Technical support > Feature Requests

Weapon Damage And Size, Ideas

(1/1)

Martin Levac:
Hi, first post.

First off, UFO:AI is the most complex iteration of any XCom clone I've played. So great work on that. Second, it's a real genuine honest-to-goodness game that can hang with the best of them, in my opinion. So congrats, you've done it. This is a suggestion post and sometimes these can be seen as a criticism of what's already there. But please don't take it like that. I genuinely want this game to be better than it already is. To be more fun. So on to the suggestions.

Basically, this game is all about weapons. So it follows that weapons should have a special place. I've looked a bit at the ufo files for weapon definitions, damage, range, etc. As it stands, it's simplistic. There's one value for damage, one value for range, one value for penetration, etc. And I get the feeling when I play that those are static values up to range, so that even if I'm at max range, I can still dish out the same damage. Don't get me wrong, it works real good as is. I'm just establishing what is so I can justify my suggestions of what I want it to become. Here goes.

I propose:

- High and low values for damage and penetration
- Damage and penetration dropoff based on range
- Point-blank max damage and max penetration

I don't know if critical hits are implemented so I propose they are. So we'd have:

- Critical hits based on weapon and ammo characteristics
- Critical hit chance based on accuracy
- Critical damage based on range

It's assumed that damage is already based on weapon and ammo characteristics. As we can see, the main factor in these suggestions is range. And this gives coders an easy way to implement these suggestions by implementing a x/range function (where x is the value that gets modified by range), and then point all damage/crit values to this one, and we'd end up with a natural set of high/low damage/crit output values even if we only use one damage value to begin with. You'd have to implement a critchance/critdamage function as well if you so choose.

This critchance/critdamage values could have:

- Critchance %
- Critdamage * or +

The low damage value could have:

- Dropoff based on range, and based on damage
- Min damage based on damage, which itself is based on weapon and ammo characteristics

The advantage of implementing only a x/range function is that we can use existing damage values, and avoid having to modify all those ufo files. I'm modifying ufo files myself and it's tedious work. But then maybe coding is just as tedious, I dunno.

If we wanted to be fancy, we could use an existing value as a skew for damage/crit dropoff rate within range. Penetration value could do it. The higher the pen, the slower the dropoff, the higher the low damage/crit values at range. If pen is used for skew, then some fancy code must be implemented to allow pen to be skewed at range too, if you so choose. But I can live with static penetration at range so no biggy.


Second part of the suggestions. Comprehensive re-work of relationship between damage, ammo capacity, and size. Let me give you an example of what I mean here. Take the laser weapons for example. They all use the same clip so the total energy pool they use is the same. I'm thinking of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

I assume that size is a simplified amalgam to define volume/weight/encumbrance in the game? I also assume that size is what determines if a soldier can carry the weapon according to his strength? I also assume that size is a linear value, not an exponential value? For the sake of argument, I will assume weapon size stated in ufo files includes ammo size when weapon is loaded. Also for the sake of argument, I assume an energy/damage conversion rate of 1:1, and a linear relationship between damage/size of converter/laser. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.

Pistol:
- 26 shots
- 36 damage
- Total damage (energy pool) per clip: 936
- Size: 10 (7 for clip so weapon size 3)

Rifle:
- 16 shots
- 42 damage
- Total damage per clip: 672
- Size: 35 (-7=28)

Heavy:
- 6 shots
- 55/52 damage
- Total damage per clip: 330/312
Size: 50 (-7=43)

Something's not right. The total pool of energy is the same, but the rate of energy expenditure varies significantly as damage output varies only slightly. So this can mean only one thing - more energy is wasted exponentially as the rate of energy expenditure grows bigger/faster. Since the First Law says no energy can be created or lost, then the only possible answer is that the energy that is not converted to light by the laser is instead converted to heat within the laser itself, with obvious dire consequences since we're talking about loads of energy especially in the case of the heavy laser. Put differently, if energy loss is about 60% for the heavy laser, and if the remaining energy that gets converted into light causes 55/52 damage, then the lost energy should cause about twice that damage as heat to the user. Unless, of course, the heavy laser is heavily shielded/cooled but then that obviously increases weapon size moreso than just the increase in size of the energy/light conversion system. The heavy laser description only says something like "consumes ammo like crazy" so there isn't really an indication of waste here, only an indication that it consumes ammo very quickly, presumably due to the correspondingly high damage output.

With regards to size, this should be consistent as well. If the heavy laser wastes a lot of energy as heat, then it must be heavily shielded or cooled or both, then this should be represented with a corresponding increase in size. Also, if the heavy laser doesn't have a heat shield/cooling, then we run into the problem of overheating, then we run into the problem of rate of fire, and possibly the problem of reload time too. The problem of size can also be found in other weapons like the assaultrifle/machinegun (the ammo specifically), and the plasma weapons (again the ammo specifically), to name a few.

Finally, when size is re-worked into a comprehensive relationship between damage, ammo capacity, heatshielding/cooling (all within their respective technologies, i.e. bullets, laser, plasma, etc), and base storage capacity, we end up with a new difficulty in managing all those weapons and ammo with respect to how much damage we can bring on the battlefield. For example, a solider who carries a machine gun instead of an assault rifle brings a whole lot more damage to the fight, but would also have to be much stronger, and this weapon/ammo would also take much more space in base storage.


Here's an example of a re-work for lasers, based on total energy pool of the same clip for the pistol, size based on pistol size and on energy conversion factor for damage output, all using a fixed waste ratio to keep energy pool constant and keep size consistent:

Pistol:
- 26 shots
- 36 damage
- Pool: 936
- Size: 3+7 = 10

Rifle:
- 16 shots
- 58 damage (was 42)
- Pool: 936 (was 672)
- Size: 5+7 = 12 (was 35)

Heavy:
- 6 shots
- 156 damage (was 55/52)
- Pool: 936 (was 330/312)
- Size: 13+7 = 20 (was 50)

If ammo size is not included in weapon size, then we have respective sizes of 10, 16, and 43. As we can see, if we keep energy pool constant, and we keep existing shots, we end up with an absurd damage output for the heavy laser, but that's all kosher since we obey the First Law here. Instead, if we decide to justify the drop in damage output efficiency by the increased waste energy as damage output goes up, then we have to increase weapon size proportionally according to some factor. But one thing is obvious, the original numbers don't make sense since all three lasers use the same energy pool.

One potential easy solution here is to just increase shots for the heavy laser to avoid giving it uber damage. 9 shots instead of 6 gives us 104 damage instead of 156. But if damage for the heavy laser gets cut, then its size must get cut too, to about twice that of the rifle, so 32 instead of 43. And then once we've looked at lasers and start looking at other weapons, we run into small problems. For example, the sniper rifle does 105 damage for a size 60. Compared to the original heavy laser with a damage of 55/52, there's no contest. No use spending all that research time, production time, and credits on something that doesn't even do half the damage of a sniper rifle that can be had right from the start of the game. But compared to the re-worked heavy laser above, the heavy laser wins hands down. Maybe we can justify this as the difference between old and new tech. And the difference doesn't stop at their respective characteristics, but also price. The sniper rifle and its ammo cost 1,300 and 85, while the heavy laser and its ammo cost 4,000 and 210. Their producetime is different too, lots for the ammo, not so much for the weapons.

When we look at the assault rifle and machine gun and their respective ammo, the size discrepancy problem is even more obvious. Shots/damage/size; AR: 30/42/3, MG: 100/45/6. And the weapon size for both is 20. Here we have to justify doing a little more damage with a bullet that is about 60% smaller, so we can fit 70 more bullets in a magazine that's only twice the size. And we have to justify that an AR is just as big as an MG. In a re-work, the MG's mags would be size 10, and the MG's size would be around 40.

Just for giggles, I looked at my effectiveness for different loadouts of all my soldiers. So I outfitted them all with machine guns and one extra ammo clip for each, and just trashed the place without even reloading. So now on small missions, no extra clip, just a machine gun for everybody. Why would I give them anything else? Maybe I'll run into aliens that the machine gun can't touch, but I doubt it. The machine gun rules the battlefield.


I'll stop here. Maybe I'm not the only one who's suggested something like this. I did a search and didn't find anything exactly like that, but maybe I didn't search hard enough. Anyway, the re-work of relationships between damage/ammo/size can all be done with ufo files, but that's tedious work. I'm going to do some of that for my own use, and maybe I'll end up sharing what I did with the rest of you, if I think my fiddling isn't too shabby. But then I don't really know how aliens are fitted for missions so I could end up facing uber aliens carrying loads of ammo right in the first mission, if I somehow end up increasing the amount of ammo those starter aliens can hold as I fiddle with their size. The damage/crit/range has to be done by coders, however. I don't do that.

So what do you guys think? Is there an interest and is there already something like that going on?

H-Hour:
Welcome to the forums, Martin. If you aren't playing 2.5-dev, you might want to switch over to that sometime. All of the weapons have been heavily rebalanced during this development cycle, though not in the way you suggest.

You've obviously put a lot of thought in, so I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you, but I think you've misunderstood the size parameter. It  only effects how much space an item takes in base storage capacity. There is currently no weight/encumbrance mechanism. Darkrain is in the final stages of implementing this, but we will use a separate parameter to define the weight of each piece of equipment.

Your suggestions about range are interesting, but I don't find them very compelling. I'm not sure what the motivation is. If the motivation is to add a sense of realism, then I would say that implementing this will only call attention to the stylised scaling of the battlescape. We have assault rifles that are only effective out to 20-30 meters and sniper rifles that have a hard time hitting passed 50 meters. Real combat takes place across miles, but our battlescapes are small recreations of tactical combat. Implementing damage fall-off at range for all weapons would just exacerbate the problem, since most rifles are highly effective out to 300 meters.

If the motivation is to introduce a new game mechanic -- an additional tactical layer -- I'm not sure it would bring anything new to the table. Managing range, exposure and closing with the enemy are already vital parts of the battlescape through the use of close and sniper weapons (this is something that has been improved in 2.5-dev). The player already benefits from putting the right weapons with the right troops in the right tactical situations -- long-range, mid-range and close-range. Introducing a range fall-off rate for each weapon would significantly increase the complexity, but I'm not convinced it would make the combat more interesting.

You're right that our combat damage model is, IMHO, a little bit too simplistic. This is particularly the case in how it deals with armor. There is currently no solid mechanism for handling an individual ammo's "penetration" capability, for instance (we hack it in a bit with the dmgtypes/resistances).

To be honest, it seems to me like you've got into the numbers a bit too much. To suggest that one weapon could dominate because it has the highest damage-per-some-parameter is to miss the fact that the Battlescape is not really a number crunching game, despite its turn-based, chess-grid design. How you cultivate different soldier strengths, then distribute and utilize these in a 3D environment, is far more important than basic damage-output. Don't get me wrong. Numbers matter and by the end of the game you'll have a very tough time if you're still fighting with the start-of-game weapons. But in any space with at least a certain level of complexity (and not all of our maps meet this criteria), TU costs, chance to hit at various ranges and indirect fire capabilities are far more influential than sum-total stats.

Martin Levac:
Thanks for the reply. I'm happy to know there's something going on with item weight. Size didn't look right when I looked at it as weight. I look forward to see how that works in the game. I'll try 2.5dev next and see what's new. And thanks for the clarifications on the things I got wrong.

You're right that I'd like more realism. But I don't mean full-on realism where even the scale is right. I'm just looking for the feeling of realism. I still see some room for range/damage dropoff, with tactical value in it, even though we're dealing with very short distances. It doesn't have to be complicated. It could be a fixed linear dropoff value for all weapons, at max range whatever that is. Say 20%. Let's take the sniper for example. For an unarmored/lightly armored target, one shot does it at any range. But due to 20% damage drop at max range, a more heavily armored target takes a few more shots, but point-blank he still goes down, but then I have to get close. If we still want to stay far but still use a snipe tactic against that heavily armored target, then we use a more powerful weapon that does as much point-blank damage as the sniper even with a 20% damage drop at max range. On the other hand, I see your point and I agree. It was just an idea and the game is fun just like it is now.

What about critchance/critdamage? Any chance of seeing this? That too would give the feeling of realism as it would simulate hitting critical body parts, or bypassing armor so full damage is applied. Doesn't have to be complicated either. A single fixed value would do it. Since there's already in-game messages when soldiers/aliens get killed, a message about crit could be implemented easily.

Do you know if we'll be able to mod item weight through ufo files too?

H-Hour:

--- Quote from: Martin Levac on November 01, 2012, 07:24:13 pm ---What about critchance/critdamage? Any chance of seeing this? That too would give the feeling of realism as it would simulate hitting critical body parts, or bypassing armor so full damage is applied. Doesn't have to be complicated either. A single fixed value would do it. Since there's already in-game messages when soldiers/aliens get killed, a message about crit could be implemented easily.

--- End quote ---

I am fairly neutral on critical hits. They can be a nice surprise, but I'd consider them a peripheral feature, which means even if a decision was made to introduce this it would likely get kicked down the road in favor of implementing other battlescape mechanics. One thing I have thought about is tying it to autopsy research so that it strengthens the interplay between the battlescape and geoscape. After an autopsy (in which a scientist presumably learned about the alien race's biology/mechanics), aimed firing modes could have a higher chance of scoring a critical hit (ie - now we know where to shoot them).


--- Quote from: Martin Levac on November 01, 2012, 07:24:13 pm ---Do you know if we'll be able to mod item weight through ufo files too?

--- End quote ---

Yes.

Anarch Cassius:
On the matter of lasers. I'm simply assuming that the high powered beams are less effective at damaging targets. There's lost of places for the waste to occur besides heating the gun. The higher energy beams may loose more energy to the atmosphere or while the energy output may be greater the actual effect on the target may not increase in the same proportion.


--- Quote --- There is currently no solid mechanism for handling an individual ammo's "penetration" capability, for instance (we hack it in a bit with the dmgtypes/resistances).

--- End quote ---

So much is explained. Seriously when I saw the in-game listings for damage I was like, Awesome list very appropriate reminds me of Fallout Tactics. When I saw the internals listed I cringed. Now I know what it's not even the same number of subtypes per damage type.

Having some kind of armor penetration system that could be added to different weapons and ammo would be awesome. I'd also consider having a flat and percent reduction for each kind of damage type.

Navigation

[0] Message Index