"Realistic accuracy and cover system" option

[jnarical]

Realistic accuracy improved aimed shots

Realistic accuracy cover efficiency
is default value 50% ? or 70% ? now it seems to be 70% default value (image below)
which value will be the best and most brutal?

This is bug, it seems ( the intention was to make 50% default

[aziza]

and which value of "Realistic accuracy cover efficiency" will be the most brutal? what is your opinion?
as Xilmi mentioned before - 0% is the most brutal by his opinion?
if "Realistic accuracy and cover system" = NO (default) then "Realistic accuracy cover efficiency" will be 0% too (regardless of the set value) ?

[jnarical]

and which value of "Realistic accuracy cover efficiency" will be the most brutal? what is your opinion?
as Xilmi mentioned before - 0% is the most brutal by his opinion?
if "Realistic accuracy and cover system" = NO (default) then "Realistic accuracy cover efficiency" will be 0% too (regardless of the set value) ?

I’m not sure about “most brutal”, cause all mechanics works the same way for both player and AI. So it’s not about difficulty, more about how tedious will your battles be. Less cover efficiency - more successful shots for both sides.

Yes, the topmost RA option enables all set of RA options. Without it, shooting mechanics should be vanilla. If you like tight spread of RA but don’t like cover mechanics - you could disable covers by setting “cover efficiency” to 0%.

[aziza]

OXCEB 8.6.0
a bug - accuracy calculation when shooting alien through walls does not work correctly
if you know (or don't know) that there is an enemy behind the wall and you aim at him and shoot - then although it says 64% hit, in fact it is about 15%, so it is always better to aim behind the enemy, where there will be a real 56% and not fake 64%
previously, when there was a brown crossfire, it quickly became clear that shooting through walls on a brown crossfire was super inaccurate. now the brown crossfire is gone, but the super inaccuracy at this point remains

to reproduce:
1. load this save + options
2. do "auto shot" to the corner, 2 times. and count how many bullets of 6 pcs will hit the corner wall (zero)
use ctrl+click to shoot through the walls

[jnarical]

a bug - accuracy calculation when shooting alien through walls does not work correctly

I'll check that after finishing to fix the crash.

[jnarical]

a bug - accuracy calculation when shooting alien through walls does not work correctly

fixed. fix will be added in next bai release.

[termidor]

Just two things I would like to be added:
- Would it be possible to set a maximun hit chance, like 95% of the new games even with kneeling and other acc bonus?
- Can the target size be consider for hit chances?

[jnarical]

- Would it be possible to set a maximun hit chance, like 95% of the new games even with kneeling and other acc bonus?

It used to be that way, but I changed it and removed upper cap after numerous requests. The thing is, most players who play mega-mods got accustomed to 100+ accuracy numbers, and even more - mods themselves are made with that in mind. Why do you want such limit btw?

- Can the target size be consider for hit chances?

It does. Big units have something like x1.35 accuracy multiplier as far as I remember,

============

There's a known bug in current version, off-center shooting isn't working as intended for reaction fire and most probably for AI units. Fix isn't trivial and heavily depends on technical debt, which should be fixed first.

[termidor]

It used to be that way, but I changed it and removed upper cap after numerous requests. The thing is, most players who play mega-mods got accustomed to 100+ accuracy numbers, and even more - mods themselves are made with that in mind. Why do you want such limit btw?
It does. Big units have something like x1.35 accuracy multiplier as far as I remember,

Well could it be added back as a toggable option? I much prefer having the Rng be on the hit chances than for it to be on the damage (yes I'm like one of the five people that prefer 50-150).

Regarding the size the question was more in line of smaller targets like the rats some mods add, althougth thinking about it sectoids would also have a smaller profile than normal humans.

[jnarical]

smaller targets like the rats

RA scans target's hitbox, which differs for enemies. For example, there could be situation where you could see muton behind a stone wall but couldn't see sectoid which stands next to it. Their width differs too. But the issue with small creatures is their hitboxes could be much larger then sprite image. I couldn't help with this, it's up to mod makers.

Well could it be added back as a toggable option?

I could return it back relatively easily, but I'd rather fix huge technical debt which prevents further development. And that's much easier said than done.

[termidor]

RA scans target's hitbox, which differs for enemies. For example, there could be situation where you could see muton behind a stone wall but couldn't see sectoid which stands next to it. Their width differs too. But the issue with small creatures is their hitboxes could be much larger then sprite image. I couldn't help with this, it's up to mod makers.

But would it matter in the open without cover? For instance a 1M target and a 0'5M target being shot, the latter would be presenting a lesser are to be impacted upon. Or is just like normal OXCE where the shot will always lead towards the target heavily.

And understandable about tech debt, I would like maximun accuracy but there are ways for myself to get it by limiting possible accuaracy on itself.

[jnarical]

But would it matter in the open without cover?

No and yes. At the  early stage of development I've made a decision not to take unit size into account (excluding 2x2 units), for a couple reasons. First one is their size differs A LOT, for example muton is x1.5 or even x2 larger than sectoid. This could've changed accuracy numbers a lot too, and I've considered that was too big of a change, especially for old xcom playerbase.

But. Cover is much more beneficial for smaller units, cause of its relative size. Even small grass counts as cover, and for muton it could reduce its visibility to 97%, but for something as small as rats, it could be 80-85% And grass is everywhere, you could even consider it as "totally open field")) Small sectoids could hide behind small covers more effective than mutons, too.

[Flipbard]

Hello, Jnarical. Some time ago, you came to my stream and discord and claimed that shelters do not work in OXCE.  I checked your statement and made sure you were wrong. I did 4 tests, with my fighter and the enemy without shelter, behind a fence, behind a fence and a window and behind a tree. At the same time, all other shooting conditions were exactly the same. As a result, I found out that the shelter helps, while the larger part of the target area is closed, the fewer hits come to the target. I'm attaching screenshots.

[Flipbard]

And another OXCE test. A well-aimed shot from a distance of 27 cells. The declared accuracy of the game is 86%

Your claim that the shelter is only 5% effective is not true. If only 5% of bullets hit an obstacle, it does not mean that the chance of hitting the target is reduced by 5%.
It can be seen from the test that it becomes about 2 times more difficult to hit the target.

[jnarical]

All tests were made in standart OXCE (not BAI/RA).Visibility/Cover percentages were measured in BAI/RA afterwards.

One could think that cover works at least sometimes, at least to some extent. Actually, it doesn't. Cover works, when shot hits it instead of target, in front of it.  That's when cover works as, well, COVER. That wasn't true for almost 80% misses - most of them flew by. Unfortunately, i haven't count them, but they are way more than half of all the misses.

There is a correlation between cover percentage and missed shots, sure, especially for high objects density. But those shots not only don't hit any cover, they are incredibly insufficient to use them to a tactical advantage. Even extremely 95% covered unit will be hit with every seconds aimed shot.

UPD:
Flipbard, I'm not interested to continue this discussion. I jsut don't care.