UFO:Alien Invasion
General => Discussion => Topic started by: Latino210 on May 09, 2012, 03:53:38 pm
-
I am trying the 2.5 dev version, is the sniper rifle/ electromagnetic rifle still as useless as before? I have fond memories of my sniper in UFO Afterlight breaking bones at several screens range, I miss that!
-
Sniper rifles are more accurate in 2.5 than in 2.4, and the electromagnetic rifle is the most accurate of the sniper rifles. It also has the highest TU cost of all sniper rifles.
-
I found them pretty powerful in 2.4, so we're clearly coming at this from different perspectives.
IMO the Sniper Rifle has been weakened (TU costs increased, snap shot accuracy greatly decreased, snap shot no longer benefits from crouching, and the crouch bonus to aimed shots has been reduced so despite being more accurate while standing it's actually less accurate while crouched)—though now that I look it's also had a bump to damage, meaning that against Tamans with less than Medium Armor one-hit kills should be substantially more common, so it could be a wash in the early game with the weapon becoming more decisively obsolete about the time Shevaar come onto the scene.
The EMR is now a legitimate sniper rifle—I thought it was powerful in 2.4, but it was basically an assault weapon for shooting enemies through walls. Good damage, good damage type (normal_heavy), and although the TU cost is insane, the throughwall means you'll be able to take a shot without adjusting your position more often than you'd think. It's especially good when you're using a Herakles, as you don't need to spend a turn getting out of the transport before opening fire.
I'm not sure what the devs are thinking with some of the crouch adjustments, though. No improvement on the snap shots? Machine guns are /less/ accurate when crouched? Ah well, plenty of good changes to go along with them.
~J
-
I'm not sure what the devs are thinking with some of the crouch adjustments, though. No improvement on the snap shots? Machine guns are /less/ accurate when crouched? Ah well, plenty of good changes to go along with them.
These are good questions.
1. If the crouch bonus to aimed shots for sniper weapons was reduced, it was only because before it was very, very big before. It's still larger for sniper weapons than any other weapon except the RPG. I think I just wanted to make sure they were still effective long-range weapons when standing without being too accurate when crouched.
2. Snap shot accuracy for sniper rifles was reduced because they are big, heavy, unweildy weapons that can not be easily aimed quickly. Think of this not as a measure of the weapon's accuracy, but of the capability of a soldier to accurately deploy the weapon with the given firemode.
3. Machine guns were made less accurate when crouched because the strong recoil makes the position less stable than a standing position. Try going to a kneeling position (our new models will be in a kneeling position) with your right leg down. Your back leg (right) is not as capable of pushing back against heavy recoil (driving into your shoulder) as it is if you are standing. You must rely more on your back muscles. Rapid fire of a heavy machine gun requires strength to keep the fire on target, and this is why standing is a more stable and accurate position. (We don't have support for bipods or resting the gun on something, which can make a crouched/kneeling position more stable.)
-
These are good questions.
1. If the crouch bonus to aimed shots for sniper weapons was reduced, it was only because before it was very, very big before. It's still larger for sniper weapons than any other weapon except the RPG. I think I just wanted to make sure they were still effective long-range weapons when standing without being too accurate when crouched.
2. Snap shot accuracy for sniper rifles was reduced because they are big, heavy, unweildy weapons that can not be easily aimed quickly. Think of this not as a measure of the weapon's accuracy, but of the capability of a soldier to accurately deploy the weapon with the given firemode.
3. Machine guns were made less accurate when crouched because the strong recoil makes the position less stable than a standing position. Try going to a kneeling position (our new models will be in a kneeling position) with your right leg down. Your back leg (right) is not as capable of pushing back against heavy recoil (driving into your shoulder) as it is if you are standing. You must rely more on your back muscles. Rapid fire of a heavy machine gun requires strength to keep the fire on target, and this is why standing is a more stable and accurate position. (We don't have support for bipods or resting the gun on something, which can make a crouched/kneeling position more stable.)
Sounds good, but asks for more questions:
Sniper rifles are big, heavy, unweildy weapons that can not be easily aimed quickly, right. That's, why they are most commonly used layed down. Same with Machine guns, it's usually used with a bipod layed down. Why would Phalanx not use these weapons the way, they are meant to be used?
Until now I thought about crouching a little more abscract as "take the most effective firing position". In fact, i saw crouching with a sniper rifle or machine gun as laying down.
It seems strange for Phalanx to deploy weapons to the battlescape and use them improperly. Why would the best way to use a machine gun be "John Rambo memorial style"? That makes only sense in very heavy, inflexible armor, like in jin Roh.
-
We don't have animations or in-game support for a prone position. Maybe we will some day, but it's a big job.
-
I know, and that's ok. But why not use crouching = "take the most effective firing position" (crouch, prone, whatever) until that day?
Crouching uses TU, it's not intuitive, that accuracy goes down with some weapons. Realism is fine, keeping it simple is fun.
-
I know, and that's ok. But why not use crouching = "take the most effective firing position" (crouch, prone, whatever) until that day?
Crouching uses TU, it's not intuitive, that accuracy goes down with some weapons. Realism is fine, keeping it simple is fun.
+1
-
+1
+2, that's how I've always viewed it as actual prone position is absent.
-
+3
"Crouch" should mean "spend some AP to get into the best firing position"
-
I have no objection to crouching not being the optimal pose for all weapons. Why should it?
But yes, a new set of animations would be very nice.. Right now, a HMG is handled the same way as a rifle, the trooper lifts it to his face.
-
1. If the crouch bonus to aimed shots for sniper weapons was reduced, it was only because before it was very, very big before. It's still larger for sniper weapons than any other weapon except the RPG. I think I just wanted to make sure they were still effective long-range weapons when standing without being too accurate when crouched.
There's actually no crouch bonus (crouch=1) for the snap shot, up from the same 0.5 as the aimed shot—although I can certainly understand the desire to tone down the snap shot, I feel like from both a design and a physical perspective (more on the latter in a bit) it makes sense to maintain a simple "crouch --> improved accuracy", even if that factor ends up being 0.9.
2. Snap shot accuracy for sniper rifles was reduced because they are big, heavy, unweildy weapons that can not be easily aimed quickly. Think of this not as a measure of the weapon's accuracy, but of the capability of a soldier to accurately deploy the weapon with the given fire mode.
I'm dubious about this line of reasoning for two reasons. First, I'd generally argue that it's too divorced from questions of balance to be good design (and if we're really insisting on realism, a better starting place would be quintupling all weapon ranges and most map sizes), and second, it seems circular—it's a big, heavy, unwieldy weapon because the developers collectively say it's a big, heavy, unwieldy weapon, not because of straightforward consequences of the setting and general technology level.
Actually, I think a third issue is that that "big, heavy, unwieldy" bit seems to already be the turf staked out by TU use—so by increasing the TU use by 3 /and/ scaling the accuracy way back, it feels like we're now talking more along the lines of "anti-materiel rifle" rather than "sniper rifle" in the "big, heavy, unwieldy" department.
3. Machine guns were made less accurate when crouched because the strong recoil makes the position less stable than a standing position. Try going to a kneeling position (our new models will be in a kneeling position) with your right leg down. Your back leg (right) is not as capable of pushing back against heavy recoil (driving into your shoulder) as it is if you are standing. You must rely more on your back muscles. Rapid fire of a heavy machine gun requires strength to keep the fire on target, and this is why standing is a more stable and accurate position.
I understand how that view could be arrived at, but I don't think it holds up on a physical level—machine guns really don't push backwards enough to require the kind of bracing you're thinking of, the issue is controlling the motion of the weapon's barrel. According to the HEAD UFOPedia, the machine gun uses a 4.7x33mm tungsten-cored steel round (which is, incidentally, /tiny/), which now that I think about it I'm too lazy to do the precise math on right now so let's take a substitute. The .50 BMG round, though not usually sporting tungsten, is substantially larger at 127x99mm; we'll take mass of the the heaviest variant (52g), the muzzle velocity of the fastest variant (928 m/s), and the rate of fire of the M2 Browning (635 rnd/min). That works out to a force of about ~510.71N during firing. Assuming the soldier masses 100Kg (including gear) and taking Wikipedia's listed approximation for the coefficients of static friction for rubber on dry concrete, static friction will top out at ~980N—it isn't necessary to brace at all in the manner you're describing. Wet concrete tops out at ~294N, but again, this is full-out uninterrupted fire with generous assumptions about the force exerted.
So if we accept that the issue is barrel control, I'd argue that a kneeling position is clearly more stable—you can brace the lead arm against the lead leg, lots of postural sway is eliminated, you've got more contact with the ground, and the position permits leaning forward to get more of the long axis of the weapon pressed against the torso. At the very least, it strains credulity that the stance should be less accurate.
~J
-
In my personal experience, firing a light machinegun (7.62mm) with any accuracy demands either prone position or some other means of additional support, from a standing position it's somewhat comfortable to shoot but when firing from the hip aim is at least questioonable, and then firing from a crouched position is outright awkward. Of course it's a matter of personal preference and ergonomy of a particular weapon, but anyway, just my 2 cents...
-
Actually, that does bring in another point, which is that unless there's a proposal to radically rework combat we probably need to resign ourselves to firearms working on movie logic anyway. As noted, machine gunning is intended to be done from supported position, and anything purpose-designed enough to be called a sniper rifle is going to have that assumption even more strongly built into its design—I really think that calling too much for realism in one very specific area while ignoring the larger ways in which the game simply doesn't support using these weapons in the way they (realistically) are designed to be used is a recipe for needless suffering.
~J
-
I'm dubious about this line of reasoning for two reasons. First, I'd generally argue that it's too divorced from questions of balance to be good design (and if we're really insisting on realism, a better starting place would be quintupling all weapon ranges and most map sizes), and second, it seems circular—it's a big, heavy, unwieldy weapon because the developers collectively say it's a big, heavy, unwieldy weapon, not because of straightforward consequences of the setting and general technology level.
There's nothing dubious about it.
Large, unwieldy weapons cannot be brought up and aimed quickly.
There's a reason SMG's and shorter and lighter version of assault rifles exist - they are quick and nible.
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.
THIS:
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/27/pelt2.jpg)
is the laser rifle developed by the US military. It's big and it's heavy.
Actually, I think a third issue is that that "big, heavy, unwieldy" bit seems to already be the turf staked out by TU use—so by increasing the TU use by 3 /and/ scaling the accuracy way back, it feels like we're now talking more along the lines of "anti-materiel rifle" rather than "sniper rifle" in the "big, heavy, unwieldy" department.
Given the alien armor, sniper rifle does have a big caliber.
And the TU usage is indicative of it's usage.
Sniper rifles take time to align an accurate shot.
And honestly, more difference in all kinds of stats is better.
-
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.
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.
Given the alien armor, sniper rifle does have a big caliber.
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".
And the TU usage is indicative of it's usage.
Sniper rifles take time to align an accurate shot.
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.
And honestly, more difference in all kinds of stats is better.
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
-
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 (http://ufoai.org/wiki/index.php/Proposals/Skills,_Abilities,_Weapons_adjustments#Skills.2FWeapons).
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.
-
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.
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.
For more info on combat roles, read the Skills/Weapons section here (http://ufoai.org/wiki/index.php/Proposals/Skills,_Abilities,_Weapons_adjustments#Skills.2FWeapons).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
-
The crouch accuracy inversion only effects the machine gun and the sniper rifle snap shot. It is almost universal still.
-
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!
-
I kept 3 snipers on every team. Death from afar. The only question was whether anything would be alive by the time my assault troops got in range. Snipers are deadly on small maps with snap shot.
-
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.
Maybe we could split the "crouch" in two antagonist modes:
- "Take cover" mode: which work as in 2.4 (TU, move and defence) but give variable penalties to accuracy (and maybe add a TU penalty to firing, also),
- "Take firing position" mode: which take a variable amount of TU (almost zero for close, small for assault, very high for sniper (25?)), prevent moving but give bonuses to accuracy (great bonus for snipe, medium for assault and near zero for close) (maybe the accurate shots would be only available in this mode?)
This should answer the snap shot/accurate shot problem of the snipe rifle, pros/cons of the theses modes should be clearer for players and make more difference between close/assault/sniper weapons.
Also, it would be a greater advantage to get around an enemy in firing position to take him back as he couldn't open fire directly without leaving this mode (and lose TU and the mode's advantages).
(I hope my poor English will be understandable, please feel free to ask otherwise.)
-
I feel it a good time to link to an actual 20mm sniper rifle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-20_%28rifle%29
Chosen for no reason other than because it's got a good picture.
Still, it seems a bit odd that you'd not be more accurate firing from a position with three points of contact with the ground than just two. Unless you're actually squatting as the animation shows.
-
I feel it a good time to link to an actual 20mm sniper rifle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-20_%28rifle%29
Chosen for no reason other than because it's got a good picture.
Still, it seems a bit odd that you'd not be more accurate firing from a position with three points of contact with the ground than just two. Unless you're actually squatting as the animation shows.
afaik sniper is still more accurate when crouched, the opposite only applies to the machine gun
-
afaik sniper is still more accurate when crouched, the opposite only applies to the machine gun
No, for Snap Shot it has no crouch adjustment (not more accurate, but also not less accurate).
The flamer also gets less accurate when crouched (Crouch 1.5) and a bunch of other weapons have no crouch adjustment (Crouch 1), mostly pistols and heavy weapons.
~J
-
If the Machine Gun is supposed to represent the M-60/M240B/PKM style machine gun, you would have to be a hulking monster with near limitless endurance to fire it standing up. The 240B without ammo weighs almost 30 pounds, and is over 4 feet long. The recoil would obviously screw your accuracy while standing, but the barrel rise combined with the length of the weapon would make it impossible to control after a few rounds. This is why machine guns are used either from a mounted T&E mechanism, or from bi-pods in the prone position.
Visually speaking, crouching in the game is actually squatting. I don't think you'd want to use any kind free firing weapon from that position. If the mode is supposed to actually represent kneeling, then firing just about any weapon is going to be more accurate. A proper kneeling firing position is really half-kneeling, half-sitting. You sit back on the heel of your rearward leg, with you elbow resting on your thigh, just behind the knee. This position is very stable, though not very comfortable.
I would say that for the sniper rifle, rather than making it less accurate while crouching...remove the snapshot mode from it completely.
-
If the Machine Gun is supposed to represent the M-60/M240B/PKM style machine gun, you would have to be a hulking monster with near limitless endurance to fire it standing up. The 240B without ammo weighs almost 30 pounds, and is over 4 feet long. The recoil would obviously screw your accuracy while standing, but the barrel rise combined with the length of the weapon would make it impossible to control after a few rounds. This is why machine guns are used either from a mounted T&E mechanism, or from bi-pods in the prone position.
imho firing such a machinegun is easier standing than crouched or squatting, at least for me it's just that the ergonomics are so godawful in a crouched position. The lmg's that I've carried had a sling and a carrying handle on top, so when standing I kept the sling on my shoulder, right hand on the grip and held on that handle knuckles up with my left, weapon at hip height; if I crouched, the gun was sort of blocked by my legs and things got only worse if I wanted to hold it higher since those things are big, heavy and definitely not designed to be only hand-held especially not against the shoulder (like if fired as a normal rifle). Some lmg's also eject spent cartridges through the bottom of the weapon, so you might reconsider holding your hands there.
Realistically, in my opinion, just like you said the only way to properly and accurately fire any machinegun is on some kind of support which is most often it's own bipod, so we'd need the ability to "mount" the weapon over an item (box, table or such) in either standing or crouched position, or on the ground when in prone position.
Game design-wise, if prone position is implemented that should be the only way to accurately fire the machinegun (unless mounting ability is added as well), and as long as prone position is not available I don't see how it's a big deal whether it's more accurate standing than crouched.