General > Discussion

Is sniper still useless? [2.5]

<< < (4/6) > >>

Jon_dArc:

--- Quote from: TrashMan on May 10, 2012, 05:20:40 pm ---and it's a big, heavy and unwieldy weapons because it is. Propotype wepons trying ot cram advanced tech will not be very comfortable to use OR small.
--- End quote ---
Neither the machine gun nor the sniper rifle are prototypes—the machine gun has been in service for 16 years according to HEAD UFOPedia (with special mention made of the simplicity of its internals), and the sniper rifle is only mentioned as having been developed "after 2040", implying a long history as well.


--- Quote ---Given the alien armor, sniper rifle does have a big caliber.
--- End quote ---
Checking the UFOPedia confirms this—I'd forgotten, but it is described as a modified AMR firing a 20mm cannon round (inexplicably decried as an HMG caliber).

Actually, a review of the UFOPedia just reinforces the idea that it's all ultimately arbitrary—nothing intrinsic to the setting demands the kinds of performance characteristics seen on the weapons, and since the fluff descriptions are incoherent it's not as if there's an established canon to be faithful to. As a result, the question really seems to come back to "what should this weapon look like to be best for gameplay".


--- Quote ---And the TU usage is indicative of it's usage.
Sniper rifles take time to align an accurate shot.
--- End quote ---
I generally agree, but we're talking about the firemode "snap shot" here. The TU expenditure suggests that a fair bit of time and attention is going into the aim, but the accuracy suggests fire more from the hip, especially since it doesn't benefit at all from a more stable stance.


--- Quote ---And honestly, more difference in all kinds of stats is better.
--- End quote ---
I guess the biggest issue with the snap shot as it now stands is that it invites the question "why?" It's only 5 TU cheaper than the aimed shot, so with the difference in accuracy you'd only deliberately choose the snap shot if you're practically in melee range—but if you are, why not just pull out a melee weapon or grenade instead? They compare favorably on a damage/TU basis. It isn't really an option to have the soldier not be carrying them, either, as 15 TU is a very high minimum TU to be able to attack with. The increased TU requirements mean that the old trick of having a soldier fire both an aimed shot and a snap shot in one turn requires an extremely quick soldier (35 TU, and with armor now giving penalties), while previously it was highly feasible to even crouch first (33 TU total cost) or orthomove one square if already crouched. As it stands, it seems like you might as well just remove the snap shot entirely—the only case I can think of offhand where I'd miss it is the case of having two nearby aliens in different directions (so they can't be simultaneously grenaded or put into melee range).

It seems like either making the snap shot an accurate mid-range alternative to the aimed shot (as it was in 2.4) or a serious alternative to a grenade or melee weapon for fast engagement of very close targets is the only way to go to have it not be just wasted.

~J

H-Hour:
I may not have time to address all the concerns raised right now, but here goes.

1. I do hope to make the battlescape draw on game mechanics at play in many tactical-sims, within the bounds of a turn-based game like this. Fire and movement, cover and concealment, overlapping fields of fire, bounding overwatch -- these are all small unit military tactics which have strategic relevance in a tactical sim and which I hope to make more relevant in the battlescape gameplay over the next several years. We're missing some major components -- a visibility system, for instance -- but quite a bit is already in place: overlapping fields of fire, bounding overwatch and, via the TU system, some aspects of fire and movement.

UFO:AI is, of course, not a tactical sim. But these are critical aspects of a truly strategic 3D environment. They don't matter for the games-as-film genre of FPS, like Modern Warfare, or the arcade genre of 3D games, like Quake and its successors. But in my opinion they are an important step beyond the number-crunching world of turn-based tile combat, like Battle for Wesnoth, and a positive move towards a more interesting 3D strategic environment. It is a very early work in progress.

This is also why I have sought to develop mechanisms for tying weaponry to more specific combat roles. The sniper rifle is designed for a very specific purpose: to deliver a strong punch at a great distance. In return, it sacrifices mobility and flexibility. I have made its snap shot less useful because that is a firemode it is not designed to do well. It should be an option of last resort. That said, I may reduce its TU to 12, as only 5 less than the aimed shot seems wrong and was perhaps an oversight on my part. For more info on combat roles, read the Skills/Weapons section here.

2. I have heard from former armed services members the same as Kurja mentioned: a crouched position is awkward for firing a machine gun. That's why I chose to put the crouched penalty in. If this is patently false, I will gladly reconsider.

3. I am against a simple equation between crouch and better accuracy. Currently, our maps really lack a lot of good cover -- objects that provide defensive firing positions. This reduces the element of cover in the cover and concealment game mechanics. But I hope in the future with more cover in maps, that stance will have more to do with the demands of a particular defensive position than just accuracy. The decision to crouch or stand could have implications on whether the player is more or less exposed and, as a trade-off, is more or less capable of returning fire. In my ideal future UFO:AI, this is a more important calculation than weapon accuracy.

4. On the big, heavy, unweildy element of sniper rifle snap shot accuracy: consider not just its weight or size, but also the fact that a sniper rifle is typically mounted with a large scope which improves the ability of its operator to accurately aim at long distances, but obscures the operator's view considerably, making it more difficult to visually locate and center the barrel on a target quickly (unless the operator is already dialed into an area). Now, our current models don't all visually show this, but that is something that I hope to improve in the future.

Jon_dArc:

--- Quote from: H-Hour on May 10, 2012, 07:17:27 pm ---I have made its snap shot less useful because that is a firemode it is not designed to do well. It should be an option of last resort. That said, I may reduce its TU to 12, as only 5 less than the aimed shot seems wrong and was perhaps an oversight on my part.
--- End quote ---
Excellent. That'll also probably make the intention clearer—coming from 2.4, where "snap shot" was pretty accurate out to medium range, the new version was fairly surprising.


--- Quote ---For more info on combat roles, read the Skills/Weapons section here.
--- End quote ---
Ah, good (always hard to tell when digging around the wiki what's ancient and obsolete and what reflects current views). I should probably make a separate thread to discuss those.


--- Quote ---2. I have heard from former armed services members the same as Kurja mentioned: a crouched position is awkward for firing a machine gun. That's why I chose to put the crouched penalty in. If this is patently false, I will gladly reconsider.
--- End quote ---
Fair enough, he's actually fired the thing; I'm inclined to think that that's likely due to the design (and thus the physical shape) of the weapons rather than being based more in the physics of the matter, but that's neither here nor there.


--- Quote ---3. I am against a simple equation between crouch and better accuracy. Currently, our maps really lack a lot of good cover -- objects that provide defensive firing positions. This reduces the element of cover in the cover and concealment game mechanics. But I hope in the future with more cover in maps, that stance will have more to do with the demands of a particular defensive position than just accuracy. The decision to crouch or stand could have implications on whether the player is more or less exposed and, as a trade-off, is more or less capable of returning fire. In my ideal future UFO:AI, this is a more important calculation than weapon accuracy.
--- End quote ---
Mm. That would make a difference, but at the moment since crouching doesn't reduce silhouette all that much it means that without guaranteed accuracy improvement crouching's most significant universal role is to help get more Quickness XP per TU. I'll admit that some of it may just be lingering habits from 2.4 and earlier, but I'm a little hesitant about breaking the simple equation before the other roles for crouch are in place.

~J

H-Hour:
The crouch accuracy inversion only effects the machine gun and the sniper rifle snap shot. It is almost universal still.

Latino210:
All right, just finished trying the sniper rifles. The vanilla sniper is good, light and reliable, the EM rifle is a CANNON, killing almost everything with a single, accurate shot. My idea is to train a sniper with the vanilla rifle and upgrade him to the bigger one as soon as he's skilled enough. Thanks for the upgrade, having "sniper" as a useless skill was depressing!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page