Why does Burst Fire cost so many TUs?

[RBrim08]

It's really inaccurate and I find that I rarely get a suppression to kick in when I use it. Wasn't Burst Fire (or was it Auto Fire) in X-COM: UFO Defense really cheap to use because it was so inaccurate?

[Assoonasitis]

No, it wasn't cheap. At its least expensive it was 1/4 of your TUs but more often it was 1/3 or more. Considering, though, that each shot has the stated accuracy when aiming, it's actually the most cost-effective method of shooting things both in EU and in this game.

[RBrim08]

One-fourth of your TUs is a helluva lot less than 40 TUs, especially early on. With most guys starting between 50-60 TUs, that's around 12-15 TUs to use burst fire. At one-third your TUs, it's still 16-20 TUs to use it. Again, a lot less than 40 TUs.

Edited September 7, 2013 by RBrim08

[maackey]

it's actually the most cost-effective method of shooting things both in EU and in this game.

It's not cost effective unless you are at point blank range. Otherwise single shots have far superior TU/Damage output. I would really like to see burst fire cost slightly less TU's given its current accuracy, at 35 or perhaps 30, but overall I don't find it to be completely without merit -- for the same time units you can get three shots off instead of two with snap fire, but the accuracy is so low it is only really worth it in close quarter situations IMO.

[RBrim08]

It's not cost effective unless you are at point blank range. Otherwise single shots have far superior TU/Damage output. I would really like to see burst fire cost slightly less TU's given its current accuracy, at 35 or perhaps 30, but overall I don't find it to be completely without merit -- for the same time units you can get three shots off instead of two with snap fire, but the accuracy is so low it is only really worth it in close quarter situations IMO.

Exactly. And if you're close enough to the point where burst fire is guaranteed to be effective, you might as well be using a shotgun since it's cheaper to use TU-wise and fires three shots as well.

[Assoonasitis]

It's not cost effective unless you are at point blank range. Otherwise single shots have far superior TU/Damage output. I would really like to see burst fire cost slightly less TU's given its current accuracy, at 35 or perhaps 30, but overall I don't find it to be completely without merit -- for the same time units you can get three shots off instead of two with snap fire, but the accuracy is so low it is only really worth it in close quarter situations IMO.

I guess if distance is factored in like in this game, it's still more cost effective. Are you high? 30 TUs for 3 20% chances to hit is better than 20 TUs for one 30% chance to hit, because you're taking more shots and giving yourself more opportunities to hit. It's pretty simple statistics maths.

[RBrim08]

I guess if distance is factored in like in this game, it's still more cost effective. Are you high? 30 TUs for 3 20% chances to hit is better than 20 TUs for one 30% chance to hit, because you're taking more shots and giving yourself more opportunities to hit. It's pretty simple statistics maths.

Getting that close is really dangerous though, with reaction fire. And, as I said above, if you're close enough for your accuracy to go over 20%, you might as well just be using a shotgun since it has a cheaper TU cost for firing the same number of shots.

[Assoonasitis]

If the thing about shotties is the truth, then things have changed quite a bit since I last played. Burst fire is meant to be inaccurate per shot, but because you take more shots your average chance to hit is higher, from almost any distance.

[maackey]

I guess if distance is factored in like in this game, it's still more cost effective. Are you high? 30 TUs for 3 20% chances to hit is better than 20 TUs for one 30% chance to hit, because you're taking more shots and giving yourself more opportunities to hit. It's pretty simple statistics maths.

Burst fire costs 40 TU's last time I checked. While we're at it, lets do some simple statistics then (even given your made up % values):

Burst fire: 40 TU's, 3 shots, 20% chance to hit, 25 damage per hit

.2*25 + .2*25 + .2*25 = 15 damage

Snap fire: 40 TU's, 2 shots, 30% chance to hit, 25 damage per hit

.3*25 + .3*25 = 15 damage

They end up being exactly the same damage output (without taking into account armor/random damage/etc.), except with snap shots, you also have the versatility of firing once, then getting behind cover again. edit: not to mention using less bullets -> less reloads -> less TU's spent reloading + less weight for extra clips, etc.

I loaded up the game to test some stuff, I managed to target a Caesan at maximum effective range behind a haybale with a corporal armed with an assault rifle. This is a common, real world example not just some numbers pulled out of thin air.

Burst fire: 2% chance

.02*25 + .02*25 + .02*25 = 1.5 damage

1.5/40 TU = .0375 damage/TU

Aimed shot: 10% chance

.1*25 = 2.5 damage

2.5/40 TU = .0625 damage/TU

Normal: 8% chance

.08*25 = 2 damage

2/30 TU = .0666 damage/TU

Snap: 3% chance

.03*25 = .75 damage

.75/20 = .0375 damage/TU

I'll just let you ponder that for a bit.

Edited September 8, 2013 by maackey

[RBrim08]

The debate has skewed from the actual TU costs at this point, but I just wanted to point something out.

Burst fire costs 40 TUs to use for the Assault Rifle. If it instead used a one-fourths model for burst fire, you'd need to have 160 TUs for it to cost as much as it currently does. At a one-third model, you would need 121 TUs for it to cost as much as it currently does. It was FAR cheaper to auto fire in the original X-COM than it is to burst fire in Xenonauts.

[Ishantil]

X-COM had percentage based weapons fire. Xenonauts uses a set cost. That means that 80TUs is the magical number. Two bursts, two aimed shots.

The primary difference here is that a set cost can be used more than once per turn if you have enough TUs. A percentage based cost means more TUs basically means being able to move more per turn, but not fire more per turn.

For reference:

Laser Rifle

Auto: 34% (Accuracy 46%)

Snap: 25% (Accuracy 65%)

Aimed: 50% (Accuracy 100%)

Heavy Plasma (rifle)

Auto: 35% (Accuracy 50%)

Snap: 30% (Accuracy 75%)

Aimed: 60% (Accuracy 110%)

[jimmyjjohn]

Hi

The issue needs a fix. I'd like being able to shoot over things (and therefore soldiers) a tile away. I'd be able to simulate a firing squad to execute aliens.

This way I'd be able to have a crouching guy, a crouching/standing guy, and a standing guy in a row facing an alien.

I'd fire with the crouched first guy, fire with the second guy over first's head and have second crouch, and fire with the third guy over first and second's heads.

[a] [C]

[a] [c]

[a] [c][c]

= standing Xenonaut

[c] = crouching Xenonaut

[a] = alien

[Max_Caine]

You can have a soldier stand and shoot over a crouching soldier atm. But there's no code for a conga-line of soldiers.

[GizmoGomez]

The "jimmyjohn" person just copied something I said word for word (minus the "Hi" at the start) from another thread. Pay it no heed.

[nailertn]

Burst fire is for suppression mainly so restricting yourself to damage / TU calculations ignores an important part of the equation. Not saying I would mind a little accuracy boost or better yet more bullets fired so the trade-off is more pronounced, but it fulfills a unique role reasonably.

Edited September 8, 2013 by nailertn

[RBrim08]

Burst fire is for suppression mainly so restricting yourself to damage / TU calculations ignores an important part of the equation. Not saying I would mind a little accuracy boost or better yet more bullets fired so the trade-off is more pronounced, but it fulfills a unique role reasonably.

Problem is, though, is that I don't find the suppression kicking in nearly as often as it should. I can have six guys all lay down burst fire on one alien and it won't become suppressed. But I can have one of those guys just shoot that alien with an Aimed Shot and it will more than likely become suppressed.

[Ol' Stinky]

Without more details it's hard to say why you're not getting reliable suppression, but if six guys burst firing are failing, I'd suggest you're doing something wrong. My instinct would be that you're trying to suppress an enemy that's out of range. An enemy 21 or more tiles away will take zero suppression from an assault rifle.

If this is your problem, don't feel too bad, as the game doesn't really tell you the consequences of firing outside of range. And if you're not looking to suppress, firing outside of range is fine, as long as you realise you're recieving a damage and accuracy reduction. But whether an enemy is going to take suppression is something the player absolutely needs to know, and the UI should indicate whether an enemy is in firing range or not. The targetting reticule could change colour, or have a little icon bordering it, or something along those lines could be done with the "alien spotted" icons.

There's also the problem that some races are more resistant or even immune to suppression and the only way to know is to read about it. Again, that should probably be reflected in the UI somehow.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Ol' Stinky

[Elydo]

I'm against telling the player everything, like the fact Androns or drones can't be suppressed or stunned (I beat a drone to death with the stun rod in the process of finding the latter out. I beat an Andron to death for fun) It's part of what the autopsy tells you if nothing else, and having an exploratory autopsy tell you what you already know is a tad underwhelming. Part of the fun and the fear of the game is dealing with the unexpected, and the terrible "oh shit" chilling feeling when something appears that you've never seen before, that you have utterly no idea what it can do, is one of my favourite parts of the game. Overcoming such a threat is another.

[nailertn]

@Ol' Stinky: Well the trajectory indicator changes from green to yellow so the UI feedback is there but you are absolutely correct in that nothing hints at this having to do anything with suppression so the release version must educate players on the subject.

On another note, do you happen to know details about falloff? Is it the same for kinetic / laser weapons, linear or exponential, etc?

[Ol' Stinky]

Nothing does suppression once out of range as define by weapons_gc.xml, as far as I know. Rockets, lasers, bullets, plasma, grenades, it doesn't matter.

While there is the green/yellow indicator, it's fallible. It doesn't show if you're firing through smoke, and it can be obscured by props. (It turns yellow when it connects with a prop, remember.) There's also the problem that the visible effects of firing out of range - accuracy falloff when you mouse over the enemy to make the shot, damage number if the shot connects if you're playing on easy/normal - aren't nearly as severe as the way suppression drops to zero, and there's nothing saying that it's down to a unit being too far away.

I'm against telling the player everything, like the fact Androns or drones can't be suppressed or stunned (I beat a drone to death with the stun rod in the process of finding the latter out. I beat an Andron to death for fun) It's part of what the autopsy tells you if nothing else, and having an exploratory autopsy tell you what you already know is a tad underwhelming. Part of the fun and the fear of the game is dealing with the unexpected, and the terrible "oh shit" chilling feeling when something appears that you've never seen before, that you have utterly no idea what it can do, is one of my favourite parts of the game. Overcoming such a threat is another.

I'm cool with that, and I agree with the concept. It's just as things stand, there's no way for a newb to know that (say) androns are immune to suppression, and that it's not simply a mistake on their part. If no stun damage numbers come up when an andron is hit by a stun weapon, that's one thing: the player at least then knows something's up. I realise that's not the case now, but I imagine that'll change. When sebs get to regenerate hp, that'll be cool as well, because a player might be thrown off by an injured seb escaping and regenerating; the newbie commander might get reckless, send a lone guy out to make the supposed killing shot, only to find that since the seb escaped he recovered enough hp to survive. Uh oh!

Edit: a more concise answer would be "I'm happy for the game to pull the rug out from under the player, but only if it isn't confusing".

Edited September 8, 2013 by Ol' Stinky

[EchoFourDelta]

Nothing does suppression once out of range as define by weapons_gc.xml' date=' as far as I know. Rockets, lasers, bullets, plasma, grenades, it doesn't matter.

While there is the green/yellow indicator, it's fallible. It doesn't show if you're firing through smoke, and it can be obscured by props. (It turns yellow when it connects with a prop, remember.) There's also the problem that the visible effects of firing out of range - accuracy falloff when you mouse over the enemy to make the shot, damage number if the shot connects if you're playing on easy/normal - aren't nearly as severe as the way suppression drops to zero, and there's nothing saying that it's down to a unit being too far away.

I'm cool with that, and I agree with the concept. It's just as things stand, there's no way for a newb to know that (say) androns are immune to suppression, and that it's not simply a mistake on their part. If no stun damage numbers come up when an andron is hit by a stun weapon, that's one thing: the player at least then knows something's up. I realise that's not the case now, but I imagine that'll change. When sebs get to regenerate hp, that'll be cool as well, because a player might be thrown off by an injured seb escaping and regenerating; the newbie commander might get reckless, send a guy out to make the supposed killing shot, only to find that since the seb escaped he recovered enough hp to survive. Uh oh![/quote']

This is the insane part; that's what suppressive fire is for. Lay down fire that degrades their ability to move and shoot, giving you a chance to move and shoot. We can't light a guy up that's like... past 20 damn meters on account of the bullets we're flinging hit some invisible wall made out of jelly surrounding our soldiers in a radius (that expands and retracts based on what gun they're carrying) that apparently slows the bullets down past 15 or 20 meters or so and somehow renders them somewhat less lethal, and if nothing else, not worthy of a concern they might hit you.

Remember: If the twin 7.62x51mm medium machine guns firing at you aren't closer than 20 meters, it's not worth it to get out the way. Or something. We're not sure.

Edited September 8, 2013 by EchoFourDelta

[Ol' Stinky]

This is the insane part; that's what suppressive fire is for. Lay down fire that degrades their ability to move and shoot, giving you a chance to move and shoot. We can't light a guy up that's like... past 20 damn meters on account of the bullets we're flinging hit some invisible wall made out of jelly surrounding our soldiers in a radius (that expands and retracts based on what gun they're carrying) that apparently slows the bullets down past 15 or 20 meters or so and somehow renders them somewhat less lethal, and if nothing else, not worthy of a concern they might hit you.

Remember: If the twin 7.62x51mm medium machine guns firing at you aren't closer than 20 meters, it's not worth it to get out the way. Or something. We're not sure.

Yeah. I'd be interested to see what a version with no suppression penalty for firing from out of range would look like. If they don't want players to take shots from out of range, they can ramp up the damage and/or accuracy penalties.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Ol' Stinky

[nailertn]

I'm against telling the player everything, like the fact Androns or drones can't be suppressed or stunned (I beat a drone to death with the stun rod in the process of finding the latter out. I beat an Andron to death for fun) It's part of what the autopsy tells you if nothing else, and having an exploratory autopsy tell you what you already know is a tad underwhelming. Part of the fun and the fear of the game is dealing with the unexpected, and the terrible "oh shit" chilling feeling when something appears that you've never seen before, that you have utterly no idea what it can do, is one of my favourite parts of the game. Overcoming such a threat is another.

A distinction should be made between suppression range and androns being immune to it. The first is as much a basic mechanic of the game as line of sight or time units; part of the generic set of rules we play by. Those should be made as clear as possible with no obfuscation what so ever. After all I doubt your elite soldiers haven't held a gun before, they should be about as aware of suppression mechanics as of the loud bang guns make when they pull the trigger. On the other hand humans haven't seen an andron ever before so not making their immunity obvious in advance is perfectly fine and in fact goes well with the story of the game.

[Elydo]

Yeah, I'm good with the interface telling you that what you're trying to do isn't working, that makes sense. What I'm against is being told that what you're about to do won't work.

[EchoFourDelta]

Yeah. I'd be interested to see what a version with no suppression penalty for firing from out of range would look like. If they don't want players to take shots from out of range' date=' they can ramp up the damage and/or accuracy penalties.[/quote']

This is where the original's shooting mechanics are a shining beacon of superiority; everything handled in a simple cone, mirroring a somewhat realistic behavior of gunfire. Your target hiding behind a low stone wall doesn't make your gun's barrel flare out like a blunderbuss so that your shots go dangerously and hilariously wide; they're just probably going to strike the cover, and not your target. Firing outside of close range doesn't make your shots any less lethal, but you stand a better chance of hitting close in.

Stinky: I set my game up so that vision is greatly expanded on both sides, and the weapons' "effects" ranges are basically infinite as far as it comes to the map sizes; there's no reduction in accuracy, damage at range, or loss of suppression. It turns it almost instantly into an insanely brutal game (but with similar enough play) that has to be handled more tactically and carefully by magnitudes.