2
« on: November 01, 2012, 05:15:22 pm »
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?
Show Posts