OpenXcom Forum
OpenXcom => Suggestions => Topic started by: Qpoter on February 15, 2014, 09:41:51 pm
-
Right now, there is pretty much no good reason to dual wield weapons. Dual wielding could be made far more useful by having an option to fire both weapons at once. When this is done, the rate of fire is doubled, so taking an auto shot while dual wielding plasma pistols will take 6 shots. There will still be an option to use only one weapon at once.
If weapons with different rates of fire are used, the highest time unit cost of the two for the given shot type will be used.
If you think dual wielding heavy plasma guns and using auto fire will turn any unit into a walking tank, you are probably right, but I propose a solution to this.
Normally the penalty for firing two handed weapons with the other hand occupied is a 20 percent accuracy loss. However, when firing two 2 handed weapons at once, this penalty should be a whopping 60 percent, which will leave you with a very poor accuracy value.
-
I would also like to see combat shields go in :3
-
Afaik projectiles can't impact handobs.
-
Afaik projectiles can't impact handobs.
Don't have to. Just make them add a boost to "forward" armor.
And I'd really like to see akimbo auto-shooting from dual-wielded pistols, with minimal accuracy and just sheer rate of fire.
And you should not be able to akimbo-shoot weapons it takes two hands to wield.
Dual-striking with stunrods should be an option though.
-
Yeah, twin-wielding two-handed weapons would look silly, even with an appropriate penalty to-hit. But two Stun Rods could be viable, at a price at to-hit chance.
I think raising TUs to fire by 20% and decreasing accuracy by the same amount should be fine for firing two pistols.
-
Why would there be any loss in accuracy for using a weapon that can already be used effectively with a single hand?
As much as I want to dual wield Heavy Plasmas, I do agree that it would be ridiculous, so this would be restricted to single hand weapons (does the two handed flag apply to melee weapons?).
-
Why would there be any loss in accuracy for using a weapon that can already be used effectively with a single hand?
Yes, using two weapons at once is considerably harder than using just one. :) (Well I never attempted it myself, but try drawing with two pencils...)
As much as I want to dual wield Heavy Plasmas, I do agree that it would be ridiculous, so this would be restricted to single hand weapons (does the two handed flag apply to melee weapons?).
AFAIK it does now. And I think it should stay so, especially if we add one-handed melee weapons.
On a separate note, I believe that even when dual-wielding, we still should be allowed to fire only one weapon. The firing menu should reflect this by adding additional options (Aimed/Snap/Auto x2).
-
Yes, using two weapons at once is considerably harder than using just one. :) (Well I never attempted it myself, but try drawing with two pencils...)
AFAIK it does now. And I think it should stay so, especially if we add one-handed melee weapons.
On a separate note, I believe that even when dual-wielding, we still should be allowed to fire only one weapon. The firing menu should reflect this by adding additional options (Aimed/Snap/Auto x2).
You can't shoot accurately with two hands because you can't aim accurately with two hands. Experiment sometime, take two laser pointers and point them at the same spot. How hard is it? Now imagine you can't see the spots to converge them.
A 20% reduction in accuracy would be too much (it's leave a Laser Pistol with just 8% base accuracy), but 10-15% is reasonable. Akimbo shooting is always "spray and pray" - there is no way to really aim except in the "general direction" of the enemy. TU increase should also be proportional to the weapon, for instance the Laser Pistol's akimbo auto-shot could take up 30%, enabling three volleys of six shots at 13% accuracy, versus a single weapon's four volleys of three at 28% (if not moving).
The whole point of akimbo shooting, I think, is to trade accuracy for volume of fire - it won't make sense to really increase TU use much. Double snap shots could really take just as much time as single weapon snap shots.
Shooting just one weapon should be unaffected, of course, even while dual-wielding - it'd be exactly as it is now.
-
Interesting topic. An alternative idea, that I read may be conceivable with future enhancements being thought about, is to simply have a option called "Akimbo" show up. When selected, both weapons (which must be identical for weight and cumbersome purposes) fire at auto. Accuracy is reduced as discsussed her earlier, but perhaps it also does automatic morale damage from the barrage of weapon fire. Who can stand courageous and tall when a half dozen shells are being hurled at you.
IMO, Akimbo is purely flavor and fun...but thats about it. Its just not practical is a wanton waste of ammo and energy to achieve inaccurate volume dependent more on sheer luck than skill. If any one is familiar with Necromunda, I'd suggest some kind of pinning action vs any other real advantage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlN_4MMTdPs
-
Yeah, akimbo IS impractical, that's why I said "+20% YUs, -20% Accuracy", or something similar.
I'd still use it for the kicks. :)
Oh, and BlackLibrary-san: the guy on the video was trying to shoot at two different targets at once. This is completely different from just shooting at the same guy.
-
Same difference, but your point is heard. When target shooting you use some level of ironsighting. Akimbo, you are trading that in. Your off hand will recoil, bounce, be offtarget, etc through out it all. Granted...this is all fantasy, so hey, I can't argue that. But if there is to be balance (which I know you are a huge advocate for) you have to keep balance and fluidity in game mechanics, otherwise the game goes off kilter. Dual wielding autocannons with HE rounds is just as bad as getting hit twice by a single autocannon hitting you twice...the only difference is accuracy and the amount of energy you expend trying to do such a zany manuever.
-
But I absolutely agree. :) Still, seeing as the game graphics can take dual-wielding (it does), why not allow us to do so?
-
Hey...I bar no one. I'm just a voice calling from the desert saying "balance, balance!"
I'm a firm believer in balanced game mechanics. When an aspect of a good game goes off kilter because of a bad mechanic, the game moves that much closer to recycle bin. Not saying that will happen to XCOM, but...it did. So many aspects of TFTD moved it to the recycle bin. They took the framework of XCOM and doubled down...but doubled down in some of the wrong areas. Made it incredibly brutal, made it incredibly tedious, doubled down on the need to micromanage even more...and lost it. I was in my late 20s when XCOM came out. Do the math. I remember pulling a copy off the shelf and watching a sales guy grimace at the game while saying to me it was nigh unplayable.
But I do digress. Again...I bar no one. I think its a great idea, just, imo, it would be great to find the sweet spot on the idea. Hell, it would require a code change to do. So its fantasy on top of fantasy at this point...but very doable. Clearly their is criteria for knowing if a weapon is two handed when fired and if a second weapon is present. A simple condition of if both hands have the exact same weapon item, and they are both one handed, allow the option "Akimbo" to display in addition to the firing options. if Akimbo is selected, then do attacks as normal for both weapons, reduced for accuracy. Or simpler even further...if condition is met and Akimbo is selected, double TU cost and fire both weapons per normal with a bonus of % morale damage for each successive hit out of the grouping.
-
Actually, X-Com is not a well-balanced game. It never intended to be. It's a game about tipping the balance in your favour - for example, going for plasma weapons straight away. You can ignore this and play a harder way, but the game doesn't force you to.
Back to the point: I believe we are of the same opinion, so there's not much to add. I'll just sum it up, so please correct me if I'm wrong:
- Akimbo should be allowed when two one-handed weapons are held. The weapons must be of the same type (this actually is debatable, I can't see why you wouldn't be able to use two different pistols).
- You can either fire both weapons or just one. Firing one works normally.
- You can shoot both weapons. It costs a little more TUs and Accuracy is somewhat lower for both weapons; the exact numbers are left to be determined later.
Anything else?
-
Actually, X-Com is not a well-balanced game. It never intended to be. It's a game about tipping the balance in your favour - for example, going for plasma weapons straight away. You can ignore this and play a harder way, but the game doesn't force you to.
Back to the point: I believe we are of the same opinion, so there's not much to add. I'll just sum it up, so please correct me if I'm wrong:
- Akimbo should be allowed when two one-handed weapons are held. The weapons must be of the same type (this actually is debatable, I can't see why you wouldn't be able to use two different pistols).
- You can either fire both weapons or just one. Firing one works normally.
- You can shoot both weapons. It costs a little more TUs and Accuracy is somewhat lower for both weapons; the exact numbers are left to be determined later.
Anything else?
A special clause for Stunrods, that are nominally two-handed, however should allow a double attack when dual-wielded - for double damage, and at decreased accuracy and increased TU cost.
Perhaps worsen accuracy penalties for shooting weapons of different types? The reason you can coordinate your hands at all during akimbo shooting is because you expect both weapons to behave the same. Shooting from a recoilless laser pistol and a standard pistol simultaneously is going to hideously throw off your aim with one or both of them.
-
A special clause for Stunrods, that are nominally two-handed, however should allow a double attack when dual-wielded - for double damage, and at decreased accuracy and increased TU cost.
Perhaps worsen accuracy penalties for shooting weapons of different types? The reason you can coordinate your hands at all during akimbo shooting is because you expect both weapons to behave the same. Shooting from a recoilless laser pistol and a standard pistol simultaneously is going to hideously throw off your aim with one or both of them.
Agreed on both points.
So, Stun Rods are one-and-a-half handed weapons? Like bastard swords? :)
-
What would the UI look like?
- Aimed
- Snap
- Snap x 2
- Auto
- Auto x 2
or disallowing double snapshots:
or something completely different.
-
I was thinking to use "Spray&Pray" as the Akimbo auto-shot name.
And I had a different idea when thinking about the snapshots. Normally people don't just shoot two bullets at once when dual-wielding, they increase fire rate by firing each gun in turn, but quicker. Could it be done so that when holding two single-handed weapons, shooting weapons in different hands, alternating, uses less TUs? Like, 50% less TUs to snapshot or auto-shot if your last action was a snapshot or auto-shot with a single weapon in the other hand? With an appropriate accuracy reduction, of course. So your first auto-shot, with a laser pistol in the right hand, would use 25% TUs, and if you auto-fire with the laser pistol in the left hand as your next action, it uses 12% TUs and has less accuracy. Then you auto-shoot with the right hand again, and every following one would use 12% - seven auto-shots all in all, as long as the hands are alternating. Snapshots, same thing - and no interface clutter.
Stunrods would need an actual double attack, however.
-
And I had a different idea when thinking about the snapshots. Normally people don't just shoot two bullets at once when dual-wielding, they increase fire rate by firing each gun in turn, but quicker. Could it be done so that when holding two single-handed weapons, shooting weapons in different hands, alternating, uses less TUs? Like, 50% less TUs to snapshot or auto-shot if your last action was a snapshot or auto-shot with a single weapon in the other hand?
Way too complicated and unnecessary. Such a feature would be confusing, as it's not in line with the rest of the UI. Plus, it adds nothing to the game; firing the two weapons with just one click does the same thing.
But what we can have, and probably will anyway because that's how the game works normally, is having the weapons firing one after another.
-
Agreed...too complicated. Whether Akimbo is accomplished with sequential fire or not is inconsequential. Your end effect in a turn consisting of "X number of seconds" is the same: Z number of bullets in the air. All we can have technically is seeing one sprite fire after another, after another, etc. Thats visually satisfying. I love hearing a nice staccato, myself.
If any of you are familiar with Necromunda? Its squad (gang) based 40K. In that game the mechanic that is accomplished during a spray and pray is to force your enemy to duck his head, drop to the ground, etc when you shoot wild like that. They spend their time dealing with the rain of lethal weapons and less on offense. In XCOM, I'd love to see such an action damage morale or even their TUs in someway.
Actually, -THAT- would be perfect! Damage their TUs as well as damage them. Do the chance to hit (reduced accuracy or whatever) as normal but it -ALSO- reduces their TUs! Meaning, a Muton on overwatch with a bank of TUs for reaction fire loses a quantity of them! That adds a nice element and a way to deal with spotting someone on reaction TUs in the bank.
Same mechanic could be smartly applied to the minigun whenever you target someone...
Even superman pauses and loses the initiative when shot by a hail of bullets...even if its just to brag. :)
(https://i2.wp.com/ryanmdanks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ScOF-Superman-Bulletproof.png?resize=309%2C263)
-
Have I played Necromunda? Have I? I co-wrote an enhanced version of it! Granted, only two or three people saw it, but still - it was improved. :D
Now, you're talking about suppression mechanics. This is what Xenonauts have; killing aliens is hard there, so it's important to deny them TUs by firing at them a lot (preferably from heavy weapons, as each weapon has its own suppression value). It's a good system, but should it be used in X-Com? I can't say.
-
i can
NO, as a mod maybe, but no in the "vanilla" game
-
i can
NO, as a mod maybe, but no in the "vanilla" game
I'm inclined to agree. However, we already have a number of optional changes that seriously affect gameplay, like for example self-destructing alien weapons, so I don't feel like I have the right to say no to this one...
-
Although I am by no means an authority on the subject, I think it is important here to determine what exactly is vanilla compatible and what should stay in the modding realm.
Options like self destructing alien weapons are included because they are simple features that require no conjecture in regards to game mechanics. Something like suppression, however, would involve some guessing as to the suppression values of certain weapons, what suppression affects, etc. Since we cannot guess to any reasonable extent what the original developers would have done with such a mechanic, the details of it would be very subjective, so in the interests of preserving and original experience that feature would be confined to mods.
Dual wielding, I think, qualifies for the advanced options menu because we can draw some reasonable conjectures as to the exact nature of its mechanics. We can assume that it would be restricted to single hand weapons only, that it would have the same penalty as using a two handed weapon with no free hands (20 percent), and that obviously aimed shots would not be possible. Pretty much anything else oversteps the line of conjecture.
-
Dual wielding, I think, qualifies for the advanced options menu because we can draw some reasonable conjectures as to the exact nature of its mechanics. We can assume that it would be restricted to single hand weapons only, that it would have the same penalty as using a two handed weapon with no free hands (20 percent), and that obviously aimed shots would not be possible. Pretty much anything else oversteps the line of conjecture.
I totally agree. I go a step further and say the two one handed weapons must be identical. No Magnum and a stun gun, or a laser pistol and a pistol. Keep it simple.
-
How about a Knife and a pistol? Oh wait I'm an idiot..
-
How about a Knife and a pistol? Oh wait I'm an idiot..
Well, if they're only 1 square away... :D
-
I really don't see why you guys are trying to make "twin pistols" a viable soldier setup, I don't see any case where a soldier would prefer two pistols compared to an auto cannon / shotgun / minigun.
-
I really don't see why you guys are trying to make "twin pistols" a viable soldier setup, I don't see any case where a soldier would prefer two pistols compared to an auto cannon / shotgun / minigun.
Low strength requirement, low TU cost for individual weapon fire if needed, double the ammo capacity between reloads, and lastly, akimbo plasma pistols.
-
Pistols are more useful than a dedicated suppression weapon at close range. I would also use the more accurate auto shots of the bigger weapons at long range.
-
> Low strength requirement
Your dual beretta soldier will be able to wear more utilities like grenades, smokes, sensor grenades, medikits, stun rods, motion sensors... But with two hands full, he will be unable to quickly use any of them.
> low TU cost for individual weapon fire if needed,
You already get this by equipping a pistol in one hand and a two-handed weapon in the other; or keeping one hand free and a pistol in belt (2TU to draw)
> double the ammo capacity between reloads,
Well no : If you compare akimbo shots with the single pistol, you reload after as many Snap(x2). If you compare akimbo shots with rifles/cannons, you reload even more often, because rifle clips are larger.
edit: Anyway, I find it looks silly if soldiers that have access to fighter jets, tanks and rocket launchers choose to fight instead with ... twin colt 45s.
-
I think it's mostly a matter of preference. I agree this is not UFO: Aftershock, but there are situations where dual-wielding is tactically sound (and allowed by the graphic engine), so why forbid it just to prove something? I would, for instance, give two pistols to a rocket launcher operator, because they can't carry a backup rifle (no place in the backpack).
If you don't want akimbo to be too attractive an option (I don't), simply give it appropriate penalties. That's what I think.
-
> Low strength requirement
Your dual beretta soldier will be able to wear more utilities like grenades, smokes, sensor grenades, medikits, stun rods, motion sensors... But with two hands full, he will be unable to quickly use any of them.
It's easy to holster (or drop) one if a grenade is needed, and it's a tradeoff for the extra firepower you get.
> low TU cost for individual weapon fire if needed,
You already get this by equipping a pistol in one hand and a two-handed weapon in the other; or keeping one hand free and a pistol in belt (2TU to draw)
4 to draw, actually, at least by original X-Com rules. And 8 to put back, otherwise you lose accuracy on the main weapon next turn.
> double the ammo capacity between reloads,
Well no : If you compare akimbo shots with the single pistol, you reload after as many Snap(x2). If you compare akimbo shots with rifles/cannons, you reload even more often, because rifle clips are larger.
But for single pistol shots, you have twice as much ammo. And considering that the Pistol isn't that far behind the Rifle for damage, you could actually deal as much as 160% the damage of a Rifle shot with every 2xSnap, and you only carry 40% less ammo for that.
Let's run some numbers here. Let's say a 2xSnap with Pistols costs 25%TU, up from 18%, and accuracy degrades to 45% from 60%, but you fire two 26 AP shots. A Rifle gives you a single 60%, 30 AP shot, for the same 25% TU. Or it gives you three 35%, 30 AP shots, for 35% TU. The dual Pistols would actually be at a rather decent advantage, damage-per-turn-wise, although you pay for it with some logistical problems, as outlined above.
edit: Anyway, I find it looks silly if soldiers that have access to fighter jets, tanks and rocket launchers choose to fight instead with ... twin colt 45s.
.45 ACP is a pretty popular, and very powerful round, I should say. If any soldier were to be capable enough to use two .45 handguns simultaneously (in game terns, has high TU and Accuracy), I wouldn't be surprised if he would do so. And this does extend past mere pistols - laser pistols and plasma pistols come later, as well as any modded single-handed SMGs with alloy rounds.
-
Some have suggested that the TU cost for akimbo fire should be higher, but this doesn't make any sense to me. Why would firing birth guns at the same time take any longer?
-
Some have suggested that the TU cost for akimbo fire should be higher, but this doesn't make any sense to me. Why would firing birth guns at the same time take any longer?
Try it with pencils :P
(Just don't fall)
-
Some have suggested that the TU cost for akimbo fire should be higher, but this doesn't make any sense to me. Why would firing birth guns at the same time take any longer?
If you're not literally just spraying bullets everywhere, and are not perfectly ambidextrous (as few people are), you will take some extra time to get both weapons pointed in the same general direction. And you'll still get an overall reduction in accuracy for the double shots, because that requires perfectly converging the two weapons on the target - a task made difficult for people that have a "primary" hand, as the other hand will not follow the movement correctly.
-
I believe that there should be functions for firing while dual-wielding. Firing duel wielding weapons uses slightly more time units than single wielding but fires double, with less accuracy for each mode on non dominant hand:
Twin Shot: double snap shot
Unload: double auto shot
Double Aim: double aimed shot
Also, I believe each soldier should have a random dominant hand, which determines the accuracy of the item in hand. The three types of dominant hand are:
Right Handed: (accuracy penalty on left hand, more if dual wielding, no dual wield penalty on right hand)
Left Handed: (accuracy penalty on right hand, more if dual wielding, no dual wield penalty on left hand)
Ambidexterous: (no accuracy penalty on either hand, small accuracy penalty on each hand for dual wielding)
-
They already have dominant hands, I think. So far I think it only determines which hand their weapon gets auto-assigned to.
And "double aimed shot" is about the silliest thing suggested so far. You can't aim down two sets of sights with one set of eyes.
-
And "double aimed shot" is about the silliest thing suggested so far. You can't aim down two sets of sights with one set of eyes.
well, technically you only need one eye to aim one weapon, so if you aim at the same target, you could theoretically align each weapon with one eye's sightline... but practically those sightlines are only as far apart as your eyes are (less than that, the further away from your eyes you hold the weapons), so at arm's length the pistols would probably touch.
yeah, double aimed is pretty silly. :D I keep thinking about a severely squinting soldier double-aiming at two enemies at once...
akimbo shooting only makes sense for two things, I guess:
1) (using auto-fire weapons) over a short-to-medium distance: spraying an area with twice the bullets per time (and hoping for lucky hits) before the enemy can reaction-fire
2) (using anything at all) in close combat: inflicting maximum damage when you just can't miss before the enemy kills you
-
Sorry for the necro but, I wanted to provide my 2 cents on this.
First, one critical use I would use akimbo for, is allowing multiple target firing with less tu usage compared to one. Imagine 2 smgs fired in opposite directions. You could not only double the fire rate, but target more enemies in a turn this way.
I'm no mathematician but I thought some about possible balance for it.
first, if 2 firearms are in hand, give some sort of option for akimbo combined, or independent.
Combined would be roughly as explained above, firing both at the same target. I wouldn't explicitly lock out 2 handed weapons that can function 2 handed, I'd just give it MISERABLE accuracy, and less efficiency in doing so compared to hand weapons. But I wouldn't really lock out using multiple types of guns together, I'd just round to the largest shot value for both. Not ideal, but would be easy to implement.
Independent would be a bit janky to use, but would give much more versatility. my idea is you could enable akimbo independent stance in the weapon choices, which works like a toggle, with possibly a minimal 2 tu cost, or possibly none at all, and it would work like the following : first off, you have slightly lowered accuracy, possibly more than what dual fire would be (since you concentrate on 2 guns), and if you fire one, it discounts firing the other by 90% the cost of the first, yet the second is less accurate, with extra penalty for amount you must turn. (shooting behind you would be a crap shot if you used this). After the second hand is fired, it procs back to akimbo ready, allowing you to fire the first gun again, OR, disable akimbo to fire more accurately. This would enable true akimbo, rather than effectively strapping 2 pistols together. you could, with a good troop, make pistols much more effective. However akimbo cancels if you move, to prevent unrealistic abuse (fire one gun, run 4 tiles, fire again for free?)
I was also thinking bringing reactions into this, I'm not certain of the math, but perhaps besides the slight drop in accuracy, subtract reactions from firing skill, and whatever is left over you perhaps multiply (.5?) and then also subtract from aim. Also, penalty on turning could also be effected by reactions, the same way. This way if you are an amazing shot, BUT, a terrible reactions person, akimbo will be far worse, but a mediocre shot with high reactions with them will at least be more stable over all. Perhaps akimbo could also effect reactions chance slightly so akimbo doesn't trigger reactions twice as much. As a balance issue, akimbo could also WIDEN the possible cone of fire on said firearms to emulate awkwardness of firing 2 guns at once and trying to aim.
I know independent fire would be a much more complex coding to do, most certainly, but being able to fire them independently would make for a VERY interesting class dynamic....Imagine a magnum with smg combo, in decent hands, shooting a guy at 10 units, and spraying a guy to his side in half the time as normal. It would also allow particularly skilled troops to engage twice as many enemies, which, even with the accuracy issue, I could see double uzis being extremely useful in CQC engagements.
Honestly, I'd go with JUST independent fire, where you could effectively combine them IF YOU WANTED, but I figured I'd mention both. I know its more involved to code, and use, but the versatility added to it is well worth it in my opinion. And even with bad accuracy, this, and spray and pray feature, would give me a reason to try double uzis.
-
Necro of a necro here but I think dual wielding already works fine. It's a bit of a poorly working burden on a soldier unless they're using a CQC loadout such as a knife and pistol. There are plenty of weapons that can be iron-sighted while holding another weapon, assuming you aren't trying to use both at once. There is using the forearm in a sloppy form of a Weaver aiming stance...
I always thought dual wielding like in the movies was a flight of fancy and that any "real life" cases of it were probably cases of people picking up another weapon from someone dead/injured and using it until it was empty before discarding it. Like shooting only one at a time and mostly taking advantage of having more ammo without a break spent reloading.
(in xcom terms this is spending less TUs to pick up a gun instead of using more to reload or stow/replace a soldier's weapon with a backup.)
I suppose with laser sights, maybe some low-recoil weapons could work well in a pair, but I kinda doubt this would apply to everything. I would guess that stocked SMGs/carbines that can be tucked under the arm would probably end up the most accurate fired in tandem.
-
I think the main reason dual wielding is weak is because there's usually a limited array of one-hand weapons to choose from. I haven't played much X-Piratez yet but I bet there's plenty of reasons to dual wield in that game. The trick is to have a wide variety of one-hand weapons and devices that achieve different objectives. In my mod I just recently buffed the Plasma Pistol as well as made the Psi Amp require line of sight. A good trick then is to run your soldiers around with plasma pistols and psi amps. Another good loadout is a pistol and a knife--assuming the knife is stronger than the pistol when you get close enough to use it. I've also found it can be useful to have several soldiers equipped with motion scanners, and while they usually work okay with two-hand weapons, they do increase the likelihood I bring one-hand weapons.
That's how I dual-wield, I just put two different things in the opposite hands.
-
My couple of pennies:
There is a mechanic that allows to autofire between two-three points selected (Ctrl+Shift+Clicks).
How can Macedonian firing be implemented? The only way that comes to my thoughts is an additional check parameter "the second pistol/SMG/rifle is equipped" that allows an additional firemode with the same Clicks on two separated targets.