General > Discussion

Autofire TU Usage

<< < (2/3) > >>

tobbe:

--- Quote from: SpaceWombat on January 22, 2008, 03:43:24 pm ---@tobbe
Can you please explain this a bit more detailed? How is a weapon imbalanced if the soldier is able to handle it more quickly? If swiftness and accuracy under stress -if that is as well a proper interpretation of the speed variable- enables one soldier to aim quicker it is not the weapon which is imbalanced but rather the soldiers advantage for his higher speed.

I think your argument would merely point out that we should consider less additional TU per speed point?
But this has nothing to do with realistic impact on weapon use.

I would agree that TU should be considered carefully as a trained soldier is not that much slower than a very good sprinter.

--- End quote ---

I will try.

First: I accept the Real life effect that there is no difference in the time needed to pull a trigger...be it a MG, a SMG, a Plasma Blster or Particlebeam Cannon...it takes lets say a second - done.

I am talking about the game mechanic of damage ratings of weapons.

There are losts of others factors balancing (e.g. spread, crouch, range, effect vs. various armours)weapons, but i will limit the analysis towards this one factor (damage/TU)

In the game you obviously try to use the most efficient weapon possible. This can be represented be damage/TU. Right now all weapons are fairly balanced. There is no real Uber-weapon because the higher damage potential a weapon has, the more TUs you need to "pull the trigger". The damage/TU varies around 5 to 30 damage per TU, most high damage values have to be calculated down due to spread, whereas low damage values often have a much higher chance to hit. This narrows the damage/TU values to about 8 to 15 damage per TU. So there are differences but not within small limits. If you equalize the TUs needed for firemodes, simply choosing weapons with higher damage becomes a "No-Brainer"...ill try to give an example:

atm the particlebeam cannon requires 24 TU for rapid shots (not even full auto) and deals up to 600 points of damage (assuming all shots hit, not very likely with a spread of 2.5...). This means the weapon deals about 25 damage/TU

the Assault rifle requires 18 TU for full auto and deals up to 336 points of damage, with an equal spread chance. This equals about 18 damage/TU.

This way PHALANX has at least a chance to deal sufficient damage to kill the aliens.

If you would reduce the TUs needed for the P-Beam cannon (argument: just pull the trigger!) to lets say 18, the Cannon would be able to deliver an enormous amount of about 34 damage/TU. (The hardest hitter right now is the flamethrower (30 Damage/TU) and this weapon has a severely limited range.) So after i have researched particlebeam cannons, i switch with as many as possible soldiers to cannons, to inflict the most damage/TU, and this would result in having most of your forces running around with p-beam cannons. This would reduce the variety of the game a lot and make the game less interesting.

So you are right to claim that in RL there is no difference in the time needed to pull the trigger, right.
But implementing this into the game would cause an imbalance as in creating Uber-Weapons.

Concerning the Speed/TU-System: If you want to keep it simple, there is simply no chance to make it completely "realistic"...just consider the fact that you need e.g. 10 TUs to fire a laser pistol pulse. Ans you need the same amount of TUs to move 5 squares, a distance of about 20 feet...not realistic at all. But it is a simple, easy to understand und working mechanic. I am quite content to sacrifice as much realism as needed to create a well working and balanced combat system.

About the comparison between sprinter and trained soldier: You might be right, but I WANT to see my stats go up and I WANT to feel/see the effects! So if id only gain 1 TU per 10 speed, the game would become less interesting for me, almost boring. In fact, i discovered UFO:AI a few months ago and once i realized that your soldiers did not improve, i stopped playing...not enogh development..or to discribe it with Robin D. Laws "not enough tiny bits"...

All of this is of course just my own personal preference how this kind of a game should be be, feel free to disagree... ;D

SpaceWombat:
I think I'm getting your point now and I cannot disagree. Though what Surrealistik meant was something else as I understand it.

The issue is not about every kind of weapon to use the same amount of TUs for automatic fire mode or any fire mode at all (lets say 12 TU for MG, 12 TU for laser, 12 TU for plasma....) but to use a fix amount of TUs or a percentage for every auto fire mode (e.g. 12 TU or 20% of soldiers total TUs for MG, 10 TU or 15% for laser...)

Can Surrealistik please confirm who is missing the point here? I'm still a bit confused.  ;D
If you got it right I obviously totally agree with you. No doubt.

If I got it right there is no problem with damage/TU because it is still the same as is now. The relation between the weapons would not change because they would still use different amounts of TUs or percentages per shot/salve/whatever (20% for MG, 15% for laser rifle, 30% for particle ...). The question is wether this should be made more realistic by using percentages of the total TUs amount for a soldier because some parts of operating a weapon cannot be influenced by soldiers abilities (rounds per minute is fix for a certain gun, no matter how good you are).
The only effect of speed in my interpretation is: A faster soldier will be able to shoot more often even though some parts of the gun operating will use % of total TUs. That is totally realistic for me. If you duel with a guy who has the exact same abilities but is faster he is the predator, you are the prey... he can "pull out the colt" faster/more often.

The plan as I understand it is not to use the same fix amount of TUs for different weapons!

Surrealistik:
Do keep in mind that flat TU costs in the context of this discussion does not mean equal TU costs for the firemodes of different weapons, so much as TU costs that do not remain proportional to soldier's TU pool.

That said, even if the Speed ability were to reflect reflexes and targeting speed, this would at best afford only a minor influence on the overall TU cost of any given weapon's autofire mode. Overall, the biggest determining factor for TU consumption relative to the # of shots given such modes, is the weapon's rate of fire, which is unaffected by such things. Because this is so, the vast majority of the cost (at the very least) of any given autofire mode should remain constant between soldiers (unless we're talking about a short burst). Personally, I'm not adverse to the idea of hybridizing percentage and flat costs, as long as the former is proportionate in prominence to a firemode's autofire component.
 

--- Quote ---There is no real Uber-weapon because the higher damage potential a weapon has, the more TUs you need to "pull the trigger".
--- End quote ---

Clearly you have not seen the SMG :P.

SpaceWombat:
Agreed.
The influence of aiming/reflexes/stress immunity decreases with length of fire.
Therefore it should have maybe 10% or less influence in auto fire mode, around 30-50% for short burst and more than 50% for a single shot. My opinion only of course. But I feel good reflexes and experience should matter quite a lot for single shot operations where rounds per minute has absolutely no influence, the sooner you aim accurately and pull the trigger the less time you need for the whole operation.

tobbe:

--- Quote from: Surrealistik on January 22, 2008, 06:39:37 pm ---Do keep in mind that flat TU costs in the context of this discussion does not mean equal TU costs for the firemodes of different weapons, so much as TU costs that do not remain proportional to soldier's TU pool.

That said, even if the Speed ability were to reflect reflexes and targeting speed, this would at best afford only a minor influence on the overall TU cost of any given weapon's autofire mode. Overall, the biggest determining factor for TU consumption relative to the # of shots given such modes, is the weapon's rate of fire, which is unaffected by such things. Because this is so, the vast majority of the cost (at the very least) of any given autofire mode should remain constant between soldiers (unless we're talking about a short burst). Personally, I'm not adverse to the idea of hybridizing percentage and flat costs, as long as the former is proportionate in prominence to a firemode's autofire component.
 
Clearly you have not seen the SMG :P.

--- End quote ---

ok, i think, i slowly understand ::)

If i understood it correctly, you do not suggest to change anything about damge/TUs, but only to change the fixed TUs into percentages...this way a solider with speed 20 (about 30 TUs) and a soldier with speed 100 (i think about 40 TUs?) could use the autofire mode (lets say it costs 25%) equally often, as their reflexes (aka speed) is not dependent on the ability to fire their weapon...!

If i got that right: Ok, i see your point.

I still dont like it. As I stated before i love to see me soldiers become better. And I like to use this to my advantage...preferably to fire more often! But this will become impossible with percentages...furthermore: as the difference in TUs/speed is quite minimal right now, there wouldnt be much difference to the fixed system...perhaps only 1-2 TUs...and if I would be the one to write the code, i probably wouldnt do it. Much work, minimal effect. Sorry...

Concerning the SMG: Yeah, thats one nasty one. I am right now working on some little rebalacing of the different weapons. I was really surprised to see that the SMG in Fullauto is much more efficient than the assault rifle and even the MG (concerning damage/TU), even against armored enemies...

I REALLY miss some kind of Sniper-weapon-improvement, so i am readjusting the laser rifle with an additional sniper mode...
But one major point is to nerf the SMG (e.g. reduce range of bursts to 20, increase spread, reduce crouch, increase effectivity of armor against it)...the SMG is still a quite potent weapon but it is at least less efficient...an MG should simply be more devastating as a SMG...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page