Snap and auto are already having low accuracy, so it doesn't matter which voxel is the target. It will mostly affect the aim.
original game has this annoying and hilarious common situation you see the guy but can't shoot. but what if you can shot but always miss (or mostly miss) due to the way aiming works. that's not good either.
original game has this annoying and hilarious common situation you see the guy but can't shoot. but what if you can shot but always miss (or mostly miss) due to the way aiming works. that's not good either.It's inherent logic of geometry. You see units from level of eyes, you fire units from level of shoulders. It it wouldn't show you "no line of fire" and allow you to fire, there are 146% of chances to hit some obstacle. That's that.
aimed shots should fire from level of eyesI also thought of that thing since I joined OpenXcom. But this origination point is not something to be changed that easily. It needs of deep and thorough estimating of consequences. Having no "no line of fire" for AIM shot at all pretty changes the game feeling.
Like in this case the new proposed aiming is going to make lots of half-covers useless (more noticeably against aimed shots, as far as I understood your explanation), in exchange of reliable aiming in some situations: not a trade I would like.If you're making aiming shot with 110% of accuracy, you will actually have less than 50% chance. Is it fair?
If you're making aiming shot with 110% of accuracy, you will actually have less than 50% chance. Is it fair?But with half-covers turned useless, is the change an overall improvement?
But with half-covers turned useless, is the change an overall improvement?Not useless, they just stop being exploits vs costy aim. And stay the same for snap and auto.
Arthanor,
why do you think I'm worried about the numbers at the UfoExtender cursor? Frankly I don't give a shit about it (I'm not a fan of this mod). I've started this because of initially bad aiming algorithms.
You've mentioned "tactical elements". I'm naming them "exploiting algorithm/AI flaws". As with dropping weapon with MCed alien, and be 100% sure it will never pick it up.
Really bad reference for the tactics.
Not useless, they just stop being exploits vs costy aim. And stay the same for snap and auto.The 3x4 grid seems a more sensible solution than both the current and the proposed one: it ease the problem of the first (selecting voxel just above cover edge thus butchering effective accuracy), without the alteration of gameplay of the second (quoting you directly:
And it's not a compromise, it's more vanilla than current OpenXcom way. Vanilla got only 3x4 grid - just 12 target points, so in most of cases the target voxel was at least 1 voxel away from the obstacle, and AIM was hitting the target. In OpenXcom we have a grid 3x10, with really precise vertical, which OFTEN choses the voxel at the edge of obstacle, which instantly lessen chances by 50% for AIM.
But this 3x4 low-precision grid has this "aiming" benifit comparing to current OXC way as a side effect, not intentionally, not controlled. It must be controlled, and logical.
you hardly would be able to hide over the corner or behind the gear [...] So battles will become slightly more brutal, and quicker.).
The 3x4 grid seems a more sensible solution than both the current and the proposed one: it ease the problem of the first (selecting voxel just above cover edge thus butchering effective accuracy), without the alteration of gameplay of the second (quoting you directly:).No it's not. Because you will get "no line of fire" 3 times more often. Inspite of seeing unit and having direct line of fire.
No it's not. Because you will get "no line of fire" 3 times more often. Inspite of seeing unit and having direct line of fire.Then this should have been locked, with "deal with it" written from the start.
And if there will be line of fire, you will not miss. So it will be same as I quoted + extra no line of fires.
The only sensible solution is to deal with what I proposed.
You guys are really weird, prefer to stick to flawy solution #1 (no line of fire) or flawy solution #2 (hitting obstacles even with aimed shots). It' s like you love bugs and ugliness. Do you really like to be ashamed?
In the first of your three scenarios, to me it makes no sense that the cover doesn't count at all (provided I'm interpreting the picture correctly, all the blue voxels have "0" weight), even if it's an aimed shot. This is not making partial covers not exploitable, but it's making them useless. I don't care about ugliness.Partial covers shouldn't matter as much for aim as for snap. Scenarios showing the best aimed voxel, not the cloud itself. And cloud of probability is much bigger than this grid. Partial covers doesn't matter that much in vanilla.
no line of fire is already ok.
the matter is hitting target with chances almost 2 times less than vanilla (roof case).
in 90% of cases when you're using snap and auto it will cause almost same result. in case of aim shot it wont cause too much of ridiculous misses due to obstacles, which are OpenXcom specific and not common for vanilla.
This does not effect your chance to hit, your shot could still stray and hit the enemys covers destroy it or miss completly.
The problem is that a "stray shot" hitting cover is not a great way to represent cover. Turning a miss into a miss is really not changing anything.It is a wonderful way to represent cover. It even has some catch of reality to it.
The % of shots that are "stray shot that happen to hit target" and could then be affected by the target being behind cover is such a minimal fraction of total shots that it's not really work speaking about. Say you have 70% to hit, probably 28% to hit anywhere but the target on a miss, so 2% "stray shots" on target, 1% shots blocked by cover from being half obscured. So being in half cover gives you a 1% extra chance of not being hit? Cover is irrelevant.It is not. Cover has one main function it limits visibility (either completly or partially) the area on which you can be hit is smaller if you are behind cover (because the cover is in the line of fire and would be hit first).
The current situation has bad target placement which results in obstacles taking away hits.
It makes cover more relevant because now cover takes away from hits. (missing half of the 70% of hits as above is a significant gain in survivability for being in half cover!)Cover is in the line of fire so it will be hit anyway. Were is your fucking Problem?
Before anyone explodes: Yes, I agree, it is a bad mechanic that creates stupid situations probably more often than good ones. The problem (for some of us) is that fixing it reduces the value of cover unless something else is done to compensate. But it seems like vanilla has no cover either, so the outcome is clear: OpenXCom is like vanilla, aiming should be like volutar proposed and we won't be playing with cover (something I find sad in a tactical game, but that's how XCom is).
Uh.. There's no "Cover concept" in Gollops' x-com universe. There was cover concept in Laser Squad, but not later. Solomon's x-com made cover concept into account and made it one of key features. It makes whole tactics totally different.
X-Com is not about covering and avoiding shots by some ruse. Aliens can't even kneel. It's about suffering and getting shots in the head even through 2 windows (not quite a real life situation). Adding gamey feature from xcom2012 heavily alters xcom tactics. Though it is possible to make "cover" concept (decreasing hit ratio by obstruction percentage), but it have to be _optional_, not default.
But before making it optional, this targeting should be at least taken under control, while currently it's just "how it goes", and not really vanillish. Which apparently is not good.
Uh.. There's no "Cover concept" in Gollops' x-com universe. There was cover concept in Laser Squad, but not later. Solomon's x-com made cover concept into account and made it one of key features. It makes whole tactics totally different.
X-Com is not about covering and avoiding shots by some ruse. Aliens can't even kneel. It's about suffering and getting shots in the head even through 2 windows (not quite a real life situation). Adding gamey feature from xcom2012 heavily alters xcom tactics. Though it is possible to make "cover" concept (decreasing hit ratio by obstruction percentage), but it have to be _optional_, not default.
But before making it optional, this targeting should be at least taken under control, while currently it's just "how it goes", and not really vanillish. Which apparently is not good.
i kinda like the idea of reducing damage based on cover % optional advanced setting . how would you implement that?No. It's about lowering chances to hit. Damage reduction is not the subject.
It is a wonderful way to represent cover. It even has some catch of reality to it.It is not. Cover has one main function it limits visibility (either completly or partially) the area on which you can be hit is smaller if you are behind cover (because the cover is in the line of fire and would be hit first).Since you replied in such a heated way...
Why? obviously this needs adjustment, but wouldn't make cover obsolete.
Cover is in the line of fire so it will be hit anyway. Were is your fucking Problem?
We always played with cover, i guess you didn't grasped how it works even in vanilla.
I don't think it should be optional, volutar's target placement is clearly superior to the current way of doing things. (And I've mentioned that in every post I've written I think?).