project-navigation
Personal tools

Author Topic: Suggestions for Balancing of 2.3 Weapons  (Read 9765 times)

odie

  • Guest
Suggestions for Balancing of 2.3 Weapons
« on: April 06, 2009, 08:35:04 am »
Okie, i believe this deserve a whole new section though.

I am hoping to recommend a new section (like that of modding's) for recommendations for amendments to current weapons' stats - balancing the game.

I would start off with this:
Assault Rifles, Machine Guns, Sub-Machine and Sniper Rifle gun's range should differ.

I supposed from wiki, the 'improved' Assault Rifle use the 4.7 caseless, Machine guns generally employs 4.7mm caseless, submachine usually 5.7 (probably 7.62??) (probably cased?), whilst sniper rifles operate in 20mm. Real Machine guns usually has effective range of 2km (Range 250), sub should be less, whilst snipers operate in abt 2km range with deadly accuracy (hence, spread is much much smaller).

In UFOAI, Machine Guns have same range as Sniper rifles. I recommend that if 250 is max range, then Sniper Rifles be fixed at 250, machine guns can should be less at perhaps 200 but bigger spread (much bigger). Then Sub machine guns should be less since they use a cased shell, and is meant for closed combat, though it be possible to be just as deadly......(why 250? See below assault rifles)

Assault rifles has a pathetic range, though using the same 4.7 caseless. So, either we upped the range to that of the of the machine gun (since same ammo), and keep its spread to be better than machine gun at single aimed / snap / 3 rounds burst (increasing order of spread); OR, we keep the range CLOSER to that of proposed machine gun's (like 150-180 range) with good spread (much lower than machine gun but not as low as sniper rifle's).

In addition, notice tis quote from wiki of sniper rifle:
Quote
Originally an anti-materiel rifle, the Canada-built Forrester LRWS (Long Range Weapon System) has since been adopted by many countries as their principal sniper rifle. It is one of the bare handful of sniper rifles developed after 2040 that do not feature a bullpup configuration ('bullpup' meaning the magazine and action of the weapon are located behind the grip to reduce overall weapon length). It fires the massive 20mm HMG (Heavy Machine Gun) cartridge, fed by 5-round magazines which can weigh as much as one kilogramme apiece. The piston-retarded floating breech is equipped with an intricate gas dispersal system which decreases felt recoil to the level of an ordinary hunting rifle. This allows quick repeated shots on semi-automatic without any loss of accuracy.

Notice my highlights - is something not right here? Yes.
1) Our current sniper rifle does not have modes outside Aimed (for player's turn only) and Snap (either reaction fire or player's turn).
2) In fact, there is no auto fire / 2 rounds rapid shots.....

Perhaps some wiki amendments can be done OR an additional mode can be added to the Sniper Rifle.

Last regarding the Machine Gun and Assault Rifle, if they use the same 4.7 caseless, should they not be interchangeable? This is disputable, but since we are trying to get flexibility in our arms, perhaps this should be so.....

Afterall, we all know M16 rite? Heard of SAW? (Section Automatic Weapon) They can use the SAME magazine in emergency, except that one is an assault rifle, the other functions like a machine gun. We could consider this too? :)

Surrealistik

  • Guest
Re: Suggestions for Balancing of 2.3 Weapons
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2009, 07:19:44 pm »
First off, I think the hard mechanical 'range' of most weapons should be as high as possible, given that nearly all of them realistically have no problem shooting a projectile from one end of any combat zone featured in UFO:AI to its diametric opposite. Let a weapon's spread limit effectiveness at distance, as it does a very good job at this.

Quote from: odie
Notice my highlights - is something not right here? Yes.
1) Our current sniper rifle does not have modes outside Aimed (for player's turn only) and Snap (either reaction fire or player's turn).
2) In fact, there is no auto fire / 2 rounds rapid shots.....

It's not an automatic weapon. The snap shot mode covers its semi-automatic fire component sufficiently.

That all said, plasma weapons really need the TU costs for their autofire modes significantly decreased so that they're actually superior on a damage/TU basis as compared to conventional weapons (and they're less accurate besides!). I'll contribute more input as I continue to familiarize myself with the 2.3 weapon properties.

odie

  • Guest
Re: Suggestions for Balancing of 2.3 Weapons
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2009, 10:04:06 am »
First off, I think the hard mechanical 'range' of most weapons should be as high as possible, given that nearly all of them realistically have no problem shooting a projectile from one end of any combat zone featured in UFO:AI to its diametric opposite. Let a weapon's spread limit effectiveness at distance, as it does a very good job at this.
I believed that the range = 250 seemed to be max distance from 1 end to another (See Rocket Launcher). Though i still would require clarifications on what 250 meant. (how mani tiles....)

It's not an automatic weapon. The snap shot mode covers its semi-automatic fire component sufficiently.
Actually, i beg to differ here.

1) Automatic weapon would mean Machine Guns, Sub Machine guns = typically minumum fire mode is in 5 burst rounds going up to 12 rounds, 18, 25 full autos.

2) Semi auto can be like sub machine guns / assault rifles with semi auto capabilities (think M16 or AK 47 here) where they allow either single fire (aimed or snap), and a semi auto (5-12 rounds) burst.

3) Single shot single kill will mean Sniper rifles, launchers, and other single calibre/combat round weapon.

Since the description says this weapon is semi auto, it should have a 'multi-round'-burst mode. This, our Sniper Rifle describes as having but not in functionality. Hence, i feel something should be addressed. :D

That all said, plasma weapons really need the TU costs for their autofire modes significantly decreased so that they're actually superior on a damage/TU basis as compared to conventional weapons (and they're less accurate besides!). I'll contribute more input as I continue to familiarize myself with the 2.3 weapon properties.
Basically, i think its less accurate because these are salvaged from aliens. They are customed for those kick-arse, hence, when we "DISCOVER" and learn to use them, they are less accurate for us, though just as deadly........ (which is like human equivilant sorta).

Thnk of it this way, imagine the alien finding one of our coil guns...... they can be quite deadly, though not as accurate as they perhaps do not use it as well as us (our triggering might be for 2 fingers leaving 3 to support weapon.... they have but 3 fingers? Lol, ok jokes aside).

Hence, TU should be there still, until we have our hybrid series of weapons..... (wink wink). :P

Surrealistik

  • Guest
Re: Suggestions for Balancing of 2.3 Weapons
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2009, 06:29:48 pm »
2) Semi auto can be like sub machine guns / assault rifles with semi auto capabilities (think M16 or AK 47 here) where they allow either single fire (aimed or snap), and a semi auto (5-12 rounds) burst.

Semi-auto does not mean burst fire. It means that the fire rate of any given weapon on this mode is equivalent to the rate of trigger presses.

Quote
Basically, i think its less accurate because these are salvaged from aliens. They are customed for those kick-arse, hence, when we "DISCOVER" and learn to use them, they are less accurate for us, though just as deadly........ (which is like human equivilant sorta).

Thnk of it this way, imagine the alien finding one of our coil guns...... they can be quite deadly, though not as accurate as they perhaps do not use it as well as us (our triggering might be for 2 fingers leaving 3 to support weapon.... they have but 3 fingers? Lol, ok jokes aside).

Hence, TU should be there still, until we have our hybrid series of weapons..... (wink wink). :P

Even if this were true there is no separate 'human' set of statistics for the plasma weapons. They are uniformly inaccurate and TU inefficient for both PHALANX and the aliens. Further, assuming these differences did exist in singleplayer, they should not occur in multiplayer. As is, plasma weapons are terribad and generally worthless.

odie

  • Guest
Re: Suggestions for Balancing of 2.3 Weapons
« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2009, 07:10:35 am »
Semi-auto does not mean burst fire. It means that the fire rate of any given weapon on this mode is equivalent to the rate of trigger presses.

Thanks. I did a lil more readup and think this best clarify our discussions on this.
Got this from the gun's webbie:

Definition: Semi-automatic guns are those which fire the round in the chamber, extract it, eject it, and load a new round into the chamber (if one is available in the magazine), each time the trigger is pulled. Most semi-autos will also cock the gun at the same time, but some semi-auto pistols do not.

The semi-auto is one of the most wonderful actions in the world - when it works. Some designs function perfectly almost always (the AK-47 comes to mind). Others are more finicky and have been known to cause problems. As with any other thing, not all of them are created equal.

Accuracy with a semi-automatic rifle will vary from terrible to fantastic, depending on the rifle's condition, design, and type of ammunition used. The semi-auto may be the least consistent of all rifle actions, from one model to the other.

Semi-auto pistols are similar in that some are not accurate, others are. Some are dependable, others are not. John Browning proved about a century ago that a semi-automatic pistol could be made to be extremely reliable, and accurate enough for military use... but this is not always the case.
Also Known As: semiautomatic; semi-auto; autoloader; autoloading rifle; self-loader; self-loading
Examples: Semi-automatic rifles and handguns can be very useful, and are not machine guns, despite what you've seen on the evening news.


Even if this were true there is no separate 'human' set of statistics for the plasma weapons. They are uniformly inaccurate and TU inefficient for both PHALANX and the aliens. Further, assuming these differences did exist in singleplayer, they should not occur in multiplayer. As is, plasma weapons are terribad and generally worthless.
Noted. Yupz, i do am aware of the singularity of the stats for the weapon. Thats why if the aliens got the same wpn, their much better than human stats will compensate and operate the weapon more efficiently. (Thankfully, this game has not decided to give human's weapons, esp future hybrid weapons to those aliens....)

Surrealistik

  • Guest
Re: Suggestions for Balancing of 2.3 Weapons
« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2009, 05:14:28 pm »
Quote
Definition: Semi-automatic guns are those which fire the round in the chamber, extract it, eject it, and load a new round into the chamber (if one is available in the magazine), each time the trigger is pulled. Most semi-autos will also cock the gun at the same time, but some semi-auto pistols do not.

Exactly. This means no form of auto-fire, full, bursting or otherwise, for strictly semi-auto weapons.

Quote
Noted. Yupz, i do am aware of the singularity of the stats for the weapon. Thats why if the aliens got the same wpn, their much better than human stats will compensate and operate the weapon more efficiently. (Thankfully, this game has not decided to give human's weapons, esp future hybrid weapons to those aliens....)

No amount of alien ability will make the weapon more TU efficient (TU inefficiency is its biggest deficit). It is still a fundamentally flawed weapon series despite any user centric talent, and still markedly inferior to even many conventional weapons. The plasma family is in decisive need of a buff.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2009, 05:58:29 pm by Surrealistik »

Offline Hertzila

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 469
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions for Balancing of 2.3 Weapons
« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2009, 08:20:16 pm »
Agreed for the plasma weapons, they are ineffective when compared to other guns.
@odie: Burst mode basically means that you keep the trigger pressed the whole time while the gun shoots the burst. And sniper-rifles don't have that. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the sniper rifle already permit multi-round shooting? As in repeatedly firing?

Offline Valis

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions for Balancing of 2.3 Weapons
« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2009, 09:26:17 am »
I question the point of this thread at this time of development.

The game dosent have all its weapons/armours/aliens yet that are planned so you can not balance things till they are.

TU efficiency may differ when armour and other kinds of aliens come into the game. For instance I would love to see an alien more tougher than (?)Ortonok, like four times tougher and with thick armour against projectiles. On top of that there could be a weapon gap, that for 2-3 moths of play you would not get a better weapon to kill it. Then, after a long struggle that would force you to come up with special strategies against it the aliens would make a mistake and bring a more deadly weapon that when fallen to the human hands would be a perfect counter for their own units[but not all of them].

I would love to see more decision crucial mechanisms like that. Either you take a lot of snipers/heavy guns but then you would be vulnerable to fast/jumping aliens course snipers and other big guns would have a mallus when using in RF [I think weapons should differ with RF, it is harder to react having a long clumsy rifle than a one hand sub-machine gun, for now I do not think the engine supports it], or you diversify and take some of these and these, were everyone knows that you become less efficient not specialising.


The armour mechanism already implemented also gives us the opportunity of using the best to man kind way of balancing the game and making it fun: the paper-scissors-rock mechanics. But instead of increasing the plasma weapons effectiveness I would suggest decreasing the current weapons damage values. IMO the first alien should be killable with normal bullets with ease, a warm up for the player. Then, the second kind of alien comes up, the tough one. He should be impervious to bullets but vulnerable to plasma and maybe partially to fire. And so on and so forth. A lot of strategy adjustments during the game so the player wont get bored and could find a new challenge as he goes. That can only be balanced as all of the items in the game are in.

For now the discussion about the game it self is pointless. On the other hand we can always mod the proposals from such a thread in a playground MOD in the mod section. Instead of agreeing that the plasma is useless we should propose new values for it and someone could [probably me :)] give you a modified weapons file to play around and see for your self if the 'cure' is really working.

[Friday morning, am I making any sense at all?]

Surrealistik

  • Guest
Re: Suggestions for Balancing of 2.3 Weapons
« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2009, 05:12:23 pm »
For now the discussion about the game it self is pointless. On the other hand we can always mod the proposals from such a thread in a playground MOD in the mod section. Instead of agreeing that the plasma is useless we should propose new values for it and someone could [probably me :)] give you a modified weapons file to play around and see for your self if the 'cure' is really working.

[Friday morning, am I making any sense at all?]

I wouldn't say that offering feedback at this point is entirely pointless. Perhaps there are some battlescape features or changes yet to be introduced (aside from a revision of Plasma weaponry) that might somewhat change the relative desirability of certain weapons, but I doubt that they would be severe and/or specific enough to promote the Plasma series as a viable weapon set.

While it's true that the TU efficiency of a weapon differs relative to different armour types, and their protective qualities, Plasma weapons have some of the worst in the game. Coupled with their inaccuracy they are fairly awful. This is true even when we factor in armour. Case in point the human machine gun is generally a superior weapon relative to the Plasma Rifle and Plasma Blaster up until Power Armour caliber protection comes into play. Obviously, this sort of technology is better answered by particle beam and electromagnetic (and laser surprisingly) weaponry which should also be available by that time.

Secondly, I'm capable of modifying the UFO files myself for the sake of experimentation. This is better and more efficient than going through a third party, and is something I've done in the past. While I wouldn't mind feedback, the issue seems pretty apparent to me; I've done my homework.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 07:52:37 pm by Surrealistik »

Offline Valis

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions for Balancing of 2.3 Weapons
« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2009, 10:36:28 pm »
But if you are capable of doing it your self and on top of that know everything about the problem then don't you think this discussion is even more pointless? :>

The thing is that I am willing to share my tinkering with the files so we can discuss about the results, not only blable about theoretical changes.

Maybe the plasma is currently broken but so far, as I see it, not the plasma weapons should be fixed but the armour resistance values. If the alien armour would be resilient normal damage from bullets then you would have to use plasma. It wouldnt be your dream weapon, but guess what, it shouldnt be. Each weapon [and feature altogether] should have a special purpose, a role in the game. If plasma weapon can be replaced with better results by another weapon, that is available from the beginning of the game, then maybe it should be cut out...or we find a role for it like in my armour proposal.

I still think this discussion should be moved to the mod section.

Surrealistik

  • Guest
Re: Suggestions for Balancing of 2.3 Weapons
« Reply #10 on: April 11, 2009, 01:42:17 am »
But if you are capable of doing it your self and on top of that know everything about the problem then don't you think this discussion is even more pointless? :>

The whole point of this thread, and my own personal input in it, is to recommend changes (and defend those recommendations) to the core game (not a modded client-side version) which is something I cannot effect myself.

Quote
The thing is that I am willing to share my tinkering with the files so we can discuss about the results, not only blable about theoretical changes.

In both theory and practice, the weak link as far as the plasma series is concerned as compared to conventional fire arms is really its TU inefficiency. It simply costs too many time units relative to the series' armour adjusted damage output to use. Obviously we change this for the better by reducing the TU costs to something more sensible.

Quote
Maybe the plasma is currently broken but so far, as I see it, not the plasma weapons should be fixed but the armour resistance values. If the alien armour would be resilient normal damage from bullets then you would have to use plasma. It wouldnt be your dream weapon, but guess what, it shouldnt be. Each weapon [and feature altogether] should have a special purpose, a role in the game. If plasma weapon can be replaced with better results by another weapon, that is available from the beginning of the game, then maybe it should be cut out...or we find a role for it like in my armour proposal.

Currently the conventional weapons are decidedly inferior as compared to most of the higher end alien weapons. This means that there is a window/margin/space in between the effectivity of bullets and particle beams that plasma weapons could and should improve to. I'm not convinced it's better to upset the overall existing balance of the game elsewhere in order to make plasma weapons more desirable on a relative basis.

Offline Captain Bipto

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions for Balancing of 2.3 Weapons
« Reply #11 on: April 11, 2009, 11:41:02 pm »
Hey Valis, good points.

What is your personal opinion on how plasma weapons should operate? From previous posts I have said that the plasma bolt (basically the blasters from star wars, which are not lasers) should travel very quickly and that it dissipates quickly.

Plasma Pistols should be close combat burn weapons meant for multiple shots at close range. I'd even be in favor of increasing the spread of the pistol and giving it a rapid fire option. Basically it should be a plasma spewing machine pistol, just better than the Machine Pistol in most (if not all) ways. Great ROF, handy to use but lackluster range, clunky size and maybe high spread?(not too sure about the spread though).

Plasma rifles should have good range, low spread, and high damage. IIRC the max range is 250 (btw what unit of measurement is used for distance, meters?). Assuming that range is meters then the wiki states dissipation does not even begin until 80 to 100 meters. I do not really consider the alien plasma weapons to be long range marksman weapons, that is what the Particle weapons are, so perhaps the range should be around 100?

I have not looked at the dev version of this game for a little while now (got fallout 3 finally) so I cannot comment on specific numbers for damage values.

odie

  • Guest
Re: Suggestions for Balancing of 2.3 Weapons
« Reply #12 on: April 13, 2009, 05:59:26 am »
Ooooo,

Okie..... chill.

The purpose of this thread is to give recommendations and feedback (constructively and more like brainstorming).

The gathering of these ideas is so that WHEN we get to the balancing phase of the game after the debugging (like pathfindings), we have a pool of stuff to work on.

So, lets keep our discussions and feedback open, and dun start gunning / defending (overly aggressively) ok? lol.

But yes, i do see Valis' point too.
Quote
The whole point of this thread, and my own personal input in it, is to recommend changes (and defend those recommendations) to the core game (not a modded client-side version) which is something I cannot effect myself.

But if you are capable of doing it your self and on top of that know everything about the problem then don't you think this discussion is even more pointless? :>

The thing is that I am willing to share my tinkering with the files so we can discuss about the results, not only blable about theoretical changes.

Maybe the plasma is currently broken but so far, as I see it, not the plasma weapons should be fixed but the armour resistance values. If the alien armour would be resilient normal damage from bullets then you would have to use plasma. It wouldnt be your dream weapon, but guess what, it shouldnt be. Each weapon [and feature altogether] should have a special purpose, a role in the game. If plasma weapon can be replaced with better results by another weapon, that is available from the beginning of the game, then maybe it should be cut out...or we find a role for it like in my armour proposal.

So far, these are balancing issues. So i guess just keep it at feedback bah. :P

Quote
I still think this discussion should be moved to the mod section.

Nah, this is not modding.

Offline Captain Bipto

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions for Balancing of 2.3 Weapons
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2009, 11:27:40 am »
Thank you for your input guys!

I'll take your INPUT into consideration when I produce OUTPUT!

"I took time away from my other games for this? Well worth it!"

odie

  • Guest
Re: Suggestions for Balancing of 2.3 Weapons
« Reply #14 on: April 15, 2009, 04:13:26 am »
Thank you for your input guys!

I'll take your INPUT into consideration when I produce OUTPUT!

"I took time away from my other games for this? Well worth it!"
Hahaha. :P

Bravo bravado!
Thanks Bipto! :P

Yupz, this is well worth it!
I just completed Cinema Tycoon last nite whilst waiting for something on UFOAI, and i thnk i can be totally focused on the UFOAI now. :P

Helping to do a bit of chinese translation works for now..... while waiting for the more impt pathfinding issue to resolve. I still see the same bug as of last nite....