Thoughts on increased randomness

[Mytheos]

Not to mention there is not only distance effecting accuracy there is also the additional effect of within 5 tiles adding a bonus to accuracy.

So I guess I just find it weird it's ok to make range effect accuracy, and then make "close" range effect it even more...

...but range should have nothing to do with whether you hit someone in the eye socket or glance his ankle...

[StellarRat]

If I was my game I'd just have it be "damage by range" with a variable amount of damage. A zero damage shot would be drawn as a miss. I really think the current system is good enough. In some ways I think it's better than JA2 where you can't hit crap even with a rifle unless it appears to be nearly on top of you.

[kabill]

I just tested it, if you turn the damage varience to 0, the damage doesnt seem to vary based on range.

I quickly tested it, and by no means was it a solid test, but after about 20 hits on something without cover and varying ranges, the damage didnt vary a single point.

So that would strongly indicate that it doesnt now.

So now there is only a +/- 50% damage, and range has nothing to do with it.

So headshot at point blank is the same chance as head shot at max range.

Does that include damage beyond operational range?

[StellarRat]

Does that include damage beyond operational range?

Good thing to test. It should drop with range past the OPR (at least.)

[Mytheos]

In the end the whole concept is to simulate reality.

This is a game, and we play by the rules, and if the rules and governing mechanics are realistic, we do realistic things...which is cool.

However when we start missing multiple layers of detail we end up with stuff that just doesnt feel right, and the more stuff we can use to make something feel right the better.

We have accuracy...and what effects it is ever evolving from Soldier stats + weapons + Cover + Crouching + Range + Close Range Bonus and so forth.

Maybe at first it was felt to be too complex to have all that stuff, but the reason you add it in is because it makes the game better and you realize it makes some things possible to be balanced and "feel right" where without some of those things you can only get so far.

Shotguns for example have been one of the hardest things to balance, they are a complex tool that has a large variance in how you use them.

And you need some layers of game mechanics to be able to simulate it properly, and just like there were complaints about missing 2 out of 3 times point blank with a shotgun, you couldnt just fix it with what they had, so they added in the Close Range Bonus to help it out for example.

And variable damage has a huge effect on gameplay, and making sure you give that mechanic all the support it needs to do what its supposed to do should be very important.

If all it does is spice up the damage, then set it to 20% and move on. If you want it to simulate the effect of hitting people in the head and arms (Major damage difference) then you need to understand thats not something you can accomplish by simply setting a flat +/- damage percentage.

[Mytheos]

Does that include damage beyond operational range?

Didnt test that.

But either way it should be effected by more than a flat + or - X%

[StellarRat]

Even if everyone agrees with you convincing Chris and Aaron to make such a change this late in the balancing process would be hard. If I was them I wouldn't do it because I wouldn't want to have re-balance the weapons again. Personally, I think what we have is good enough and the game plays just fine IMO at least in that regard. Maybe in a future expansion or revision.

[Mytheos]

They JUST added the whole variable damage thing, this isnt something that falls under wait for an expansion its too late to change.

They just changed it.

Its no different than adding in the close range damage bonus, which was added recently as well.

[Mytheos]

But whatever, we'll wait and see what happens as always.

I guess I'm weird and most people think having the difference between 3 shots with a shotgun being 90 or 270 damage is no major thing and will go mostly unnoticed.

I mean the average of 100 shots is about 180, surely a bad roll on 3 shots causing a massive variance that gets more out of whack the more damage a weapon does wont be noticed much.

Do you really think that?

Talking about a 5-15 damage range is one thing, but a 40-120 damage range is a bit different.

And that is going to place more emphasis on RNG vs player skill which in a tactics game is nearly always bad.

I like the added variable damage, but it just needs to be supported, is all I am saying, variable accuracy wasnt solved in a single variable, and I cant imagine damage will be so easy it can.

[StellarRat]

They JUST added the whole variable damage thing, this isnt something that falls under wait for an expansion its too late to change.

They just changed it.

Well, yes and no, the baseline damage really hasn't changed because the average will still be the same over time. Your asking for a change that will increase all the damage at closer ranges dramatically, IMO.

As far as making the game more a matter of luck: I think the game has enough troops and aliens that the average outcome will remain the same i.e. enough shots are fired in an OP that results will be the same. Good tactics, troops and equipment will still carry the day. If you only had ONE soldier on the field I'd probably think differently. If makes any difference, the soldiers I've known that actually were in combat all say they were lucky and their training saved them. At an individual level I think it always seems like luck and training.

Edited August 19, 2013 by StellarRat

[Mytheos]

Well, yes and no, the baseline damage really hasn't changed because the average will still be the same over time. Your asking for a change that will increase all the damage at closer ranges dramatically, IMO.

There is the Forrest and the Trees, and sometimes you miss the tree part.

XCOM isnt a game of 100 shots, XCOM is a game of 3-4 shots.

And yes there is a very realistic chance of 3 shots killing 3 Aliens or 3 shots killing nothing...and that makes a huge difference...one too large to leave so random.

If they wanted they could split the + and - and max range it was +25% -50% and by the time you hit close range it was +50% - 25%

Whatever, there are probably 10 ways to do something with it.

[Ishantil]

How long have you guys been going back and forth like this?

[Mytheos]

How long have you guys been going back and forth like this?

Its what we do, and dont think for a moment we both dont love it lol

[Ishantil]

Well, it seems like the both of you love to argue.

[cody522]

Those guys are going to get more hits because they're better shots and can fire more often anyway. Should even more damage be added on top of that? I'd say no.

How about this then, the damage variance increases slightly if you go from snap shot, to normal, to aimed ? If you're aiming, the soldier more than likely will hit a vital organ than he would if he shot from the hip. I do not like the idea of this system entirely focusing on luck alone.

[StellarRat]

There is the Forrest and the Trees, and sometimes you miss the tree part.

XCOM isnt a game of 100 shots, XCOM is a game of 3-4 shots.

And yes there is a very realistic chance of 3 shots killing 3 Aliens or 3 shots killing nothing...and that makes a huge difference...one too large to leave so random.

If they wanted they could split the + and - and max range it was +25% -50% and by the time you hit close range it was +50% - 25%

Whatever, there are probably 10 ways to do something with it.

OK, since this match is only going to a TV time limit, per Ishantil our ref, my final comment, it's not 3 - 4 shots, it's 3 - 4 per soldier so that's 30 - 40 or more not counting the aliens. I sometimes even fire my LMG into a space where I think an alien might be hoping for hit. That actually works sometimes and is done IRL.

[Ishantil]

Oh, feel free to continue. I was just making popcorn is all.

[StellarRat]

Oh, feel free to continue. I was just making popcorn is all.

Oh no, no...I'm done. Executive Summary: I think the system is good enough. Myth thinks we should add another factor for firing.

[Ishantil]

I think we should have hit locations and damage modifiers. But that would involve a whole set of new code.

[Ol' Stinky]

Agreed, but IF you KNOW you wont die if you walk in a room and trigger a reaction shot...(Because math told you so)

Are you scared at ALL to walk into the room? No.

Can you walk in trigger a shot and live? Yes

Can you walk in, get hit, walk out, walk another guy in, get and and repeat that until the Alien is out of TUs? Yes.

And that is bad. And really its the way you'd end up doing it in many situations toward towards the end of a mission when you knew there was probably only 1-2 Aliens left like after you clear the map and are on the top floor of a Cruiser/Landing ship.

Why not just walk in and absorb reaction shots 1 soldier at a time?

A with a 5% chance of getting 1 shot killed for example, it really shouldnt be a big deal. But you'd still rather find a better way.

With 0% chance of death, who cares, just do it cheesy.

You'd find the better way anyway, because you don't want soldiers taken out of action. If healing up soldiers is really that trivial right now, that is what should be looked at.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Ol' Stinky

[Aaron]

I am really unconvinced we'd gain anything from adding hit locations or damage modifiers - can anyone explain the advantage it would bring in a concise way?

I am also quite amused by how hard done by people feel about the damage spread - all you cynics! It's always "the game cheated me out of my soldier" rather than the other 50% of the time where it is "I thought my soldier was toast but the RNG saved his ass!". No love for RNG?

At the end of the day, I think enforcing a level of randomisation like this means you need to plan your actions in the game in a more organic and realistic way - General Montgomery did not know for certain that 3 of his tanks had a 75% chance to defeat 2 of Rommel's panzers (though he knew a dozen had an even better chance...); any commander in the real world must plan for screw ups, reversals, unexpected foes and - even - surprise victories. In Xenonauts you should be trying to build a team that is resilient to unexpected losses.

[Ishantil]

It adds realism, for one. You can trigger different types of bleeding and other deleterious effects from the target location. Head damage from concussion (from grenades, say) or accuracy penalties from arm damage, and movement (TU) damage from leg damage.

[EchoFourDelta]

At the end of the day, I think enforcing a level of randomisation like this means you need to plan your actions in the game in a more organic and realistic way - General Montgomery did not know for certain that 3 of his tanks had a 75% chance to defeat 2 of Rommel's panzers (though he knew a dozen had an even better chance...); any commander in the real world must plan for screw ups, reversals, unexpected foes and - even - surprise victories. In Xenonauts you should be trying to build a team that is resilient to unexpected losses.

This is sophistry. In real life, you're not planning down to the individual number of rounds fired from a magazine by troops in the assault against an unknown number of combatants over absolutely unknown terrain, either, because real enemies don't have X HP, and different guns don't do Y damage.

This is, however, the case in Xenonauts.

Edited August 20, 2013 by EchoFourDelta

[Max_Caine]

Hit locations isn't a particularly good idea, because historically, most games that has ever featured separated hit locations inevitably lead to the following:

So much this.

There's no shot like the double damage shot.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Max_Caine
changed "every" to "most" because sweeping generalisations have their exceptions

[kabill]

Hit locations isn't a particularly good idea, because historically, most games that has ever featured separated hit locations inevitably lead to the following:

So much this.

There's no shot like the double damage shot.

That assumes you can choose what you aim for. If you simply have hit locations, with the location hit determined randomly/based on the accuracy of the shot, there's no problem with this.

In an ideal world, I'd quite like locational damage. I'd mostly want it so that injuries have an effect other than having less hp, however, which is something I feel's missing from Xenonauts. In terms of just a damage number, though, I'm perfectly happy with a random damage roll as a low-tech, easy to code and balance substitute.

I am also quite amused by how hard done by people feel about the damage spread - all you cynics! It's always "the game cheated me out of my soldier" rather than the other 50% of the time where it is "I thought my soldier was toast but the RNG saved his ass!". No love for RNG?

I have plenty of love for the RNG. I consider a wounded soldier a blessing, because it means they're not dead.