Ground Combat Balance - V21 Experimental 6

[kabill]

I've had Steam on all day and not had any updates. I think I had something yesterday, but I've played since then and there's still 0% to-hit issues.

[StellarRat]

I'm hoping so, but I don't really know. Our ground combat programmer lives in eastern Ukraine, so there's a number of things that might be distracting him.

I hope he's OK.

[kabill]

• Shoot path calculation has been changed so that it uses the "best" part of the target tile to aim at, rather than the central section. Previously there were circumstances where you were unable to shoot at a target even if you could see part / most of it, but many of these are now fixed.

Want to write a few words about this. Bugs aside (they'll get fixed, I'm sure), I'm not sure I like the change for two reasons:

1) The change makes cover less useful as it's more easy than it was previously to circumvent it. Previously, you needed to at an angle of ~45 degrees either side of the target to skip their cover, but that's deminished in the new system. This is most problematic with corners or other LoS-blocking props, which were already fairly easy to mitigate but now will be moreso. Worse still, even hiding soldiers one tile back from the edge of a corner doesn't seem to be an effective defence any more. If I remember, I'll post a picture I have at home later which shows a Sebillian a tile back from a corner being targeted by a unit about 20 tiles away and 5-6 tiles to the (covered) side. There was no way there should have been a line of fire, but because the extremes of the occupied tiles were being used, I was being allowed what appeared to be an impossible shot.

EDIT: Picture

2) It's harder to judge what directions cover will protect you from. As I've said above, to circumvent cover previously you needed to be at about a 45 degree angle to the target (indeed with the persistant LoS change the game kindly traced the direction of cover effectiveness for you, in effect!). With the changes, however, this is no longer the case and I've found it very difficult to judge where I might be shot from in the new system.

Put these together, and I think I preferred the old system. Cover should - in my opinion - be an important part of the game and making it less useful due to being able to aim around it, and making it harder for the player to interact with, are for me negative changes in that regard. I understand that it was implimented to deal with other line of fire issues, but I guess for me not being able to take shots that it looks like you should be able to take is better than being shot when it appears that you should have been safe.

(Assuming that the system presently traces the best part of the attacker to the best part of the target, I'm wondering whether a compromise could be reached such that the game only uses the centre point of one, but the best part of the other. That way it might help in situations where you can see most of the target, but not in instances where you can only see a little bit of them.)

Edited May 5, 2014 by kabill

[StellarRat]

I agree with both of Kabill's points. Although the new system seems somewhat more realistic, I think you'll have to make what is actually cover more obvious to the player and improve the effectiveness of cover somewhat to mitigate the loss of arc. I actually would not expect a single tile prop to produce much of a covered arc so that's not so bad, but rebuilding all the maps to make more covered areas by shoving two or props together seems a bit much this late in the game. Increasing the effectiveness of cover for the "new" arc seems like a way to make up for this.

Edited May 5, 2014 by StellarRat

[Chris]

The formula already uses the centre of the shooter for the path, it just uses the "best" part of the target.

Posting up images might help illustrate any issues with the new system, though.

[kabill]

The formula already uses the centre of the shooter for the path, it just uses the "best" part of the target.

Posting up images might help illustrate any issues with the new system, though.

I've added a picture to my post above.

[Skitso]

Doesn't look that bad, IMO. I'm fine with the new system, but upping the cover values like StellarRat proposed earlier could be place.

[Caaygun]

Want to write a few words about this. Bugs aside (they'll get fixed, I'm sure), I'm not sure I like the change for two reasons:

I completely second Kabill's quoted post about this. The previous system was more predictable IMHO. Now I find myself 'try to keep safe' while being no less than 1-2 tiles into the corner. The aliens sometimes even take those probably impossible shots only to sometimes successfully hit and destroy my cover. I don't know, perhaps it may be just too early to be too hard on this but this is how I feel at the moment. Especially 1 tile full cover props seem totally unsafe currently.

[Max_Caine]

The old system, however, drew multiple complaints from terrain blocking shots when it was clearly obvious it did not. Perhaps what might be possible is for the new system to take into account any terrain that isn't 100% blocking and apply the cover bonus.

[kabill]

The old system, however, drew multiple complaints from terrain blocking shots when it was clearly obvious it did not. Perhaps what might be possible is for the new system to take into account any terrain that isn't 100% blocking and apply the cover bonus.

Yes, that's fair enough, although I interpreted those complaints as being more about asymetrical lines for fire (i.e. being able to shoot a unit without that unit being able to shoot back) than being about shots being blocked by props that shouldn't block shots. In any case, I accept the old system wasn't perfect either, but personally I preferred the old system.

I'd be quite happy with a system that applies a penalty to 'leaning' shots, though. Presumably, the game engine needs to calculate all possible shot positions to work out which one is best, so presumably it knows whether there's an obstacle in the way and what the stopping chance of that obstacle is. In theory, then, you could apply a modified cover value if the shooter uses a non-centre-to-centre line of fire (say, 1/2 the stopping chance of the cover being avoided).

But, less than a month to release.

(Incidentally, does this system actually apply to shots when a shot isn't 100% blocked? I've been assuming that it does, but the only instances of it that I recall relate to full-cover props. Might just be that it's more obvious with these, though.)

[legit1337]

I'm not sure I like the new system. On paper it is a rather ingenious way of solving the problem of units being able to shoot at other units who can't shoot back due to incongruities in LOS drawing.

Unfortunately, in current implementation, it introduces it's own problems of units being able to take shots they should not (see the picture earlier in the thread), and devalues cover by making them have smaller "protected" arcs.

Hows this for a solution:

Use the old system of determining cover, however if a shot is 100% blocked, THEN use the new code to "try the best path" so to speak. This way cover arcs aren't reduced, and you still get the intended changes of units being able to shoot at each other when they should be able to.

Not knowing how this is coded, or how the game generates bullet paths, I have no idea whether or not this able to be implemented or not. Just an idea.

[crusherven]

The old system, however, drew multiple complaints from terrain blocking shots when it was clearly obvious it did not. Perhaps what might be possible is for the new system to take into account any terrain that isn't 100% blocking and apply the cover bonus.

I was fine with that, actually. You had to accept that getting behind cover was almost always useful, and that it would almost always be a barrier to overcome if the enemy used it. What I liked less was see things like fences cause 3-4 accuracy penalties, even when it didn't make sense.

[legit1337]

I was fine with that, actually. You had to accept that getting behind cover was almost always useful, and that it would almost always be a barrier to overcome if the enemy used it. What I liked less was see things like fences cause 3-4 accuracy penalties, even when it didn't make sense.

They never did... Only the piece of cover with the highest accuracy block is used for those shots. The others are ignored.

[Skitso]

Well, you can't actally say never...

[Skitso]

I was thinking about the issue that walls and props don't provide enough cover after the implementation of the new LoS system. ATM it's from the center of the shooters tile to the best corner of the target tile, if I'm not mistaken. So what if we flip it around to have it from the best corer of the shooters tile to the center of the target tile... I think it would better represent a situation where a shooter is leaning to have the best possible aiming stance, while a target tries to stay behind a cover.

Would it make any difference?

Edited May 8, 2014 by Skitso

[kabill]

I was thinking about the issue that walls and props don't provide enough cover after the implementation of the new LoS system. ATM it's from the center of the shooters tile to the best corner of the target tile, if I'm not mistaken. So what if we flip it around to have it from the best corer of the shooters tile to the center of the target tile... I think it would better represent a situation where a shooter is leaning to have the best possible aiming stance, while a target tries to stay behind a cover.

Would it make any difference?

It might, you know.

Just did a little diagram:

The 'X's are units, the O is a cover prop, and the arrows are the lines of fire using Skitso's proposal. You can see that the arrow pointing towards the unit in cover passes through the cover prop from the corner of the attacker's space, while the arrow pointing towards the unit out of cover avoids the cover.

If you were to reverse the arrows, you'd end up with the current system. Ironically (if the cover was 100% blocking) the unit in cover would be unable to shoot the unit out in the open, but the unit in the open would be able to shoot the unit in cover. Whereas with Skitso's version, you'd have (effectively) a unit leaning out of cover to take a shot, but who is covered themselves. The latter seems much more sensible.

Obviously, this hasn't been done using the actual in-game line of fire calculations and it's only one example. But it implies that, at the very least, the current system is disadvantaging units in cover much more than it is units out of cover. It might be worth collecting some in-game images of firing lines at the moment to see how it's playing out in practice, though (it should be possible to experiment using player units as target and shooter).

EDIT: What this example does prove is that the current system hasn't actually solved the problem of asymmetrical lines of fire.

EDIT 2: Yup, look here...

Soldier around the corner on the left hand side cannot target the soldier in the open:

But the soldier in the open has a clear shot:

Again, the soldier in cover has no shot:

But can be shot back in return:

So at the moment the way lines of fire are drawn seriously advantage *not* being in cover; Skitso's suggestion would invert all of this and move the advantage back to the defender.

This still doesn't cure the problem of asymmetrical lines of fire, mind. But it turns them into a feature rather than a flaw, I think.

Edited May 8, 2014 by kabill

[Skitso]

Thanks kabill for visualizing my idea. You're the man.

[StellarRat]

What we're seeing in Kabill's examples should be bugs. They have to be. This should be easy to solve. The code should simply check the LOF for parties. A to B then B to A. If either one is blocked the shot should be blocked for both. Obviously the program already knows that it's blocked for one Xenonaut. That means it should be blocked for both parties no matter the calculations say for the other soldier. That's the simple work around solution.

Edited May 8, 2014 by StellarRat

[kabill]

What we're seeing in Kabill's examples should be bugs. They have to be. This should be easy to solve. The code should simply check the LOF for parties. A to B then B to A. If either one is blocked the shot should be blocked for both. Obviously the program already knows that it's blocked for one Xenonaut. That means it should be blocked for both parties no matter the calculations say for the other soldier. That's the simple work around solution.

Unless I've misunderstood something, this isn't a bug.

In 22.7, the LoF calculations were changed so that a path is traced from the centre of the shooter's tile to the *best part* of the target's tile (rather than centre-to-centre which is what it used to be). Asymmetrical targeting, like I've shown in the images above, is an inherent consequence of that system. I don't know whether that was an intended consequence, but the asymmetry occurs in accordance with the system's current design.

If a symmetrical system is desired, so that if one unit can shoot the other one can to, checking LoF both ways using the old centre-to-centre system would be fine.

If an asymmetrical system is desired, then the current system should be reversed so that it goes from anywhere in the shooter's tile to the centre of the target. That way, being close to cover will be a benefit and not - as is currently the case - a hindrance.

Game balance wise, I think they both have their merits. The first system is consistent, while the second system increases the effectiveness of full-cover props and walls slightly by giving units a slight ability to shoot around them relative to their targets. Either of those seems fine to me.

EDIT: Blegh. I was aiming for clarity but I think I've ended up with patronizing instead. Sorry if that's the case and I hope it's forgiveable.

Edited May 8, 2014 by kabill

[StellarRat]

Unless I've misunderstood something, this isn't a bug.

If it's intentional then it's flawed reasoning in my opinion. There should never be a situation where one party can hit the other but the reverse is not true. That leads to very uninitutive situations. I've never played a game that allows that mechanic intentionally. Faulty maps, poorly drawn props, rounding errors, etc... can cause that to happen by accident in some games. I've seen it in Skyrim for example, but I'm sure it wasn't the intent of the developers.

In your example it actually favors the guy standing in the open instead of the person with cover. Even in a asymmetrical system that make no sense. As the guy with the building should be able to lean out and take a shot much more safely than the guy standing in the street. I much prefer a symmetric system as there is no guess work about whether people are truly "in cover" or not.

Edited May 8, 2014 by StellarRat

[Chris]

That's basically Kabill's point - the system is working as intended, but apparently it has adverse side effects the devs weren't really aware of.

I guess reversing the system would work fine actually.

[Max_Caine]

I'd like to take a moment to say thank god for Caesans. Every game needs a main "scrub" race, and Caesans fit the bill. Sebillians are nightmares you pour fire into so they don't hide in a corner and suck their thumbs until they regenerate COD-style. Androns are nightmares you pour fire into yelling "why don't you just DIE!". Barring carpet-bombing with grenades, they just soak up so much before they fall over (which is right and proper). Caesans? I breathe a sigh of relief when I see Caesans. They are the most vulnerable to everything in my arsenal and the only thing they have going for them are psychic powers which will very soon be overhauled. So thank god for Caesans, and raise a glass for scrub races everywhere!

[Chris]

Sounds like they need some buffs to their accuracy then!

[kabill]

Yeah, personally I'd be quite happy to Caesans buffed, at least the lower ranking ones. Compared with early Sebillian ships, Caesan ones are much easier. (Later on, with Psionics, it possibly matters less though).

[StellarRat]

Yeah, personally I'd be quite happy to Caesans buffed, at least the lower ranking ones.

Can't you and Max just shut up for a while? The game is hard enough already!