General > Discussion
Weapons and damage in 2.5 (HEAD)
Jon_dArc:
--- Quote from: Battlescared on May 18, 2012, 06:56:15 pm ---So take the Assault Rifle, or the electromagnetic rifle, or any of the other rifles.
--- End quote ---
But then why have the laser rifle in the game, taking up space in the menus and possibly luring players into trying to use them?
--- Quote ---Now, if there is a gimp to accuracy in 2.5, then yes, that may make it far less useful.
--- End quote ---
They're drastically different in 2.5. 2.4-based knowledge won't help in this discussion except as historical perspective.
--- Quote ---In general, I hate these kinds of analysis because you have to take the weapons in context of game play. Many things make a weapon a better choice over another other than just numbers and damage, such as map types and when you expect to engage the enemy.
--- End quote ---
I'm not understanding the objection. Certainly I agree that purely quantitative analysis uninformed by experience of gameplay is an extremely dangerous practice, due to the risk of either undervaluing weapon characteristics that are difficult to account for quantitatively (accuracy is the big one here, and range to a lesser extent) or missing indirect consequences (say, a weapon that's only particularly good against one kind of enemy, but that enemy is really dangerous), but as I've indicated above, this is informed by gameplay—I first played the game and thought to myself "hey, laser weapons kinda suck", and only then pulled out the numbers to quantify exactly how much they suck, whether I'm overlooking some situation in which they don't suck, and also be able to make a more convincing argument than "hey, laser weapons kinda suck".
But it's not clear how "map types and when you expect to engage the enemy" is something you wouldn't get from "numbers and damage"—those numbers include range and accuracy (even if at this point that only gets factored in in a broad, comparative way), TU use (answering questions like "how many shots can I get off in a turn" and "how late in the turn can I discover an alien and still be able to open fire"), and, yes, damage—like the fact that even with infinite accuracy the laser pistol is worthless against an Ortnok. What still gets overlooked in this sort of analysis?
(On the topic of accuracy, I need to confirm the magnitude of effect of soldier attributes/skills—I'd generally expect that to have a larger effect on the high damage/low accuracy weapons, but it is another unaccounted-for variable.)
~J
Battlescared:
No offense intended, Jon_dArc, I just prefer to figure out what works for me through playing the game and not analyzing the stats behind the scenes. To each his own.
In most games I've played, there are always weapons that don't quite cut it. The laser rifle is one, so as to why have it in the game? Well, if you've never played it, you'd try it, find out it didn't work like you had hoped, and move on. Just like in real life. So you do the research, design and build it, field it, and guess what... the troops come back with reports that the weapon didn't work exactly like the eggheads thought it would. Back to the drawing board. That's why I said the research needs to be in order, so you go through that progression. I did it in order just because, and I like the heavy laser much better.
For reference, back in XCOM, I eventually found out that the laser rifle kicked the most butt and a squad of guys armed with them could cut a map down quickly, even in the later stages. The heavy laser and laser pistol sucked, however, but I still had to go through them to find that out. This game is different, so it doesn't bother me if the laser rifle doesn't cut it. There are others that do, and if the assault rifle works better for a persons tactics than the laser rifle, then that's the weapon they should field. Hot lead still has certain advantages. :)
Jon_dArc:
--- Quote from: Battlescared on May 18, 2012, 08:10:24 pm ---No offense intended, Jon_dArc, I just prefer to figure out what works for me through playing the game and not analyzing the stats behind the scenes. To each his own.
--- End quote ---
None taken. I certainly understand your point of view there, but this is a balancing exercise—my goal isn't to pick the best weapon, it's to make sure that all weapons have a reason to be picked. As such, I think it's a distinct situation from actually playing the game.
--- Quote ---In most games I've played, there are always weapons that don't quite cut it. The laser rifle is one, so as to why have it in the game? Well, if you've never played it, you'd try it, find out it didn't work like you had hoped, and move on. Just like in real life. So you do the research, design and build it, field it, and guess what... the troops come back with reports that the weapon didn't work exactly like the eggheads thought it would. Back to the drawing board.
--- End quote ---
The issue is that it's neither fun nor interesting. It's true, dead ends and boondoggles exist in the real world—but we also don't have soldiers and employees randomly die in training accidents, nations demand that you purchase Saracens manufactured by their factories, or any of the other obnoxious things that would realistically happen in a situation like this. As you recognize in your call for the laser weapons to form a research tree, players would quickly learn that it's bad and stop researching it (at least until they run out of stuff to research, if they're too lazy to fire all scientists until more stuff comes along).
--- Quote ---That's why I said the research needs to be in order, so you go through that progression.
--- End quote ---
Why, though? There's no obvious reason why that progression would exist—if anything, the other way around would make more sense, as then each step would require more miniaturization. I also think that the player has too few research choices at any given moment (except briefly in about the second month or so) to begin with.
--- Quote ---if the assault rifle works better for a persons tactics than the laser rifle, then that's the weapon they should field. Hot lead still has certain advantages. :)
--- End quote ---
There are two issues to that in my mind: for one, the assault rifle is available on the market at the beginning of the game, and you even get a free supply to start out. The laser rifle requires a three-step research process, then either production or a long wait for the market to spin up. After all that, it should be a clear improvement in at least some circumstance.
The other is that it's not just that the AR "works better for a [person's] tactics", it's that it's genuinely difficult to come up with a tactic in which the laser rifle works—admittedly I'm a little less certain about this than about the laser pistol, as the damage isn't quite so miserable and I haven't yet developed a principled way to account for accuracy, but both the damage calculations and gameplay experience trying to use it have told me that loud and clear.
~J
Starbug:
Eh, what I say will only count for 2.4 stable release, as I haven't played 2.5, but I always used the laser rifle and heavy laser as a replacement for the sniper rifle, not the assault rifle. Primarily because of the higher accuracy (until something better come along), and the fact that you could never take a 2nd aimed shot with the sniper rifle. Typically both my snipers would miss in a turn, and then my troops would be in danger.
The laser rifle was never gonna compete with the assault rifle in terms of damage output, since it doesn't have a full-auto fire mode, and takes more TUs to fire the same amount of shots. I thought the whole point of the laser weapons was low-damge, but near guaranteed hit? If the accuracy has been lowered that kinda defeats the point...
headdie:
Its also a different damage type so the theory is that it interacts with armour differently
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version