% TU vs Static TU firing cost

[Asmodean]

Nice idea, mr_pa! I also proposed earlier that different medals could grant more diverse bonuses to make veteran units more important. Medal that is awarded for 5 kills in a single mission could give -2% shoot cost for example...

I also am in favor of more diverse medals. -% to shoot is very tempting... but still don't want to get back to where vets with lots of medals can shoot too often. So it has to be small and has to balance across all the gun types. Because -5% on the MG just lets you move a little more, but -5% on the pistol is a much bigger impact in ability move and take multiple shots.

So at the risk of it being overly complicated to implement... what if you could get a medal in each gun type based on # of kills with that gun. There could be maybe 3 tiers of medals for each. Then %TU bonus could be balanced to that gun. Or maybe some gund get a different bonus like range bonus for sniper or reaction shot bonus for shotgun... It would also encourage the ideas that your soldiers really are specialists. Just because my two snipers got flanked last mission doesn't mean I can just give veteran bazooka Joe a sniper and expect him to be so good yet.

[ventuswings]

While I am not eloquent enough to throw my hat into the ring, I am here to say that I support the developer in their decision to include % TU system contrary to what my initial reaction had been!

[legit1337]

Playing it more and more. I have come to the conclusion that the TU% system could work, and certainly solves some balance issues (even if it is over-elaborate). But is needs WAY more balancing then the static TU system needed. One step forward, two steps back.

I still don't like how it trivializes veterans and don't see an easy way of correcting this.

[kabill]

Managed to get some proper play time in yesterday and one thing I really like about the TU% system is how it interacts with weight.

Being overweighted used to be massively bad because of the impact it had on the shots you could take. Now, because it only reduces mobility, it feels like there's a meaningful choice between weighing soldiers down (especially with armour) at the cost of mobility, or leaving them lightly encumbered for maximum mobility.

But is needs WAY more balancing then the static TU system needed. One step forward, two steps back.

Definitely agree that some balancing is needed. When I first played with the % TU system, I had some similar reservations in terms of its effect on play (I found myself moving around a lot less in combat). But having played around with some values, I've managed to find something (for me, anyway) that seems to work pretty well.

[Gauddlike]

Feel free to share the values you have used to help others with balance changes.

There is a thread I started that can be used or make a new one.

[TrashMan]

As I have understand, in the OG, the %-TU was added in the very late phase of the development for balancing purposes only. They didn't however have the time to think the system all over again and just went with the easiest, fastest and most efficient solution they had that solved the game balance problems they had, thus changing the firing cost system to %-TU. Gold Hawk has the possibility to think this over and use a tought over system instead. I really hope you end up using a system that feels done instead of a rushed one like in the OG.

I prefer the flat cost, but if GH want's to restrict shooting actions per turn/weapon, here's my solution:

TU's could be renamed to speed and just seperate shooting actions to it's own hud element. They don't need to be TU dependant at all anymore. They could be for example small red bar with suitable amount of steps in the weapon screen that vanish when a shot has been taken. The number of steps available in the bar would change depending on which weapon/aim mode is in use. This change would make the new TU system make any sense because as of now, there's no point in using TU's in shooting actions.

Why would we use TU's in shooting actions when they clearly are not suitable to represent those anymore? (variable values)

EDIT: A quick visualization of my idea:

Here a snap shot would be selected and hud showing three shots. All the 56 "MU's (Movement Units) the unit has, could be used in moving and performing other actions regardless of shooting actions executed. If an aimed shot or burst was selected instead, or he had an MG equiped, it could show 1 bar. Pistol would have maybe four bars and so on. This is what I think would make sense if we want to restrict shooting actions per turn. Not by using TU's as they are not suitable for it (for the need of changing the shooting values depending how much a soldier can move, which is stupid) While it would make system simpler, more logical and easier to understand, we could also get rid of TU costs on the target reticle which would reduce clutter on screen.

EDiT: Ugh, I just realised this would simplify moving/shooting maybe a bit too much. I need to think this system a bit more....

Off topic: You can also see my new Skitso's Color Grading mod in use in the picture. Also notable is the graphical bug behind the light scout which is still not fixed.

Why not make it simpler?

Just have lines/markers on the TU bar that represent the needed TU's for the given weapon/firemode?

So if the soldier is carrying an assault rifle that requires 33% TU's for a shot, then there would be a marker at 33% TU's 66% tu's and 99% tus'.

when plaining movement, the spent TU's would be greyed out, making it easy to see how much you will spend, how much you will have left and how many shot you will be able to take.

[Caaygun]

Playing it more and more. I have come to the conclusion that the TU% system could work, and certainly solves some balance issues (even if it is over-elaborate). But is needs WAY more balancing then the static TU system needed. One step forward, two steps back.

Yeah me too. Now people move more but shoot less. Though aliens seem to not utilize the beefed movement enough I think. They move into LOS, shoot, retreat, whereas with more moves they could walk up to my face and kill my guys which I often do against them.

I still don't like how it trivializes veterans and don't see an easy way of correcting this.

Well, my point was this for about 1/3 of all my posts really. I prefer stats having more weight for power that equipment, so that the loss of a veteran soldier feels like a real loss. You don't really lose much men really in the new survival system anyway. Also there now is more incentive to keep backup troops rather than get new recruits after you lose your team, load them with armor and mags and get a fresh team.

[Gauddlike]

For a start I would rethink the AP cap put in place to balance the old system.

It is likely no longer needed at its current low level and making it higher would allow veterans to develop further and make their advantage in mobility larger.

Then once the weapon values are balanced a little more to give them the desired flavour it might be a good time to look at the progression system again.

As the other stats are now more important to differentiate between a rookie and a veteran the cap on gains or the speed of gains can be tweaked.

[legit1337]

For a start I would rethink the AP cap put in place to balance the old system.

It is likely no longer needed at its current low level and making it higher would allow veterans to develop further and make their advantage in mobility larger.

Then once the weapon values are balanced a little more to give them the desired flavour it might be a good time to look at the progression system again.

As the other stats are now more important to differentiate between a rookie and a veteran the cap on gains or the speed of gains can be tweaked.

You would have to change the stats gained per level up as well to be higher then they are currently. 1-2 TUs per level up isn't enough to make veterans stand out from rookies, even in the long run. The same applies to the other stats.

[winterwolves]

Losing super soldiers in a mission kills your game. I like the % system, and rookies not being useless. I don't like having to re-try and re-try a mission. It is boring.

Veterans are still better. Just not super. I like that.

I really like to keep track of my soldiers, earn medals and all that. But I don't want to have to keep them alive at all costs.

[Gauddlike]

For a start I would rethink the AP cap put in place to balance the old system.

It is likely no longer needed at its current low level and making it higher would allow veterans to develop further and make their advantage in mobility larger.

Then once the weapon values are balanced a little more to give them the desired flavour it might be a good time to look at the progression system again.

As the other stats are now more important to differentiate between a rookie and a veteran the cap on gains or the speed of gains can be tweaked.

You would have to change the stats gained per level up as well to be higher then they are currently. 1-2 TUs per level up isn't enough to make veterans stand out from rookies, even in the long run. The same applies to the other stats.

Yeah that was what I suggested, I just used a different phrasing.

[Chris]

OK, I've come back after the weekend and finished reading all the posts in this thread, and have come to a decision on the matter - for now at least.

I'm going to close this thread so my post remains the last post, so everyone can read my conclusions on the discussion. I'm happy if people want to start a new thread on it and continue the debate there, and in future you're welcome to discuss the change in the balance threads...I just don't want my post to be lost!

Having considered the issues, we'll continue to use the % TU cost system for the next build, with two amendments:

It seems that TUs are currently capped at 79 and you can only gain one per battle, which I did not realise. I must have nerfed the progression a few months back and forgot about it. Anyway, I've now changed the balance so TU can go up to 100 again, and you can gain 2 per battle. Starting soldiers will also have the full range of starting TU values, from 30 to 70, rather than one that is more artificially limited. This essentially means TU is now treated like every other stat in the game, rather than being a special case.

Secondly, going to lower the fire costs for weapons slightly, as I balanced the TU costs in line with a 50 stat soldier (as Kabill notes). However, your starting squad has a stat average of 55 so the fire costs should be reduced by 10% or so to match.

I'm hoping these changes mean that high TU soldiers are now much easier to acquire and allow people to see the benefits of having them, without them being game-breaking.

The fundamental complaint I've seen raised with the new system is that having more experienced soldiers able to shoot more than rookies is a good thing; it makes them more powerful and that gets you more attached to your men and more sad when they die.

This is true to an extent, but it's my view that in game terms veterans are too powerful relative to rookies, to the point where soldier experience is a larger factor in the battles than how far you've got in the research tree (though both are less important than player skill).

The entire debate is essentially about how powerful veteran soldiers are relative to rookies and having done some number crunching I think that they are too powerful under the old system. The XCOM 2012 system has small squad sizes but very powerful individual soldiers, but that's not the model the original game uses and it's not the one I personally favour either. It's a philosophical decision as much as anything else.

If veteran soldiers become too "weak", we can take a look at the stat gain rates and consider increasing them so soldiers become more veteran more quickly. However I feel the % TU system is fundamentally superior to static costs and for now at least I'd prefer to pursue that.

Thanks to everyone that posted in the thread and offered an opinion. Even though it did not ultimately cause me to change my opinion, it's been good for me to analyse my reasoning in detail to be completely sure it was the correct one.