allowable ammo for deer hunting. The .223 round has 939 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle, the .44 magnum PISTOL has 1200, the 7mm mag rifle (common sniper rifle) has 3100 foot pounds, and the .50 Barrett sniper rifle has 10K - 15K FP at the muzzle! You're talking about total destruction of body parts with the 7mm and .50 cal. Edited July 21, 2013 by StellarRat

[Mytheos]

Yeah but again tho, in close combat you do have a larger round, but are you putting it through an arm or a head?

Where it hits has to do with ultimately how much damage it does.

1,000 feet cool as a cucumber, with a scope = head

20 feet in a dark UFO with unknown Aliens lurking about = Probably in the general direction at best lol, so you'd have to expect more less damaging shots hitting shoulders, arms, legs and so forth, and a MUCH lower number of head and heart shots.

I mean hell lets be honest, even experienced soldiers would be so on edge in that situation, a guy behind them in their squad could sneeze and they'd probably need a change of pants.

Doesnt help they are using a weapon designed for long range combat that functions less than spectacular in close combat.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Mytheos

[StellarRat]

Yeah but again tho, in close combat you do have a larger round, but are you putting it through an arm or a head?

Where it hits has to do with ultimately how much damage it does.

1,000 feet cool as a cucumber, with a scope = head

20 feet in a dark UFO with unknown Aliens lurking about = Probably in the general direction at best lol, so you'd have to expect more less damaging shots hitting shoulders, arms, legs and so forth, and a MUCH lower number of head and heart shots.

I mean hell lets be honest, even experienced soldiers would be so on edge in that situation, a guy behind them in their squad could sneeze and they'd probably need a change of pants.

Doesnt help they are using a weapon designed for long range combat that functions less than spectacular in close combat.

If there is anything wrong with the balance it would HAVE TO be the TUs to fire each one. If it was me and I only could get off ONE shot I'd pick the sniper rifle anytime. You could hit something other than a vital part with either one, but all thing being equal I'd rather have the part destroyed, you can die from having your leg blown off pretty quickly. A sniper rifle will be no less accurate, but it's not going to get off the rounds as quickly, so there is less "forgiveness" if you miss. It's going to boil down to many targets you have to engage in a certain time span. Having fired a .30-06 and a .223 I can personally tell you that they are a world apart. The .30-06 with a soft lead bullet nearly shattered a 12" tree trunk. The bark on the back side was bowed out a good inch or two and maybe 3 inches wide, while a .223 full metal jacket just put a small hole in it and did nothing on the back side.

IMO, you should be able to get off 2 - 3 AR bursts OR about 5 single snaps in the time it takes to fire 2 snapshots from the sniper rifle. That's based on personal experience. So, to me, the TUs to fire the AR are WAY too high compared to the sniper. Also, the comparative damage is off, obviously. You aren't going to get up from a sniper rifle hit unless it's in the hand or a graze, you MIGHT get up from an AR hit in the arm. In the legs, forget it for either, you are combat ineffective or you bleed to death. You're done until the medic arrives.

Since we're on the subject of "real life" sort of. I can assure you that ALL explosions are VERY suppressive. The one and only BIG explosion I was in pretty much put me out of action for a good 15 - 30 seconds and even after a minute I was pretty much useless. My world rocked and the ground moved like an earthquake, and I was basically only partially there for while and had no concept of what happened. There was a dust cloud that pretty much was as good as any smoke screen you could make too. Even after I recovered my thought process, I was completely deaf, that alone makes doing anything harder and obviously taking orders is impossible not mention you are so scared that you literally are shaking even though you don't want to be. Some of my hearing came back after about 5 minutes with a hissing sound followed by loud ringing for the rest of the day and the next. So there you go... A great argument for the effective of flash bangs and any other explosive ordnance at least against humans.

Edited July 21, 2013 by StellarRat

[Mytheos]

If there is anything wrong with the balance it would HAVE TO be the TUs to fire each one. If it was me and I only could get off ONE shot I'd pick the sniper rifle anytime. You could hit something other than a vital part with either one, but all thing being equal I'd rather have the part destroyed, you can die from having your leg blown off pretty quickly. A sniper rifle will be no less accurate, but it's not going to get off the rounds as quickly, so there is less "forgiveness" if you miss. It's going to boil down to many targets you have to engage in a certain time.

Exactly why it takes more TUs to fire, you really want to take an extra second or two and make it count.

And when I say a damage penalty at close range I'm not talking half damage, I'm just saying maybe 10-15% to start and go from there.

Which is honestly realistic unless the guy is the Harlem Globetrotter of head shots.

I mean really, if you changed the TUs from 30-40-50 to 40-50-60 if you moved, knock off 15% damage in close range, and lower accuracy per TU to be "closer" to a rifle...that would tone down Snipers and make rifles look a bit more attractive.

The 30 TU rifle shot is roughly equivalent to a 30 TU sniper shot at close range part in terms of accuracy, would help as well.

Of course rifles probably could use a few tweaks too...but thats another conversation.

But if you did all that, you'd have to test it out of course, maybe it wouldnt even be enough, who knows, but its a start, and it doesnt make Sniper rifles suck, it just makes you think running 4 Sniper and 4 Heavies maybe isnt quite as good/flexible as say 3 snipers, 3 heavies, and 2 rifles.

If you accomplish that level of balance from where we are now, I think you're doing a great job.

[StellarRat]

As far as I'm concerned the TU for the first AR snap and shotgun snap and sniper rifle snap should be equal. The problem comes when trying to assign TU for the next shot. Reload time is not a variable in the XML except for putting a new magazine in. To really do it right you need a TU cost for getting the next round into the chamber. That's where the AR wins hands down over the sniper rifle.

The aimed shot from the sniper rifle should take nearly your entire turn however, that's where the other big difference ought to be. The AR burst is a weird thing because basically, it really doesn't take much longer than a snap shot, the aiming happens BEFORE you fire either a single or burst. You ought to really have an AIMED burst and a SNAP burst. Once you pull the trigger it's done either way. Those three shots go down range instantly. The only reason to use burst fire is to make sure something is REALLY dead and to suppress. At close range against a large creature putting three rounds into it is an obvious advantage, but at medium to long range odds are only one or two of the rounds are going to hit the target due to the barrel moving after the first round

Edited July 21, 2013 by StellarRat

[svidangel]

Maybe the sniper rifle accuracy should be reduced slightly, but will go up the more turns you are crouched and stationary? Require new coding again though..

Also having regular explosions through up some smoke wouldn't be bad either.