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.
Sitting behind a low wall/fence/staircase/chair/corner is not "exploiting algorith/AI flaws" it is using cover. Making use of cover is one of the most basic tactic. You don't stand in the open. Of course, if you can, you get out of sight, but a game that is strictly about line of sight and exploiting smoke is less interesting than one where you can duck behind a wall and be harder to hit.
This situation can all be summarized in a few simple questions:
- Should a shot actually hit the target with (almost) exactly the odds that are displayed to the player?
- Should you have the same chance of hitting a target that's hiding behind cover as one in the open?
- Should the game display the same odds of hitting a target in the open versus one in cover?
My answers are:
- Yes, obviously.
- No, obviously.
- No, obviously
but that's what both vanilla XCom and OpenXCom do.
How can that be fixed? There are two ways:
1 - Make cover essentially irrelevant so that the constant % displayed is accurate no matter what cover the target is in (Your solution, since you would pretty much only hit cover on a miss).
2 - Show a different number if the target is in cover.
Where would you show that different number? On the cursor like Extender Accuracy. I am using the % displayed by the extender accuracy as an example of placement. I couldn't care less whether you like that mod or not, use it or not, or whatever. It is a way to tell you where I think the % should be displayed as part of the suggestion I am making for an alternate solution. Besides the % being displayed at the same place, what I am suggesting has nothing to do with Extender Accuracy (and works with both vanilla and Extender Accuracy schemes).
I fully agree with those saying that the vanilla XCom system is a finely tuned compromise made out of a series of approximation to reach a desired effect. Changing one of these approximations (even if to make it better) changes the outcome.
In this case, changing the way aiming is done to make it more intelligent means an overall reduced effect of cover, which isn't a good thing in a tactical game. Hiding behind obstacles should matter. An aiming algorithm where "properly aimed shots" are as likely to hit a full bodied target in the open as to hit their toes sticking out from behind cover dumbs the game down. Vanilla XCom represents cover by making "shots on target" sometimes hit cover. If we take that out, this new XCom needs another way to represent cover.
The ideal situation would be to change the way aiming is done and change the way cover is handled in order to maintain the vanilla balance (and relevance of cover) while also improving the information provided to the user. If you don't want to tackle both aiming and cover to maintain the balance, I would rather you don't touch either.
What's left is that the information provided to the player could still be improved by showing a different number when the target is in cover (multiply the accuracy % by the proportion of the target area that is obstructed by cover). The aiming & cover mechanics don't change, but with the new info they also no longer deceive the player.
I don't think a change that makes cover even less relevant is a good thing for the game. To me, LoS tricks (step forward, spot, step outside of LoS range, fire from safety), especially dancing in the smoke, are much more akin to exploits than kneeling behind a wall to get cover. These LoS tricks should not be reinforced further as the primary way to preserve your soldiers.
