Model for reaction fire

[taylormeffert]

I know this has been discussed and is subject to change, but I would like
to depict my hybrid model for reaction fire anyway:

There is no fixed value how much TUs need to be kept in reserve for a
soldier to allow him to return fire. It is 'the more - the better'. When an
alien walks into view, the soldier fires his weapon. He uses the same
number of TUs he would need for that shot in his own turn. This model's
special: The soldier can only spent half of his reserve for the reaction
shot. If this value is too small to pay for the shot cost, the difference
is drawn from the soldier's next turn. There is no limit how much can be
'borrowed' this way (even more than the full TUs value for the next turn),
but there's a catch: The chance of getting the reaction shot in the first
place depends on the percentage of 'borrowed' TUs on the shot cost.

Example: A soldier has a weapon with a snap shot cost of 10. He has 40 TUs,
but uses only 15 TUs in his own turn. Now he waits for aliens to creep up
with a reserve of 25 TUs.
Now an alien moves into sight. Our soldier wants to react: He can use half
of his reserve (rounded up), so he has 13 TUs directly available, and needs
only 10 TUs to fire. So this reaction shot is 100% payed by the reserve,
resulting in maximum chance of fire. He shoots, paying 10 TUs, remaining on
15 reserve.
When the next alien shows up, the soldier can only spent 8 TUs directly
(50% of 15 reserve), and needs to borrow 2 TUs. So his chance of fire is
only 80% of maximum value. He is lucky after a few attemts (alien movement
steps) and fires, reducing reserve to 7. If the enemy turn would be over
now, he would start his own turn with 38 TUs (40-2).
The next shot would have just a 40% chance modifier (50% of 7 = 4 -> 4/10)
and leave 32 TUs for the next turn (38-6).

Conclusion:
- There is no fixed reserve value, which is good. The more reserve the
better, allowing more reaction shots at higher probabilities. No "Make one
more step and you can't do anything".
- Small weapons (with low TU cost) are more suited for reaction fire,
because they drain less reserve points and don't need to 'borrow' TUs from
the next turn as fast as larger weapons.
- Each shot is payed for its exact TU price. Massive reaction fire reduces
next round's TU's, but at a fair price, and should leave the soldier with
some TUs left (needs testing).
- A larger reserve gives higher safety, but reduces the effective usage of
TUs per turn (because half of the reserve remains unused with each shot).

Things to consider:
- The "use 50% rounded up" rule can be varied to any percentage for fine
tuning.
- The "reduce reaction chance by borrow percentage" rule does not
neccesarily need to be linear.
Consider: square (<BorrowPercentage> / 10) results in 10% borrowed -> -1%
modifier, 20% -> -4%, 30% -> -9% and so on.

[geever]

Hey, Isn't this the same you reported on the tracker yesterday? It was rejected.
It has no use to spam Ur request around.

-geever

[Vio]

It has no use in getting it implemented, if you think that was his goal.
But let's assume that he just wanted to share the idea anyway, and maybe get some feedback.

Because I think the basic idea is not bad, and it's always good if people get creative.
It's just too complicated for casual players to use well imo. And looks like a bitch to code.
So I also understand why it was rejected.

[taylormeffert]

Right, I wanted to share the idea and read some feedback.

If a proposal is rejected, that's a pity. But people should have a chance to comment if they feel they should do so. If some Admin in bad mood (btaxis) closes the topic in the moment he reads it, no discussion or feedback will ever occur. That's bad. It's like a single person decides for the enire community that a topic is not worth to be discussed. If that behavior is intended, one should wonder whether posting ideas here makes any sense at all.

[Hertzila]

The basic idea of certain weapons being better for reaction fire is good but I'm not so sure about the rest. Could be hard to code too and even if it wasn't at least I have understood that any time from the coders is valuable.

Also, if anything is going to lock this topic, it is that last comment against BTAxis. Seriously, what do people have against him? Besides, getting an idea rejected is already one kind of feedback: we think we already have a better system. Remember that admins are pretty much the leaders of this project.

[homunculus]

so, the 'reaction wall' tactics becomes more effective than some movement + reaction fire, because 'reaction wall' soldiers would do nothing for the whole turn and keep all their time units are for the reaction fire.

in ufo-ai case it would usually translate to snipers crouching somewhere and never moving and just using reaction fire.

so, first i would like to ask why 'reaction wall' should be more effective than movement + reaction fire.

========

actually, when i read the title of the thread, without reading the post, i thought it could be about using 'fire' position (in the shooting animation) for soldiers who are at reaction fire at the end of the turn.

[taylormeffert]

I agree that 'Don't make camping snipers more powerfull' is a good point against this concept. To make light weapons and fast attack modes better suited for reaction fire is just an added benefit - the main point was to remove the strict barrier of reserve points needed to return fire and instead have something more flexible.
I admit that I should have pointed that out more clearly instead of delving into details right from the start. I'll try to improve that on my next post.

[keybounce]

It has no use in getting it implemented, if you think that was his goal.
But let's assume that he just wanted to share the idea anyway, and maybe get some feedback.

Because I think the basic idea is not bad, and it's always good if people get creative.
It's just too complicated for casual players to use well imo. And looks like a bitch to code.
So I also understand why it was rejected.

Complicated? Not really. Doesn't even look that hard to code.

XCom's reaction walls were horrendously effective -- about the only thing more effective was grenade tossing. Something that makes reaction fire less effective than offensive fire is a good thing.

This does that -- it results in people using reaction fire getting fewer shots.

Additionally, the whole "One more step and you can't shot at all" nature of Xcom stank (the only flaw in Xcom 1, really. Well, ok, bugs. Overpowering player psionics. Etc.) This means that you have a chance of still firing as reaction fire, and if you do, next turn you start with fewer movement points.

That it makes faster weapons relatively better for reaction fire than "bigger damage" weapons is another nice touch. Yes, that bigger damage weapon will take them out, there's a realistic chance it won't fire -- you need speed (fast reactions and fast weapons) to react