"Realistic accuracy and cover system" option

[jnarical]

I've been giving RA another try, turning off the percentages removed my anxiety about it.

Would you suggest improved auto/snap shots?
Im playing brutal and am not trying to make it too easy on myself.  IDK which is more like normal.

And I believe you said people use Ufo Extender Accuracy?  thats to make the game harder right?
Is that because you turn yourself into aimbot with RA on without extender accuracy enabled to nerf range, and make game too easy?

Any accuracy option works both for you and enemy, to me difficulty doesn’t change much - only the pace of finishing missions - either winning or losing them.

UFO Extender was a tool, which modified original dos game “on the fly”. It has an option like “range-based accuracy” or something like that.

The reason was - choice what type of shot to use was trivial most of the time, and that type was “auto” most of the time )) the only reason to use aimed shots in “before Extender” era was small clip size. Typical scenario was:
Aimed shot - 90% accuracy, auto 3x45% accuracy, and TU cost allowed to use auto twice. 6x45% is much better than 90%, both in hit chances and x6 damage output.

Extender accuracy changed that, by making different shot types useful in different scenarios, and player should make decisions based on distance, not only on hit chances, TU and damage output. More choices - more “tactical” the game feels.

“Improved auto/snap” is a workaround, meant to imitate how hit chances increase in close range in vanilla. Better to keep turned on. As a said earlier, now I have a tool to simulate real vanilla hit chances, and could replicate it in RA with a good enough precision, instead of using arbitrary formula for that. After that, “improved snap/auto” option will be dropped from the game.

[xenoroyal]

thank you for your answers i am sure they will help other people researching your mod


can you please tell me the graphic conversion mod you use in your demonstration videos? id like to use it

[jnarical]

XCom1 Visual Upgrade
BlackWolf Facilities visual uplifted

[jnarical]

I've hit a huge milestone for RA - updated my XCom Accuracy Simulation tool with "batch simulation" option, made it to collect % chance to hit data, and gathered all % hit chances for distance = 1..40 tiles and Accuracy = 0..120%

That was 96.800.000 shot simulations which took ~20 min on my Intel Core i3-10100 × 8 on full load !

Updated this page (with fancy 3D charts!):  https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Firing_Accuracy_Testing
Put the data in my repo: https://github.com/narical/OpenXcom-Accuracy-Simulator

So what's the deal? Now I could precisely match RA with vanilla accuracy algorithm, in terms of % hit chances! And displayed numbers will represent real vanilla numbers! For example, in vanilla you perform a close-ranged shot. Cursor accuracy number displays 10% (for example) but you know the chances are MUCH higher - you just don't know the exact number. Well, RA will show that number correctly, and it will be the same both for RA and Vanilla.

Pictures with a REAL hit chances' distribution attached.

[Yankes]

btw could you create too distribution graphs? sometimes is best visualization of algorithms.

Like create surface orthogonal surface to basic trajectory (between shooter and target) and then count all bullet trajectories that hit given point in that surface.

Something: https://datasciencegenie.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/DifferentMeans3D.png

[jnarical]

btw could you create too distribution graphs? sometimes is best visualization of algorithms.

Like create surface orthogonal surface to basic trajectory (between shooter and target) and then count all bullet trajectories that hit given point in that surface.

Something: https://datasciencegenie.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/DifferentMeans3D.png

I could when I find some spare time.

[Stormtrooper]

Ummm... What do you mean "it will be the same both for RA and Vanilla."?

Wasn't RA supposed to be like... different from vanilla? Like, actually realistic, with cover playing much more significant role and stuff? I always thought the whole point of RA is to provide a different, more immersive and reasonable simulation, so why now you put so much effort into aligning hit chances with vanilla? If I wanted to have vanilla accuracy I would stick to OXCE...  :'(

[jnarical]

Ummm... What do you mean "it will be the same both for RA and Vanilla."?

Wasn't RA supposed to be like... different from vanilla? Like, actually realistic, with cover playing much more significant role and stuff? I always thought the whole point of RA is to provide a different, more immersive and reasonable simulation, so why now you put so much effort into aligning hit chances with vanilla? If I wanted to have vanilla accuracy I would stick to OXCE...  :'(

You didn't get the idea. I'm talking about base hit chance, to a fully exposed target. In vanilla, chance to hit depends on "honest" simulation. UFO Extender accuracy number at cursor loosely represents chance to hit for distances like 30+ tiles, but for 20- it's far from truth. Players don't know actual chances, but they have strong memory how the game feels.

As RA works in the opposite way, I should set chance to hit beforehand, manually - show it to player, and use it for "dice roll". Where should I get those numbers? In current RA version, I just take UFO Extender accuracy and use it as hit chance, increasing it for close range (which I arbitrarily set as 10 tiles) with my own formula... As a result, RA has different hit chances overall, worse than in vanilla... with cover reducing them even more.

Since last night, I have real hit chances from vanilla and could use them in RA as base numbers, before applying cover.