Thoughts on increased randomness

[StellarRat]

Another part of the reason I advocate the variable is that it leads to higher volumes of fire directed at the aliens. IRL, lots of bullets are exchanged in infantry battles. It feels right to have to empty clips over the course of a mission. In 19.6, I often got away with 1 magazine being used per soldier. Kinda felt wrong to me. 19.7, I'm using a magazine and part of another in many cases: for me, that feels better.

I'm not so sure that's is why you're going through more ammo. I think the reason is more likely to be that a lot more long fire is exchanged in 19.7 because it's so dangerous to close now that you try finish them off without getting too close. At least that's what I've found. Also, I tend autofire a lot more now because it's so important to suppress the aliens since ground combat generally more dangerous due to the accuracy boost everything got in 19.6 and that obviously chews up a lot of ammo. I think the combat actually seems much "realistic" now because I'm using every piece of cover and only popping around corners and such to take a quick shot and get back to cover. So, the battles take longer and that by nature consumes a lot more ammo. That's how every "real" combat film I've ever seen looks too. No one just hangs out shooting in the open when there is even the slightest thing to hide behind.

[Mytheos]

Well it makes sense people use more ammo now, as many battles are going to require more shots to win.

If you can 1 shot an Alien with base damage, which becomes common when using Plasma vs lesser ranked Aliens, then all you need is base damage.

Getting a good roll on base damage +1 or +1,000 doesnt make a bit of difference in those cases (Which are often).

However getting lower than base will make you need to take more shots. This is where the law of averages fail to come out balanced.

Simple fact vs the previous build you are going to use more shots to kill something on average than before in many cases.

[GizmoGomez]

Is this a bad thing? I'm confused. In fact, in a situation where the base damage can one-shot an enemy would make the higher damage even more of a boon.

The law of averages does not become skewed, actually, because there's still that same chance to kill it.

Say you take 101 shots at 101 enemies with 100 health. The base damage for the shot is 50.

If it plays out perfectly, and lets say it does, you'd have an enemy with 25 health remaining (75 damage dealt), and enemy with 75 health remaining, and 99 other guys with HPs in between those two values, one of them taking 50 damage exactly. Not counting the one alien who took the base damage, half of them got better than the base damage, and half of them got worse.

50 better, 50 worse, 1 "expected".

Now, take a weapon that deals 100 base damage.

Now you have 50 still living aliens and 51 dead ones.

50 better, 50 worse, 1 "expected"

It just so happens that the "expected" gave us the ideal result we were shooting for, and that anything better gave us the same ideal result.

The fact that there's a possibility for "overkill" isn't relevant.

(In fact, there is no such thing as overkill. Only "Open Fire" and "Time to reload". )

Edited August 22, 2013 by GizmoGomez

[StellarRat]

Well, I don't have a problem with the ammo consumption or anything else they've done in GC so far. 19.7 is pretty awesome in my book. I'd like more stability and less alien TU cheats of course, but overall this is an excellent release.

Hopefuly, Chris and Aaron agree with my comment about the aliens using buildings more. Although, GJ may have solid tactical reasons not to. If he does, I'd like to hear what they are. I can't think of any.

[Mytheos]

Is this a bad thing? I'm confused. In fact, in a situation where the base damage can one-shot an enemy would make the higher damage even more of a boon.

The law of averages does not become skewed, actually, because there's still that same chance to kill it.

Say you take 101 shots at 101 enemies with 100 health. The base damage for the shot is 50.

If it plays out perfectly, and lets say it does, you'd have an enemy with 25 health remaining (75 damage dealt), and enemy with 75 health remaining, and 99 other guys with HPs in between those two values, one of them taking 50 damage exactly. Not counting the one alien who took the base damage, half of them got better than the base damage, and half of them got worse.

50 better, 50 worse, 1 "expected".

Now, take a weapon that deals 100 base damage.

Now you have 50 still living aliens and 51 dead ones.

50 better, 50 worse, 1 "expected"

It just so happens that the "expected" gave us the ideal result we were shooting for, and that anything better gave us the same ideal result.

The fact that there's a possibility for "overkill" isn't relevant.

(In fact, there is no such thing as overkill. Only "Open Fire" and "Time to reload". )

Umm...

I was pointing out that if an Alien had say 75 HP, and you shot it with a 80 damage weapon, there was a 100% chance of killing it.

Now if you roll a 75-120 you kill it, if you roll a 40-74 you dont. But I am saying if the base damage is enough to kill it, rolling better than that means nothing, therefore there is a chance of not killing it, whereas before there wasnt.

Yes if you couldnt 1 shot it before now maybe you can, doesnt average when the majority of enemies you see through the game are usually lower ranked ones.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Mytheos

[Mytheos]

Well, I don't have a problem with the ammo consumption or anything else they've done in GC so far. 19.7 is pretty awesome in my book. I'd like more stability and less alien TU cheats of course, but overall this is an excellent release.

Hopefuly, Chris and Aaron agree with my comment about the aliens using buildings more. Although, GJ may have solid tactical reasons not to. If he does, I'd like to hear what they are. I can't think of any.

I am sure this is just a situation of it being worked on, the AI that is. They AI probably just cant take advantage of it as well as they'd like atm.

There is no one that is going to say Aliens being in buildings and taking tactical advantage of them is a bad idea...unless they think that would make the game too hard or something.

Also we know Chris wants C4 to be more useable, and taking down a building with a couple of Aliens entrenched in it seems like something that would be crazy for them not to want as it would expand C4 viability greatly.

[Mytheos]

@GizmoGomez

I keep hearing over a 100 shots its average. But please realize that doesnt mean a whole lot.

This game is like baseball, you have games and you have missions, you have seasons and you have entire playthroughs.

If a player has a .250 batting average they hit 1 out of 4 times...on average.

But this doesnt mean anything when they are on a 0 for 14 slump over 4-5 games, or when they are on a hot streak batting .650 over the last 6 games.

And if your perception of the shotgun is that it sucks, you stop using it. So if your sample is from 10-12 shots taken you arent going to reach the 100 shot average mark before you decide it's worthless.

Either way, tactics are based on chances, and if your risk isnt consistent then people are going to shy away from anything but strong statistical advantages.

Which is fine, but I feel people should get more consistently expected results from things that have a higher risk, when dealing with life and death.

And close combat is more risky now, because getting a string of bad luck at long range means a longer battle, a bad streak of luck at close range means dead soldiers.

I have heard several comments already saying that close combat is way more dangerous than before and people are avoiding it where as before they enjoyed it.

If they could count on it more, they would do it more...and in reality getting closer with a weapon means you CAN count on it more, where as now in game you actually can count on it less.

I mean variable damage by definition isnt consistent, again at least over the 3-5 shots that decide a life or death.

[Mytheos]

Or another example if you dont have a good impression of baseball...

I hand you a 6 sided die, and say roll a 3+ and I give you a million dollars...roll a 1 or 2 and I shoot you in the face with a shotgun.

Why dont you want to roll the die? I mean over a 100 or 1,000 times rolling it, you have a 66% chance of winning a million dollars.

Because you "arent" rolling it 100 times, you're just rolling it once.

In the same respect you arent shooting a gun 3 tiles away 100 times, you are only dealing with a couple rolls.

(Edited because I thought I said 2+ lol)

Edited August 22, 2013 by Mytheos

[GizmoGomez]

How about I pull out my bag of d20s, hit you in the face, and steal the shotgun and the money and run away? (Kidding, that'd be ridiculous. There's more than just d20s in there.)

I see what you are trying to say. However, I don't agree with it.

I mean, what's wrong with getting shot in the face by a shotgun every once in a while (to use your metaphor; in reality that would suck)? If it were easy to figure out exactly how many shots from who and with what gun could kill this alien or that then it wouldn't be a very fun game, in my opinion, because you'd simply have to come up with the right formula, which you can then use every time. "Oh, here's a <insert alien here>, all I need is one rocket landing two tiles away, two hits from a precision rifle, and a pistol whip and I've got him!" Even if you don't have the proper "ingredients" you can improvise easily. "Hmm, I don't have enough TU for a precision rifle shot. That's okay, I just need to hit them with X rifle rounds to deal the same damage."

It just sounds rather lame. Random damage is a good thing because it makes the game somewhat unpredictable, even if it means we need to expend more ammo (which I'm still not convinced we need to do, for the following reason).

No matter how many times you are firing the gun, there's a 50/50 chance of getting a better than average outcome.

Even if their HP is the base damage, there's a 50/50 chance of getting a "better than average" result. (Which is kind of a misnomer considering that the average would indeed be the best you're looking for, that is, death of the alien, but whatever.) So what if you get two bum "rolls" in a row? That's how life is; unexpected pitfalls are everywhere. Who's to say that you won't get some nice high "rolls" in the next engagement?

[StellarRat]

Besides, wars are not fought one on one. In the end, the big picture is all that matters. If the dice are slightly in your favor in the end you win. This is the whole idea behind Las Vegas. Nearly every game is is about 50/50 to win, but house usually has a 1% - 2% advantage. That's all it takes when you are looking long term.

[Mytheos]

Again all for variable damage, just like it to be more consistent at close range.

Big picture means nothing when you are deciding is this move worth it.

No one says well maybe they die this time, but 7 out of 10 times they will live, so its ok, I'll continue to use this strat.

They say well I'm not going to use that tactic or weapon because inevitably I'll get burned.

Do you guys really not care if you loose 1 soldier every 10 missions or 3 soldiers every 10 missions?

Edited August 22, 2013 by Mytheos

[StellarRat]

Again all for variable damage, just like it to be more consistent at close range.

Big picture means nothing when you are deciding is this move worth it.

No one says well maybe they die this time, but 7 out of 10 times they will live, so its ok, I'll continue to use this strat.

They say well I'm not going to use that tactic because inevitably I'll get burned.

OK, but you can pretty execute most aliens with any weapon at point blank range provided you save enough TU to fire a few times. And a good commander always sends more than one unit on critical missions. Granted there is a chance things could horribly wrong and you'll lose a "sure" battle, but that happens IRL too! There are also victories where the odds seemed impossible.

[Mytheos]

I guess I am out of examples.

I really cant think of another way to say, when presented with a set of circumstances a player decides yes I'll do this, or no I wont.

They think about the 2-3 shots, the fact that they could hit for 30, 60 or 90...not the fact that over 1,000 shots I'll average 60.

I mean seriously, do you guys run out from cover to shoot an Alien 2 times and leave him hanging because you had a 55% chance to hit instead of taking 1 shot and then running back behind a wall just because out of 100 times, 55 of them you wont die?

Btw variable damage is behind the chance of hitting, so you dont ever KNOW you are going to finish off an Alien.

[Mytheos]

OK, but you can pretty execute most aliens with any weapon at point blank range provided you save enough TU to fire a few times. And a good commander always sends more than one unit on critical missions. Granted there is a chance things could horribly wrong and you'll lose a "sure" battle, but that happens IRL too! There are also victories where the odds seemed impossible.

Yeah but horribly wrong doesnt have nearly the same chance as goes normally...you know in real life. (Thats why it went horribly wrong, because the chances are 90% everything goes ok, and that 10% chance that something critically bad happens.)

Like I dont miss 3 times in a row and then blow off a finger with a shotgun point blank as often as I take 2 shots and put one in the head one in the chest...those being nearly equal just doesnt make sense...and nothing you can say can change that FACT.

[StellarRat]

I think 90% of your objections would be removed if a hit automatically suppressed the target. I still can't think of a reason why this isn't in the game.

[GizmoGomez]

That'd be rather nice, actually.

Where would flash bangs and LMGs be in that scenario?

[StellarRat]

"That'd be rather nice, actually.

Where would flash bangs and LMGs be in that scenario?"

You would still use them to suppress targets. They don't need a hit to suppress they can suppress multiple targets. In JA2 a hit always reduces your TU even the smallest hit will keep you from doing anything for the turn. The more damage you take the more you're suppressed in JA2, but I don't think it needs to be that fancy in Xenonauts.

Edited August 22, 2013 by StellarRat

[kabill]

I think 90% of your objections would be removed if a hit automatically suppressed the target. I still can't think of a reason why this isn't in the game.

I'm not so sure that always makes sense. For a roughly human-like-thing getting hit by a rifle round? Sure. For a super-tough genetically engineered alien with massive endurance and pain tolerance? Not so much.

If this was going to work, it would probably make sense to have damage cause suppression damage as well, rather than have a hit suppress a target automatically.

[Skitso]

I think I would enjoy JA2's system where injured units (excluding super-tough genetically engineered alien with massive endurance and pain tolerance ) lose AP's. You shouldn't be fully operational seconds after you've been shot. Pain, shock, out of breath, confusion, you name it. And the more you are hurt, the more AP's are lost. A partial AP loss should also be in effect until the unit is healed or maybe even until the end of the mission or until the unit is fully healed at the base..

Edited August 23, 2013 by Skitso

[Ishantil]

You should also lose APs from being wounded, I think. On both sides.

[Mytheos]

I think 90% of your objections would be removed if a hit automatically suppressed the target. I still can't think of a reason why this isn't in the game.

That really has nothing to do with any of my thoughts...I really wish I could figure out what angle you are viewing this from.

And 1 hit auto suppression would be terrible.

[Mytheos]

The idea is how you use close combat AFTER suppression, as using it before is suicide.

Think of this situation, you're outside a Corvette or whatever, there are Aliens inside. (This is general tactics not Master level)

Every time you open the door and toss a grenade or take shots, you suffer the risk of reaction shots, so if you end the turn with the Alien not dead, you are safe if you stay outside (Assuming the alien inside is suppressed)...however you have to start the process over again and once more risk reaction shots.

So after suppression if you run a guy in to point blank it and kill it, you end up leaving one guy inside, which exposes him to risk from any Aliens in the back room, if they happen to open the door and walk out into the first room.

If you dont manage to kill the Alien after running in because you missed too many time or got screwed on variable damage...or both.

Then that soldier is promised a face full of hot plasma.

It isnt intuitive to run in close and not have increased accuracy and a more positive damage range...it just makes sense that you would have a better chance to hit the Alien and to hit him in a good spot.

So if you have to say...I need to win 2 of 3 rolls to hit and the Alien dies, and I'll save myself having to go through another round of reaction fire by being more conservative.

Now however you have to win the same 2 of 3 hit rolls, but now also have to win 2 Variable damage rolls. Anyone with an IQ over peanut butter can tell you its harder to gauge the risk now and harder to win 4 rolls than 2.

So you are at greater risk of not killing the Alien, and then being killed after you click end turn, which is almost a promised death vs everyone staying outside and closing the door which is almost a guaranteed no one dies on the Alien turn.

Why do people instinctively run in and try to shoot a suppressed Alien? Why do you "want" to get close?

Because from real life they know it's easier to hit a target you shoot at the closer you are, and you have a greater chance of hitting a critical point on the target.

If you asked someone do you think you have a better chance to shoot someone in the head at 100 feet or 5 feet, the answer is obvious.

If you told them, the chance to shoot someone in the leg three times is the same at long range or close range and asked does that seem normal, they would say no.

At max range you aim at the general chest area, and just try to hit your target, at 5 feet away you can aim at a specific button on his shirt and probably 90 times out of 100 hit within a couple inches of it.

So running up to someone and shooting them for the less than base damage just seems bizarre...should it happen? Yes.

Should it happen multiple times in a row...maybe extremely rarely.

Should it have a roughly equal chance vs shooting them for above base damage? No.

[Ishantil]

Because I want the alien to have a face full of SHOTGUN DEATH. I can't help it. Faces attract shotguns!

[Josip Broz Tito]

I agree with Mytheos that automatic suppression is a bad idea. I like how it is now based on bravery. It also makes little sense for many of the aliens to get auto-supressed on a hit. I can see this w/ Caesans given how frail they are, but not with sebillians. Makes little sense for veteran armored xenonauts to get suppressed from a flesh wound either. (that said, never been shot, so if someone has= throw your opinion up please)

The whole point of a close-range weapon is to one-shot an enemy to eliminate them as a threat fast so you can move your men into the room safely. The ballistic shotgun before the 19.7 change would hit for 60 on sebillian non-coms (one-shotting them), while the carbines had a decently powerful singleshot and the ability to auto-fire w/ higher armor piercing than rifle autofire.

This meant you could eliminate things up close without the 'oh crap, the shotgun rolled all 10's' problem I've been experiencing. The shotguns as they are can one-shot the early aliens- but I've found them to be horrible on higher ranked aliens. 3x shots point blank with a laser shotgun on a low-rank andron is nuts.

I've been noticing that the RNG for the shotgun projectiles seems to roll similar numbers instead of using the whole possible range. as an example: 10, 12, 15 or I'll get 20, 19, 25. One of those will be a nice hit, the other will be about a single rifle shot. More projectiles at the current dmg would be nice, or at the very least a TU cost so I can fire twice after moving in.

The shotgun needs a tweak. Or at least at this point tweak it and see if it makes up-close combat worthwhile. At the moment, I have no reason to use it compared to just shooting open a door w/ machinegun fire and spending a few turns cautiously sniping to clear it.

[Ishantil]

I edited my shotguns to 9 pellets, 15 damage each. Down from 20 per pellet. Yes, it means the shotgun does a lot of damage, but it should at close range. I've compensated by reducing the props range.

The overall effect is that "medium" range shots usually hit a few, but often low. What I'm not sure about is if each "shot" strips armor.

I would have to look at a calculation to find out. I'll do that next time.