Laser Weapons

[Metalfrenchtoast]

If there's one single thing I didn't like about X-com, it's that you can actually miss with a laser. How is that possible, unless you have a VERY unsteady hand. A real laser is 1) Usually invisible uless it goes through a thicker gas and parts of it are refracted to the viewers eyes, and 2) PERFECTLY accurate, there is NO RECOIL. Also, lasers don't shoot in bolts like that. IF you saw a laser fired, it would be a perfectly straight line of light. That's why it's so freakin' powerful. It's basically a whole lot of energy in a very small area going in exactly the same direction. I don't know, that always kind of got to me, seeing one of my guys shoot a laser practically sideways, into the head of another one of my operatives in some alley. Does anybody get what I'm saying? Also, laser size wouldn't have that many negative factors other than weapon weight. Also, heat would be a considerable factor in laser weapons. I think laser weapons should be effected by heat considerably after longer periods of firing. Also, this could lead to research for better-cooled laser weapons, which would increase their destructive capabilities. Barrel size really wouldn't matter that much other than to maybe decrease the bulkiness of the weapon. So, instead of a laser rifle being longer to increase accuracy, it could be longer because of the equipment needed to gather that much energy and send it coherently in one direction. More of a power demand than an accuracy issue. Does that make sense to anybody or am I just rambling?

[Adun_Toridas]

1. Laser are pulse weapons with shorts burst of energy.

 

2. Well, it´s supposed that XCOM scientist got the way to control overheating.

[[dipstick]]

Lasers can be control fired in bursts, otherwise they WOULD overheat very rapidly, and the animation is shown to improve gameplay. The same goes for accuracy - it would ruin the game if you could hit an alien EVERY shot - unless something drastic was done to compensate.

[Metalfrenchtoast]

Well if you're talkin' gameplay, there could at least be a large increase in accuracy. Large.

[dan2]

The problem with lasers is that they're so easy to reflect or difuse. And you have to shine steadily a small portion of the alien while it is running. I guess they'll come more of them for free and even tanning... ...

So one has to be lucky for his laser shot to be effective.

I know, all of you saw nice metal cut with lasers (in scientific documentaries maybe), but if the material is very reflective, like a mirror, or is not absortive in that wavelegth region, the laser can't do much. I expect aliens to have some alien alloys armor on them...

[Adun_Toridas]

yes, but if you say that there should also be a great reducing on firepower. And i guess that people will not like a laser wich is weaker than a wimpy pistol...

[sir_schwick]

I agree the animation for laser shots should be a continous stream(maybe in false color cause the real one is invisible). Of course it doesn't matter if the armour is reflective if you hit them in the eye. Maybe heat management would be used instead of ammo, so its not just auto-fire every TU you have.

[mastalouist]

Perhaps a way to make a viable laser weapon would be to severely limit the rate of fire. A laser "rifle" would have considerable heat problems, so why not give the laser a cooldown phase, for example: Fire -> wait on round to cool -> Fire...etc..

Pinpoint accuracy would make these weapons perfect for snipers, but the slow rate of fire would make them unreliable for front line troops. They would make good supporting weapons without disregarding properties a laser weapon would have.

The point about different materials refracting and absorbing a laser beam differently is a good one. Will Xenocide be using different damage and armor types? (Energy, Fire, Kinetic) Etc?

[mastalouist]

BTW- Hi everyone.

I have been reading posts off and on for about a year, but I'm pretty sure this is the first time I have ever posted. I am liking what I see so far

[Snakeman]

I think aiming in general, unless you have a scope or laser sight sort of thing on the weapon, your always going to have aiming problems. I've viewed these sorts of enhancements to weapons and to soldiers' ability to fire accurately just that, enhancements.

 

I think that despite a soldier's good accuracy rating, he should still miss if his weapon does not have one of these additions or does but is damaged. As was already said above, you could further limit accuracy shots by how many you can do on a turn vs cooldown before you can fire it again.

 

This could allow for more power output on these laser weapons. Other limits touched on in other posts could come into play as well if it was thought not enough, such as battery packs used for the rifle varieties anyway, that can have varying sizes. i.e. smalls can fit on belts, medium 4 square sized and 9 square sized can harness more power output per shot but these last both add significant weight and reduces what a soldier can carry.

Edited March 3, 2005 by Snakeman

[Guest Azrael]

1) Usually invisible uless it goes through a thicker gas and parts of it are refracted to the viewers eyes, and

Would you like it more if X-Com troopers fired invisible blasts?, that would be way too boring.

 

2) PERFECTLY accurate, there is NO RECOIL. Also, lasers don't shoot in bolts like that. IF you saw a laser fired, it would be a perfectly straight line of light. That's why it's so freakin' powerful. It's basically a whole lot of energy in a very small area going in exactly the same direction. I don't know, that always kind of got to me, seeing one of my guys shoot a laser practically sideways, into the head of another one of my operatives in some alley. Does anybody get what I'm saying?

It still depends on accuracy of the shooter, while it may be right that accuracy should improve as there is no recoil, it still hasn't perfect accuracy.

 

Also, laser size wouldn't have that many negative factors other than weapon weight. Also, heat would be a considerable factor in laser weapons. I think laser weapons should be effected by heat considerably after longer periods of firing.

Our texts talk about it, they are supposed to have the best cooling systems and heatsinks.

 

Also, this could lead to research for better-cooled laser weapons, which would increase their destructive capabilities. Barrel size really wouldn't matter that much other than to maybe decrease the bulkiness of the weapon. So, instead of a laser rifle being longer to increase accuracy, it could be longer because of the equipment needed to gather that much energy and send it coherently in one direction. More of a power demand than an accuracy issue. Does that make sense to anybody or am I just rambling?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, the Heavy Laser is a more powerful version of the laser rifle, making a more powerful laser beam would involve it building up more heat, so the Heavy Laser pretty much is that better-cooled laser weapon you are talking about.

[Robo Dojo 58]

1) Usually invisible uless it goes through a thicker gas and parts of it are refracted to the viewers eyes, and

There is always a tiny amount of dust and particles in the air. A laser as powerful as a weapon would make a visible trail, because the sheer power of the laser would ionize the air in the path. That air could even be ionized enough to make the air around it glow, which would give the beam a large, fuzzy appearance. I saw a pic of a 1000 watt laser in action, the beam was extremely bright while the surrounding air glowed. It could be an error in the photography, but it doesn't seem likely to me.

[sir_schwick]

Was it false color photography by any chance? That would be a cool 'sensor mode' you could look through on the battlefield. It is a given that the most elite ground warfare unit in the world would have night vision, thermal scopes, etc.

[Metalfrenchtoast]

Yeah, good point Azrael, invisible lasers would be extremely boring. I guess there's a balance you need to look for between realism and good fun gameplay. I do still think laser weapons should have hellacious accuracy. There isn't much anywhere else a laser can go except in the direction you point it. Ever played with an LED pointer?

[Moriarty]

I always assumed that the laser is a weapon that produces a laser flash, not a continuous beam. that way of course you can miss, the same way you can try to take a photo of someone who is camera-shy

I do agree that lasers are the ultimate sniper weapon. if the target is in line with the barrel (or the aiming system, for that matter) at the moment the trigger is pressed, it is hit. no time-of-flight you have to consider for leading shots, no wind to compensate for. that's why I always thought the Heavy Laser should be a cool gun when put on a little tripod and used from a nice sniping spot.

 

gameplay-wise, the beam should probably ionize the air along its path. so you don't actually see the beam, but its afterglow. even in the slo-mo "bullet view" XCom uses, you shouldn't be able to see a beam of light travelling. that's soooo unrealistic.

[mikker]

that's why I always thought the Heavy Laser should be a cool gun when put on a little tripod and used from a nice sniping spot.

 

I though about this too, being able to set up the heavy laser on something and use it as a tripod. I acturly made a part of my gun for that exact reason.

 

http://www.xcomufo.com/forums/index.php?ac...pe=post&id=5983

 

as you see, the front part of the gun has a little incline. Perfect for holding it stationary.

[IdahoEv]

If there's one single thing I didn't like about X-com, it's that you can actually miss with a laser. How is that possible, unless you have a VERY unsteady hand ... 2) PERFECTLY accurate, there is NO RECOIL.

 

This is nonsense. Do you always hit your target while playing laser tag or Duck Hunt? The limitation is aim, not recoil, which doesn't affect your first shot noticeably anyhow.

 

Most of the tendency of bullets to miss is due to limitations in human capabilities or skills of aiming. Try shooting a pistol at a moving target at 30' while under stress. It's actually quite difficult; at that range a human only fills about 3 degrees of your visual arc.

 

The difficulty at that range has absolutely nothing to do with the inherent accuracy of the weapon. The same is true of shoulder-stabilized long guns at somewhat longer ranges (100 meters or so). Hands are unsteady. There's a reason that olympic Biathletes try hard to keep their heart rate low - even heartbeats can screw up your aim badly.

 

A real handheld laser weapon would be almost as difficult to hit with as a rifle.

[Oldblue153]

Hehehe gotta say Idaho makes a very good point...how many of us actually sat so close to the TV that we occasionally hit the screen with the gun playing Duck Hunt n still missed some?

[Qonfused]

no recoil is a advantage in auto fire.

but the rest is rather irelevant.

the firefights we are talking about here are close range.

so a rifle, laser or balistic, is going to hit exactly where the rifle is aimed.

Aiming is about getting the rifle to aim in the direction you want the bullet or laser to hit.

So hitting with a laser burst is equaly easy as hitting with a balistic missile.

the only variable is stability.

[[stewart]]

They only thing I'd want realistically-wise is that when you fire the laser weapon goes "CLACK" to represent the sound of the solinoid closing the switch.

[Blood Angel]

I, as a person, have very shaky hands. It is more or less inbuilt, that even after a dosage of Diazepam, you will still have some shake in your hands. Now, imagine this at long range: Think of the geometry involved. The further away you aim, the more your hand shakes, bam: Less accuracy.

 

But perhaps I have immature onset Parkinson's syndrome. Who knows?

Edited January 13, 2006 by Blood Angel

[Tuoppi]

At longer ranges there is the advance of not having to lead target.

[Dover]

I get what Metalfrenchtoast is saying here. In XCOM, each of the guns had an accuracy percentage in the UFOperdia, which is used in calcualation of how accurate the shot is (Alongside with the soldiers firing accuracy), right?

 

I think what Metalfrenchtoast means (And I've actually have the same idea for a while now), is to increse the accuracy of laser weapons. If they were made more accurate than plasma weapons (But still not as powerful), they would retain some usefulness later in the game. After all, it seems that the general concensus is that laser weapons are the ultimate sniper weapon...

[[Blehm 98]]

I would like to point out that Laser weapons are NOT as light as little styrofoam models, which would obviously bring out twitching and shaking a lot. Of course they'd be accurate with a bipod or tripod, just if you have a heavy laser, the weight would offset the extreme accuracy

 

just remember that

[fux0r666]

In CQB, people miss with firearms because of their skill with the arm, not because of the innaccuracy of the weapon. A typical dispersion angle for a modern assault rifle is 1.2 mils... that is, 120mm of dispersion at 100m. That's 4 inches at 100 yards. The ranges in X-Com are hardly anywhere near that. All of the weapons in X-Com (or weapon skills) are terrible, if you're taking the game literally.

[Oldblue153]

Lazers can miss quite easily even at close range .If you want to test this just do what I did ..get a Lazer-Pointer and try squeezing off a few "shots" from the hip n see.

[sir_schwick]

That's why you don't fire from the hip. Overall it sounds as though weapons need maybe be geared towards how they modify the soldiers firing accuracy and reaction stats rather than having their own organic accuracy stats. For example, a Sniper Rifle would on its primary, aimed mode give a huge percentage bonus(%50 or more I would say) to accuracy. Its snap shot would probably though, reduce the units reactions, maybe by 20 or 30%. Obviously b/c of recoil or just squizzing the trigger and leaving it level, accuracy on autofire mode would probabyl only marginally modify the soldiers accuracy or reduce it on the subsequent rounds.

 

Firing from the hip is inaccurate unless you have something adjusting it to where you are aiming. This could be a feature of the Power Suits, they grant a large bonus to either snap shots, or shots not taken on a kneel.

[Dover]

The dispersion angle for a modern assault rifle may be 1.2 mils, but the dispersion angle for a laser rifle is 0.0 mils.

 

Lasers never miss. Ever. They shoot exactly where you point them, all the time, no matter what. Not even Plasma can boast that.

 

Therefore, it would logically follow that lasers be the most accurate gun in the game (Except for any sniper rifles, and even then the laser variety would kick everything's arse)

[fux0r666]

In case you didn't get my point, which I don't think you did, is that the face that anyone misses at close range has more to do with the skill of the firer.

 

3 inches at 100 yards means you could bullseye some's skull 100 out of 100 times from one side of a football field to the other (either kind of football). Centre mass? Forget about it. This is why we attach optics to the tops of rifles. It's because- while rifles are awesome, people suck at shooting. Rifles can already outperform their shooters at precision shooting tasks.

 

There are other factors that affect first round accuracy, like site radius (the distance between the front and rear sites), weight, and the general ergonomics of the weapon; and other factors that influence the accuracy of follow-up shots, felt recoil, etc... but if we're just talking about placing a shot on target, there should be no difference between lasers and rifles at short ranges (all things such as the quality of the sites being equal).

[Lord Shonus Aprilia]

I've actually worked with cutting lasers. It tokk almost a week to get our laser to hit the mirror over a length of a meter. Lasers may go perfectly straight but the size of the beam as well as that very straightness makes aiming difficult.

[fux0r666]

Yeah, this sort of illustrates the 'beaten earth' concept with automatic rifles. Machinegun use their high rate of fire and relative innacuracy to their advantage at long ranges. The cone pattern of bullets they produce is used for area denial. Such a high volume in a random pattern is sure to hit something, or at least make it a very unpleasant thought to enter that volume. Low degrees of inaccuracy can be- and are- used to the shooter's advantage.

[Dover]

In case you didn't get my point, which I don't think you did, is that the face that anyone misses at close range has more to do with the skill of the firer.

 

3 inches at 100 yards means you could bullseye some's skull 100 out of 100 times from one side of a football field to the other (either kind of football).  Centre mass?  Forget about it.  This is why we attach optics to the tops of rifles.  It's because- while rifles are awesome, people suck at shooting.  Rifles can already outperform their shooters at precision shooting tasks.

 

There are other factors that affect first round accuracy, like site radius (the distance between the front and rear sites), weight, and the general ergonomics of the weapon; and other factors that influence the accuracy of follow-up shots, felt recoil, etc...  but if we're just talking about placing a shot on target, there should be no difference between lasers and rifles at short ranges (all things such as the quality of the sites being equal).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Uh...You mean like the "Firing accuracy" stat every soldier already has, right?

 

I got your point exactly. Any gun could miss if used by "No-Ranking Butterfingers Joe Can't-Hit-A-Barn-Door-With-A-Blaster-Bomb", that's obvious.

 

What I'm saying that is if a laser pistol and a regular pistol were both used by the same person (Or by differnet people with the same "Firing accuracy" stat, the lasers should be more accurate. In fact, they should be more accurate than plasma weaps.

[Lord Shonus Aprilia]

No. In fact, accuracy with conventional weaopins would actually decrease accuracy with lasers, bcause of the lack of effect on the blast from the environment. A good shot automatically adjusts to compenstae for wind, range, and precipitation. If such things are incosequentiasl, those automatic adjutments will send the round to the wrong spot.

[Dover]

That's a fundemantal problem. Realism vs gameplay. If you make your soldiers re-learn how to shoot every time you research a new technology, it'd make the game teidius (sp), and a lot less fun. And it's encourage people to skip straight to heavy plasmas, which I'm completely against.

 

My point; All the soldiers woes and inaccuracy aside, lasers are more accurate than bullets or balls of plasma. It's a fact. Therefore, a soldier should be more accurate with a laser rifle in his hands than a bullet rifle, or (As far as realism is concerned) even a plasma rifle.

[fux0r666]

What I'm saying that is if a laser pistol and a regular pistol were both used by the same person (Or by differnet people with the same "Firing accuracy" stat, the lasers should be more accurate. In fact, they should be more accurate than plasma weaps.

 

I see your argument, but its connection to reality is weak. There would be no relevent difference. 3 inch group at 100 yards... in xcom you engage at what, 20 yards max? More often than not, the bullets would follow each other through the same hole. There's not much more you can expect out of any weapon.

[tzuchan]

The thing is that you guys are making the common scientific error of equating precision with accuracy. Precision is the ability to get the same result every time you do something, however, accuracy is the ability to get the most correct result.

 

You can be precise without being accurate, and veci versa.

 

A laser weapon would(in theory) be the ultimate precision weapon, in that if aimed at a point on a target, it would hit the same place on the target. But NOT necessarily on the same place as you aimed it, that's accuracy. Of course, the accuracy of a laser rifle can be adjusted so that it hits what you aim it at, but even then, a laser rifle is only as accurate as the person who's aiming it.

 

A more precise weapon can help you hit what you aim at, but it can't increase your accuracy.

 

In fact, maybe when we talk about stats in the X-Net, we should say precision instead of accuracy. After all, that's what they measure in RL also I think.

Edited February 23, 2006 by tzuchan

[Dover]

Again, realism vs. gameplay. If there was no accuracy increase in new techs, I'd be less encouraged to research lasers at all, or plasma, for that matter. What differance would it make if this is as good as it gets, and I still can't hit anything?!

 

 

I was under the impression we were making an improved version of XCOM, and not a perfectly realistic one.

 

And yea, there is a differance...

[Oldblue153]

I used to shoot competative @ 20 yard Prone (Lying down) when i was a youth with a Single Shot .22 Anshultz 190 with Peep Sights and you could miss as much as 1 inch or so on a bad Aimed Shot (a twitch, pulled insteada squeezed ..even your heartbeat has to be slowed down n ya gotta squeeze off the shot between beats) A bad shot for kneeling and standing definatly has a higher dispersal rate as more factors come into play regarding steadiness.

Actual Combat would definatly add even more Factors (rate of breathing, heartbeat ,weight of equipment, Fatigue) not to mention the fact the someones shooting back n he's Green.

 

One thing I think we all tend to forget is that for Gaming purposes the game was designed to be turn-based its up to us to imagine that everything is in real time so you don't really walk a few steps stop..look...aim..and shoot its more reactionary than that and technically the aliens are moving and reacting at the exact same time as we are.

 

If it was made too real you might as well throw out accuracy differences between Conventional, Lazer, and Plasma cause at 10 feet I cant see there being that much of a difference if ya missed with the Pistol its very unlikely that it was because of the accuracy of the weapon involved (Conventional, Lazer or Plasma) you just took a terrible shot.

[fux0r666]

The thing is that you guys are making the common scientific error of equating precision with accuracy. Precision is the ability to get the same result every time you do something, however, accuracy is the ability to get the most correct result.

 

I don't think so. Inaccuracy (while maintaining high precision) in the scientific sense would mean small groupings off of the bullseye in rifle terms. This would mean that your sights need to be zeroed. Obviously, we're assuming the weapons are in prime working order, so this distinction is not meaningful in that sense.

 

I used to shoot competative @ 20 yard Prone (Lying down) when i was a youth with a Single Shot .22 Anshultz 190 with Peep Sights and you could miss as much as 1 inch or so on a bad Aimed Shot (a twitch, pulled insteada squeezed ..even your heartbeat has to be slowed down n ya gotta squeeze off the shot between beats) A bad shot for kneeling and standing definatly has a higher dispersal rate as more factors come into play regarding steadiness.

Actual Combat would definatly add even more Factors (rate of breathing, heartbeat ,weight of equipment, Fatigue) not to mention the fact the someones shooting back n he's Green.

 

This is my point exactly. The inaccuracy of the shots depends on the soldier and his ability to interface with his weapon. Poor sights, bad ergonomics, high weight and soldier training would all play larger factors in the agent's ability to put shots on target. Least of all factors at these ranges would be the precision of the weapon itself.

 

An extension of this point is that the laser's accuracy may be attributed to a poor ergonomical design or high weight. This is a realistic explanation to the seemingly 'unrealistic' shot dispersion found in X-Com's laser weapons.

Edited February 23, 2006 by fux0r666

[Cavalier302]

In all of these posts, I don't think anyone has really considered the following important factors in why soldiers miss shots in X-Com. It is a turn based game, but the real life equivalent is both teams moving at the same time.

 

So firstly, you are (almost) always shooting at a moving target who is doing their utmost to not get shot, and usually to shoot back.

 

Secondly, and most importantly, each turn in X-Com represents just a few seconds of real life combat. If in one turn an X-Com agent can move the equivalent of say 30 - 50 yards, then each turn is only about 10 seconds. So, from the original, lets use the laser rifle as an example.

 

Snap shots use about 20% of each turns TU's. Therefore, you are spotting the target, bringing the rifle up to aim, and firing off one round (pulse?) all inside of two seconds. Not surprisingly, the aim can be fairly poor.

 

Auto shots use about 33% of each turns TU's. Therefore, we are spotting the target, bringing the rifle up to aim, and firing 3 shots within 3 seconds. That's one shot every second, which anyone who has shot before is pretty quick. I do accept however that without recoil, each progressive shot in auto shot mode may get more accurate as the sniper 'tracks' the target. (This tracking effect is probably negated in 'normal' weapons due to the recoil, and with more powerful weapons the progressive shots will probably get less accurate as recoil increases.)

 

Aimed shots use about 50% of TU's, meaning a soldier has around 5 seconds to see the target, aim and fire. This type of shot is pretty much based on the soldiers accuracy, and therefore is really affected only by the factors discussed in previous posts (i.e. heart rate, target speed, etc.).

 

So you can try playing the original again, and only fire whilst kneeling and using an aimed shot. Or alternatively, play the game normally and accept that, like in a real life combat situation, sometimes even the best snipers miss. Even so, it does p##s me off when I shoot my team mates