Weapons Categories

[SpaceWombat]

Ok here are my opinions on that:

I think the logical categories would be as follows

Melee (knife, kerrblades, fists...)
[throwing] (for grenades) (wich category are they in anyway right now? explosives?)
Pistols (one handed/ "secondary" weapons)
Rifles (assault, shotgun, sniper, MG)
Artillery/Explosives (rocket launcher, grenade launcher...)

While it is totally different to fight someone physically with your fists or a knife compared to a pistol duel it is quite similar to shoot with a shotgun or an assault rifle.
Snipers could be in the rifle category as well because modern assault rifles are mostly available in assault as well as in sniper implementations and there is no real difference at long ranges. If you are bad at 300m with an assault rifle you are definitely worse with a sniper at 700m. If you can handle an assault rifle at longer ranges quiet well you have everything you need (ballistic theory) to handle a sniper. Then only range is the problem.
I know that focuses much of the weaponry into the rifle category but I think that is more closely to reality. Maybe a submachinegun/shotgun/"close quarters battle" category would be a good idea as well.

The current category distinction is simply unlogical to me. 

What are your thoughts about this?

[tobbe]

Categories are ok for me. This way you pervent, that a single soldier becomes a specialist for snipers (great at ranged fire) and at the same time MGs (great for heavy, close combar use)...you habe to specialise. And that adds some strategical decisions. regardless of any realistic considerations.

[SpaceWombat]

That is true. The more categories the better. But on the other hand I feel uncomfortable with a soldier who trains knifes and at the same time becomes good at submachineguns...

How about this:

Melee
Pistols
Submachineguns/close quarter (shotgun, mp)
Assault
Heavy (MGs, suppression fire, heavy laser...)
Sniper
Artillery/Explosives

Sniper and Assault could still be one category while these two types vary in long range accuracy and short range effectiveness (burst fire with assault on short range but less accurate on long distance).
Depends on the code for aiming.
Considering your specialisation argument a Mac10 is handled other than a G3 wich is normally used other than a MG which is used for suppression fire/cover fire of course thus requirering different skills.

[tobbe]

I actually have no clue about the diffrences of using a Mac10, a G3 or any other firearms...

So you suggest to split the "close combat" skill into several categoreis...sure, one could do that and your arguments are sound...but to keep the gameplay simple, just one category is sufficent for me...right now, i almost never use any close combat weapons...

[SpaceWombat]

Me neither, I just sometimes equip my rocket launcher guy with a secondary weapon. The difference in using different types of firearms is the handling and according the abilities. While most rifles work nearly the same way the difference between pistols and rifles and in some situations machine guns (although I would say not in the way they are used in ufo:ai, here they are heavy weight assault rifles) work a little different.
I found it a lot easier to hit something with an assault rifle on 200-300m than to hit something with a pistol on 10-15m. The reason as I think is that with a pistol the "angle stability" is lower. It is particularly more difficult to point a small gun in the exact direction of the target (and the ballistic curve is also totally different due to the relatively short projectile with high fractional resistance).
My strongest disagreement still is the melee + pistols category. It just does not look right to mix boxing/kung fu/mafia style razor treatment with firearms. While one requires physical strength and swiftness the other one is quiete the opposite - avoid a trembling hand, stay cool and lower hard breathing.

If you are used to the categories as implemented now and do not have that much of a fable for "realism" (we know it will never be realistic  ) that is of course no problem.
But for some people it looks a bit curious. Just wanted to hear some opinions and if this might change in a future release though. I always found that a more "realistic" expression of this fight was always part of ufo games. And since this is a modern version why not try to raise complexity a bit? 

[Takai]

The current category distinction is simply unlogical to me. 

This man speaks thruth.

[ab.er.rant]

How about this:

Melee
Pistols
Submachineguns/close quarter (shotgun, mp)
Assault
Heavy (MGs, suppression fire, heavy laser...)
Sniper
Artillery/Explosives

I think this is a good idea.

[DaCheetah]

I believe the current system, while slightly illogical and unrealistic, works very well.  Pistols should be in the close section, however, the SMG should definitely be moved to the assault category.  I'm not sure where shotguns should lie, probably closer to heavy, perhaps assault.

[eleazar]

That is true. The more categories the better.

No.  If that were true we should just make a stat for each individual weapon.

I think it's possible that the categories could be arraigned to make a bit more sense, but simply multiplying categories makes more things for the player to keep track of, clutters up the interface, but doesn't obviously improve the gameplay experience.

If anything i think there are too many stats: "accuracy" would be the obvious least useful stat, since it simply boosts all weapon skills.

[SpaceWombat]

No.  If that were true we should just make a stat for each individual weapon.

You know what I mean  Too extreme is never good.

I think accuracy still plays a role if we think of improvement and elite soldiers among your crowd. As we see many new weapons will need more than one weapon skill to be handled in certain situations (sniper and assault or assault and heavy combinations for different fire modes) but at the beginning your soldiers will only improve one skill with the standard gear and the first time I used close weapons was when I needed the stun rod to take action.
Here the accuracy ability gives the possibility to let soldiers who are not that good at a certain discipline still be of great use. Some kind of joker. And it is not that unlikely that someone who is good at snipers or pistols will also do well with an assault rifle (ballistics theory, a good eye, no trembling hand... skills that are of general use for gunsports  ).

It reduces a bit of the luck factor (close combat guys who lack hit points and speed always discourage me to use them because they will probably take some more hits) when getting new soldiers on the list and it also provides the trained veterans with a higher value (I really don't like to loose the allrounders).
I like accuracy.

Anyway what would be your ideas on weapon distinction or do you like it the way it is?
I would prefer at least an additional pistol category and please put the smgs into assault rifles (the are restricted by max range, not by handling skill in my view).

[sirg]

I'm in favour of more weapons and features, like weapon mods and prototype weapons (ie one per game).

One of the weapons I like best so far is the grenade launcher, because you can have so many options with it.

[Surrealistik]

Yeah, the current weapon subdivisions make no sense. On the otherhand however, you need to keep simplicity in mind.

Moving pistols into a seperate category is a good idea. Shotguns (the only one availible in singleplayer is automatic anyways), SMGs, and their alien equivalents should fall under assault weapons.

[btfx]

To be honest I liked the old UFO system better, no specializations, you have your strength, your accuracy, reaction speed and some other factors. Strong guys get GLs, accurate guys get snifles, the overlap gets rocket launchers (can't have those miss can we?)

[nemchenk]

Like SpaceWombat, I too find the current skills rather arbitary. I would second a skills tree of something like:

• Melee (including Punch and Kick if possible!)
• Thrown (Grenades, Knives, etc)
• Small arms (Pistols, including MP)
• Long arms (Rifles, SMGs)
• Heavy (Large weapons fired "from the hip" or from a prone/braced position)
• Indirect fire (Grenade Launcher in airburst mode)

I suppose the first two could be combined if we don't want too many skills. Also, I'm not entirely sure whether things like Flamers and Assault Shotguns should be Long Arms or Heavy... SpaceWombat, RFC?

Part of game balance is making sure there are no uber-weapons, and Skills help prevent that. Also, a system that follows the real world more closely is more intuitive for players, so although there may be more skills, it would be easier to understand how all the weapons fit together with each other.


nemchenk

[BTAxis]

I dare contest the intuition argument. War gear and weaponry isn't "intuitive". In that respect, any skill set is as intuitive as any other. Though of course, if a skill set simply doesn't cover some weapon types, that makes it make less sense.

Me, I wouldn't mind changing the skill set. They aren't tied very closely into the game, so if one is methodical to changing every use of them everywhere (in the code and script files) it should not be a problem. I just don't see much of a need, as the current set works fine for me.