1.8 Feedback

[Bananas_Akimbo]

The ufopedia mentions knocking someone's gun away, rather than grabbing it and the illustration, even if it is from a very silly movie, brings that point across nicely. The way, that cqc plays out on the battlescape also looks much more like just knocking the gun away. You don't need any strength at all to mess up somebody's aim. It is surpisingly easy to miss a man-sized target even from point-blank range. The defender only needs to be faster than the shooter and give the weapon a slight push. Of course the game is totally exaggerating, when it shows the shooter spinning around up to 180 degrees. I understand, that the mechanic has to be visually communicated to the player somehow but that is a bit much.
Anyway, grabbing an enemy or their weapon makes a lot less sense to me from a gameplay perspective. Why would the defender let go between every shot? The attacker would first have to free himself before being able to take aim again. Also none of this would even be possible to begin with, if the defender doesn't have a free hand.
I guess it could be cool to have grappling and even disarming mechanics in the game, but the amount of complexity we have already is sufficient for me.

[Yankes]

How does strength help in hitting? Is Hulk a better fencer than Musashi?

It would make sense if there was a more detailed melee system, involving blocks and breaking blocks. But it's X-Com and we cannot do that, or minotaurs will be able to school Lo Wo in melee combat.

Whole script melee hit chance is exposed to scripts, you could add additional checks that are affected by target and attacker.

[krautbernd]

That is why I used "grappling" as a general term to describe both:

That leaves grappling (i.e. grabbing your opponent/pushing away your opponents gun).

Seeing how this is taking place at point blank range, "aiming" isn't really the issue here. I'd argue that the defender would need more than "a slight push" to avoid being hit, seeing how large center of mass (or head of we're talking sectoids here) are at that distance. Even if you have superhuman reactions you would need a very forceful "push" to deflect a shot from a closely and double-handedly held pistol. Even more so if the level of strength between attacker and defender are disparate - more strength also (usually) leads to faster, easier and more stable positioning of a handheld weapon.

Reactions should definitely matter, but so should strength.

[Mrvex]

How does strength help in hitting? Is Hulk a better fencer than Musashi?

It would make sense if there was a more detailed melee system, involving blocks and breaking blocks. But it's X-Com and we cannot do that, or minotaurs will be able to school Lo Wo in melee combat.

Yes, because Hulk would slap the air really hard in front of him and kill him with a shockwave. Hulk be a fencing master now. Also hulk is also really quick despite being a large individual so he has both strenght and reaction.

Now with more serious answer

Reactions make most sense when it comes to one handed weapons, but the larger you go, the heavier your weapon is, hell, XCOM has tons of weapons that are heavier than sectoids themselves. Pistols should be easy to push away, but a minigun, heavy MAGMA shotgun, blaster weapons ?. The soldier can push back now since the sectoid cant just slap it away and actually has to push with his inferior strenght. Yes, it being longer would make it easier for someone like a Muton to wrestle with it since he could get a better grip.

And what about the holder itself ? If the soldier is in a power armour, he has an insane grip and a strenght of a forklift and his gauntlet has probably more mass in it than Sectoid's entire body.

[Solarius Scorch]

Playing devil's advocate here, but as far as I can tell X-Com never encounters Lo Wo and minotaurs on the same map

CQC with guns should not be comparable to fencing to begin with - the point is not to hit your opponent with an edged or blunt weapon. The point is - literally - about being able to point your gun at an enemy.

What exactely does this "special close combat test" account for? Seeing how it only applies during CQC (i.e. standing next to each other) it's not about dodging - otherwise this should apply to long-ranged attacks as well. That leaves grappling (i.e. grabbing your opponent/pushing away your opponents gun). It should be obvious why strength should be a factor here - if you are stronger than your opponent they will have a harder time holding onto your gun/push it away. Reactions can account for your opponent being able to grab your gun, but not for being able to deflect it away if they are a lot weaker than you.

The ufopedia mentions knocking someone's gun away, rather than grabbing it and the illustration, even if it is from a very silly movie, brings that point across nicely. The way, that cqc plays out on the battlescape also looks much more like just knocking the gun away. You don't need any strength at all to mess up somebody's aim. It is surpisingly easy to miss a man-sized target even from point-blank range. The defender only needs to be faster than the shooter and give the weapon a slight push. Of course the game is totally exaggerating, when it shows the shooter spinning around up to 180 degrees. I understand, that the mechanic has to be visually communicated to the player somehow but that is a bit much.
Anyway, grabbing an enemy or their weapon makes a lot less sense to me from a gameplay perspective. Why would the defender let go between every shot? The attacker would first have to free himself before being able to take aim again. Also none of this would even be possible to begin with, if the defender doesn't have a free hand.
I guess it could be cool to have grappling and even disarming mechanics in the game, but the amount of complexity we have already is sufficient for me.

A lot of good points here and later, all contradictory. Showing that we don't need a change in stats, but a better model.

(But I'm fine with the current one TBH... The only thing that bothers me is facing not having an impact, AFAIK.)

Whole script melee hit chance is exposed to scripts, you could add additional checks that are affected by target and attacker.

OK, for the sake of argument let's conveniently ignore the fact that the number of people I know of in the whole world who can into scripting at all is less than 10.

Even if scripting was possible, and we had a better model than now, I don't think going over all units in the game to give them a proper script would be a sane solution.

And regarding pushing away heavy weapons: I never said that the CQC check was about pushing weapons. It can just as well be dodging, or I dunno, squatting on top of your opponent's rifle (if you happen to be a catgirl from a 90's anime). It's abstracted.

[krautbernd]

(But I'm fine with the current one TBH... The only thing that bothers me is facing not having an impact, AFAIK.)

AFAYK?

Would be nice though if the default stats (melee+reactions) could also be overridden globally as well as whether attacks from behind should automatically succeed.

[Yankes]

OK, for the sake of argument let's conveniently ignore the fact that the number of people I know of in the whole world who can into scripting at all is less than 10.

Even if scripting was possible, and we had a better model than now, I don't think going over all units in the game to give them a proper script would be a sane solution.

This is still at least two times more people than ones who could easy change OXC code

And for updating all units, this depend on what exactly this should depend on, if it use only base stats then nothing need be change outside of one global script that affect all units. If each armor rule (as most scripts are linked to it instead of unit rule or solider rule) need some custom handling then it need tag that will toggle this behavior.

[Meridian]

This is still at least two times more people than ones who could easy change OXC code

Flawless victory. Fatality.

[Solarius Scorch]

Victory, yes... But still pyrrhic!

But on a more serious note, well, I'd be interested in seeing a better CQC method... It's not about the method, it's about the model.

[Yankes]

And what exactly this model should have? If this is close to current engine capabilities then we could make small tweaks to enable this.

[Solarius Scorch]

And what exactly this model should have? If this is close to current engine capabilities then we could make small tweaks to enable this.

The point is, I have no idea, I am happy with how it works now (with minor remarks as mentioned above). But if I were to guess, it's about exposing the CQC formula to ruleset.

[Eddie]

Since you asked for an idea:
Extend the current formula to include strength in the following way.
Strength based multiplier: strMod = 1 + 0,2*((your str / opponent str) - 1)

So your cqc value is [current cqc formula]*strMod. Done for both attacker and defender.

Example calculation:
Lets say agent has str 50 and cqc value 50, while Sectoid has str 20 and cqc value 100.

With strMod this changes to:
Agent 50*1.3 = 65
Sectoid 100*0.88 = 88

Tune the strMod formula if you want more or less of an effect.

This seems to satisfy the requirements.
- You need a somewhat good cqc score to benefit from this. 0 will stay 0.
- Good cqc score is not reduced to nothing.
- Effects are only seen when there is a large difference in strength.

This is probably not the final formula, but good enough of a starting point.

[Solarius Scorch]

Sorry, but I have already explained above in details why Strength is not a proper stat to base this check on.

[krautbernd]

Sorry, but I have already explained above in details why Strength is not a proper stat to base this check on.

Be that as it may, reactions alone isn't either.

I just tried to subdue a Muckstar - something best described as a floating Piñata that shoots lightning - with a baseball bat. According to you that thing should have a simple nervous system and floats because its interior is filled with helium baloons. It should not be able to dodge ~90% of my melee attacks.

[Mrvex]

Muckstar is a flying enemy that can adjust its altitude.
Yes, its probably way too simple as a lifeform to ever think of using that ability to dodge melee attacks.

Really, this is just the case of gameplay and realism segregation for sake of having a game.
(Yes, i would still prefer if we had enemies that couldnt dodge melee, enemies too bulky to be missed like some aliens or vehicles, or enemies too dumb to dodge).