project-navigation
Personal tools

Author Topic: Autofire TU Usage  (Read 6162 times)

Surrealistik

  • Guest
Autofire TU Usage
« on: January 22, 2008, 12:10:39 am »
The current system is a bit silly when it comes to handling autofire. This is because all forms of autofire deduct a flat # of TUs when instead they should instead deduct a percentage as speed and other abilities have no bearing on an weapon's non-semiauto fire rate whatsoever. In otherwords, it doesnt matter how sluggish you are save for obvious extremes; you will discharge a rifle on full-auto as fast as Donovan Bailey. Flat rates, or speed influenced TU costs make sense in the case of semi-automatic fire, as one's ability to tap the trigger dictates in large part the corresponding weapon's firing speed.

Thoughts?

DaNippers

  • Guest
Re: Autofire TU Usage
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2008, 03:21:49 am »
It would be kind of nice if Autofire varied, but then it would be nice if Squad members improved with use, I can send a Soldier through 300 missions with the same Assault Rifle and He/she will never gain one ounce of improvement so With These skill levels yeah the flat rate sounds fine, Balances out the null Improvement. If they added Skill improvement or a training facility it might be more in keeping to work on the autofire stuff, otherwise generics fine...

SpaceWombat

  • Guest
Re: Autofire TU Usage
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2008, 05:17:53 am »
If speed indicates only movement speed I agree with Surrealistik. But if speed also indicates being quick and swift in meanings of "good reflexes" I think a fix amount of TU is not wrong.

In my understanding TUs represent the actions deducable in a given time period (that is the round, every soldier is performing actions at the same time but has a different amount of TUs).
If you are quicker in grabbing your grenade from the belt you are able to throw twice in the same time I can only throw one. You are quicker ("speedy") given a necessary amount of accuracy for every action.

If you would take a percentage let's say 10% for hammering auto-fire with your MG that would even the time amount (10% of a 5 secs. round -fix amount of time in one round- is always 0.5 secs.). That's perfectly realistic since you cannot negotiate the rate of fire of your standardised MG. It takes the same amount of seconds for everyone.
But the aiming and "reacting" is taking different time periods for people with different reflexes. That is analogue to semi-auto fire (time for pulling the trigger does not differ that much among trained soldiers).

How about some mixture between percentage and a fix amount of TUs to represent the given physics of rate of fire?

Offline tobbe

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Autofire TU Usage
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2008, 09:34:50 am »
I disagree. If there would be a fixed amount of TUs for Autofire modes, some weapons would simply be WAY overprowered. The different amount of TUs (for all firemodes) is simply needed for balance reasons, regardless how easy it may be to pull the trigger...

SpaceWombat

  • Guest
Re: Autofire TU Usage
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2008, 03:43:24 pm »
@tobbe
Can you please explain this a bit more detailed? How is a weapon imbalanced if the soldier is able to handle it more quickly? If swiftness and accuracy under stress -if that is as well a proper interpretation of the speed variable- enables one soldier to aim quicker it is not the weapon which is imbalanced but rather the soldiers advantage for his higher speed.

I think your argument would merely point out that we should consider less additional TU per speed point?
But this has nothing to do with realistic impact on weapon use.

I would agree that TU should be considered carefully as a trained soldier is not that much slower than a very good sprinter.

Offline tobbe

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Autofire TU Usage
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2008, 05:50:51 pm »
@tobbe
Can you please explain this a bit more detailed? How is a weapon imbalanced if the soldier is able to handle it more quickly? If swiftness and accuracy under stress -if that is as well a proper interpretation of the speed variable- enables one soldier to aim quicker it is not the weapon which is imbalanced but rather the soldiers advantage for his higher speed.

I think your argument would merely point out that we should consider less additional TU per speed point?
But this has nothing to do with realistic impact on weapon use.

I would agree that TU should be considered carefully as a trained soldier is not that much slower than a very good sprinter.

I will try.

First: I accept the Real life effect that there is no difference in the time needed to pull a trigger...be it a MG, a SMG, a Plasma Blster or Particlebeam Cannon...it takes lets say a second - done.

I am talking about the game mechanic of damage ratings of weapons.

There are losts of others factors balancing (e.g. spread, crouch, range, effect vs. various armours)weapons, but i will limit the analysis towards this one factor (damage/TU)

In the game you obviously try to use the most efficient weapon possible. This can be represented be damage/TU. Right now all weapons are fairly balanced. There is no real Uber-weapon because the higher damage potential a weapon has, the more TUs you need to "pull the trigger". The damage/TU varies around 5 to 30 damage per TU, most high damage values have to be calculated down due to spread, whereas low damage values often have a much higher chance to hit. This narrows the damage/TU values to about 8 to 15 damage per TU. So there are differences but not within small limits. If you equalize the TUs needed for firemodes, simply choosing weapons with higher damage becomes a "No-Brainer"...ill try to give an example:

atm the particlebeam cannon requires 24 TU for rapid shots (not even full auto) and deals up to 600 points of damage (assuming all shots hit, not very likely with a spread of 2.5...). This means the weapon deals about 25 damage/TU

the Assault rifle requires 18 TU for full auto and deals up to 336 points of damage, with an equal spread chance. This equals about 18 damage/TU.

This way PHALANX has at least a chance to deal sufficient damage to kill the aliens.

If you would reduce the TUs needed for the P-Beam cannon (argument: just pull the trigger!) to lets say 18, the Cannon would be able to deliver an enormous amount of about 34 damage/TU. (The hardest hitter right now is the flamethrower (30 Damage/TU) and this weapon has a severely limited range.) So after i have researched particlebeam cannons, i switch with as many as possible soldiers to cannons, to inflict the most damage/TU, and this would result in having most of your forces running around with p-beam cannons. This would reduce the variety of the game a lot and make the game less interesting.

So you are right to claim that in RL there is no difference in the time needed to pull the trigger, right.
But implementing this into the game would cause an imbalance as in creating Uber-Weapons.

Concerning the Speed/TU-System: If you want to keep it simple, there is simply no chance to make it completely "realistic"...just consider the fact that you need e.g. 10 TUs to fire a laser pistol pulse. Ans you need the same amount of TUs to move 5 squares, a distance of about 20 feet...not realistic at all. But it is a simple, easy to understand und working mechanic. I am quite content to sacrifice as much realism as needed to create a well working and balanced combat system.

About the comparison between sprinter and trained soldier: You might be right, but I WANT to see my stats go up and I WANT to feel/see the effects! So if id only gain 1 TU per 10 speed, the game would become less interesting for me, almost boring. In fact, i discovered UFO:AI a few months ago and once i realized that your soldiers did not improve, i stopped playing...not enogh development..or to discribe it with Robin D. Laws "not enough tiny bits"...

All of this is of course just my own personal preference how this kind of a game should be be, feel free to disagree... ;D



SpaceWombat

  • Guest
Re: Autofire TU Usage
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2008, 06:38:13 pm »
I think I'm getting your point now and I cannot disagree. Though what Surrealistik meant was something else as I understand it.

The issue is not about every kind of weapon to use the same amount of TUs for automatic fire mode or any fire mode at all (lets say 12 TU for MG, 12 TU for laser, 12 TU for plasma....) but to use a fix amount of TUs or a percentage for every auto fire mode (e.g. 12 TU or 20% of soldiers total TUs for MG, 10 TU or 15% for laser...)

Can Surrealistik please confirm who is missing the point here? I'm still a bit confused.  ;D
If you got it right I obviously totally agree with you. No doubt.

If I got it right there is no problem with damage/TU because it is still the same as is now. The relation between the weapons would not change because they would still use different amounts of TUs or percentages per shot/salve/whatever (20% for MG, 15% for laser rifle, 30% for particle ...). The question is wether this should be made more realistic by using percentages of the total TUs amount for a soldier because some parts of operating a weapon cannot be influenced by soldiers abilities (rounds per minute is fix for a certain gun, no matter how good you are).
The only effect of speed in my interpretation is: A faster soldier will be able to shoot more often even though some parts of the gun operating will use % of total TUs. That is totally realistic for me. If you duel with a guy who has the exact same abilities but is faster he is the predator, you are the prey... he can "pull out the colt" faster/more often.

The plan as I understand it is not to use the same fix amount of TUs for different weapons!

Surrealistik

  • Guest
Re: Autofire TU Usage
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2008, 06:39:37 pm »
Do keep in mind that flat TU costs in the context of this discussion does not mean equal TU costs for the firemodes of different weapons, so much as TU costs that do not remain proportional to soldier's TU pool.

That said, even if the Speed ability were to reflect reflexes and targeting speed, this would at best afford only a minor influence on the overall TU cost of any given weapon's autofire mode. Overall, the biggest determining factor for TU consumption relative to the # of shots given such modes, is the weapon's rate of fire, which is unaffected by such things. Because this is so, the vast majority of the cost (at the very least) of any given autofire mode should remain constant between soldiers (unless we're talking about a short burst). Personally, I'm not adverse to the idea of hybridizing percentage and flat costs, as long as the former is proportionate in prominence to a firemode's autofire component.
 
Quote
There is no real Uber-weapon because the higher damage potential a weapon has, the more TUs you need to "pull the trigger".

Clearly you have not seen the SMG :P.

SpaceWombat

  • Guest
Re: Autofire TU Usage
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2008, 06:49:14 pm »
Agreed.
The influence of aiming/reflexes/stress immunity decreases with length of fire.
Therefore it should have maybe 10% or less influence in auto fire mode, around 30-50% for short burst and more than 50% for a single shot. My opinion only of course. But I feel good reflexes and experience should matter quite a lot for single shot operations where rounds per minute has absolutely no influence, the sooner you aim accurately and pull the trigger the less time you need for the whole operation.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2008, 06:50:45 pm by SpaceWombat »

Offline tobbe

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Autofire TU Usage
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2008, 10:47:13 pm »
Do keep in mind that flat TU costs in the context of this discussion does not mean equal TU costs for the firemodes of different weapons, so much as TU costs that do not remain proportional to soldier's TU pool.

That said, even if the Speed ability were to reflect reflexes and targeting speed, this would at best afford only a minor influence on the overall TU cost of any given weapon's autofire mode. Overall, the biggest determining factor for TU consumption relative to the # of shots given such modes, is the weapon's rate of fire, which is unaffected by such things. Because this is so, the vast majority of the cost (at the very least) of any given autofire mode should remain constant between soldiers (unless we're talking about a short burst). Personally, I'm not adverse to the idea of hybridizing percentage and flat costs, as long as the former is proportionate in prominence to a firemode's autofire component.
 
Clearly you have not seen the SMG :P.

ok, i think, i slowly understand ::)

If i understood it correctly, you do not suggest to change anything about damge/TUs, but only to change the fixed TUs into percentages...this way a solider with speed 20 (about 30 TUs) and a soldier with speed 100 (i think about 40 TUs?) could use the autofire mode (lets say it costs 25%) equally often, as their reflexes (aka speed) is not dependent on the ability to fire their weapon...!

If i got that right: Ok, i see your point.

I still dont like it. As I stated before i love to see me soldiers become better. And I like to use this to my advantage...preferably to fire more often! But this will become impossible with percentages...furthermore: as the difference in TUs/speed is quite minimal right now, there wouldnt be much difference to the fixed system...perhaps only 1-2 TUs...and if I would be the one to write the code, i probably wouldnt do it. Much work, minimal effect. Sorry...

Concerning the SMG: Yeah, thats one nasty one. I am right now working on some little rebalacing of the different weapons. I was really surprised to see that the SMG in Fullauto is much more efficient than the assault rifle and even the MG (concerning damage/TU), even against armored enemies...

I REALLY miss some kind of Sniper-weapon-improvement, so i am readjusting the laser rifle with an additional sniper mode...
But one major point is to nerf the SMG (e.g. reduce range of bursts to 20, increase spread, reduce crouch, increase effectivity of armor against it)...the SMG is still a quite potent weapon but it is at least less efficient...an MG should simply be more devastating as a SMG...

Surrealistik

  • Guest
Re: Autofire TU Usage
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2008, 10:54:56 pm »
Quote
I still dont like it. As I stated before i love to see me soldiers become better. And I like to use this to my advantage...preferably to fire more often! But this will become impossible with percentages...furthermore: as the difference in TUs/speed is quite minimal right now, there wouldnt be much difference to the fixed system...perhaps only 1-2 TUs...and if I would be the one to write the code, i probably wouldnt do it. Much work, minimal effect. Sorry...


Improvement would still be noticable. As your soldiers became faster, they would still be able to fire more frequently as part of the cost of any firemode would be flat, not to mention they would be able to move longer distances while still being able to fire. The advantage in so far as the former is concerned would diminish however, relative to the extent of the autofire component of a given firemode. As for the coding difficulty, I don't see how the institution of a percentage cost parameter in addition to a flat cost would be especially difficult.


Quote
Concerning the SMG: Yeah, thats one nasty one. I am right now working on some little rebalacing of the different weapons. I was really surprised to see that the SMG in Fullauto is much more efficient than the assault rifle and even the MG (concerning damage/TU), even against armored enemies...

I REALLY miss some kind of Sniper-weapon-improvement, so i am readjusting the laser rifle with an additional sniper mode...
But one major point is to nerf the SMG (e.g. reduce range of bursts to 20, increase spread, reduce crouch, increase effectivity of armor against it)...the SMG is still a quite potent weapon but it is at least less efficient...an MG should simply be more devastating as a SMG...

I've been working on rebalanced stats myself. Perhaps we could compare notes sometime and see if we can establish a better set through collaboration.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2008, 10:57:24 pm by Surrealistik »

Offline tobbe

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Autofire TU Usage
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2008, 12:35:14 am »




I've been working on rebalanced stats myself. Perhaps we could compare notes sometime and see if we can establish a better set through collaboration.

Sound like a good idea. Once I am done with my first run, i could attach the change log file (excel sheet) somewhere...

DaNippers

  • Guest
Re: Autofire TU Usage
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2008, 07:43:44 am »
I definatly do NOT understand most of what you all are saying, lol But I think In simplest terms (How my mind works, lol) Autofire should basically either

1) Set aside the required TU for the shot or shots...

or 2) set aside a Percentage of those shot styles.. (Auto burst or whatever)

That's just a view... But I do like Tobbe's laser Idea..... It would be nice if the game had a feature that allowed you to upgrade the weapons as in the newer X-coms... this game also has a flaw in that sniper weapon STARTS godly and  stays where it starts... "What? No 30.06 Blaster rifles?" lol more weapon variety is needed... just to round out things.

Offline tobbe

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Autofire TU Usage
« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2008, 08:45:16 am »
I definatly do NOT understand most of what you all are saying, lol But I think In simplest terms (How my mind works, lol) Autofire should basically either

1) Set aside the required TU for the shot or shots...

or 2) set aside a Percentage of those shot styles.. (Auto burst or whatever)

That's just a view... But I do like Tobbe's laser Idea..... It would be nice if the game had a feature that allowed you to upgrade the weapons as in the newer X-coms... this game also has a flaw in that sniper weapon STARTS godly and  stays where it starts... "What? No 30.06 Blaster rifles?" lol more weapon variety is needed... just to round out things.

I think you are confusing autofire (pull the trigger and a zillion shots bursts out of your weapon) with reaction fire (which we are not talking about...anyway: nice that you like the idea.

DaNippers

  • Guest
Re: Autofire TU Usage
« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2008, 12:12:38 am »
AH Yeah i did, mistook the autofire and Reactionfire, lol DOH!