Jump to content


Photo

Target Practice...


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Sinscale17

Sinscale17

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 11 February 2005 - 09:43 AM

I was just pulling off yet another flawless shot from my TFTD sniper, when it occurred to me: Why doesn't using aimed shots increase your skill more than auto shots? With an aimed shot, the shooter is taking time to sight the target, concentrating on all the skills that make up the accuracy rating. On auto shot, it's spray and hope.

To rectify this, why not have only Aimed shots grant full training value for making the shot/hit. Snap shots would give about 25%, whilst each autoshot giving only 5% per shot.

This would, if the typical shooter did nothing but shoot each turn, grant approximately:

300% skill increases (assuming three aimed shots - the maximum possible)
125% skill increases snap shots (assuming an average of five snapshots per turn, again the maximum possible),
and a maximum of 60% for autoshooters, (assuming four autoshots per turn, again, the maximum possible).

So overall, it would more beneficial to use aimed shots every turn, giving a vastly under-used ability an even greater purpose, whilst punishing autoshot spammers.

As a little bonus, the maximum number of aimed/snap shots per turn is provided by....
The pistol. To train most efficiently, you have to use the weakest weapon in the game. :devillaugh:

So, basically, balances out autoshots, makes pistols and laser weapons worthwhile for longer, and punishes people for going all Heavy Plasma with minor training penalties.

So.... Any opinions?
Posted Image

#2 sir_schwick

sir_schwick

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 481 posts

Posted 11 February 2005 - 11:05 AM

While it seems intuitive, its not very realistic. You get good at shooting by practicing with hundreds of rounds each day on a target range. The two or three clips you use in a battle will not increase your skills that much. The reason you gain experience after missions is that your soldiers figure out how to use their practice better in missions.

Also, this is an artificial penalty to force a certain kind of gameplay. I do agree weapons need to be redesigned so its not the heavies that automatically win. There are ideas about this, but those are in other threads.

The utility of smaller waepons under this system end whenever you train your guy high enough.

Auto-shot is not just spraying. Its a controlled, three round burst. THis provides decent volume of fire while maintaining accuracy on the go. I would like to see a full-auto option for suppresion or other fire when you can prop the gun in place.

#3 Sinscale17

Sinscale17

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 11 February 2005 - 01:28 PM

Well, that's just the thing. "Your soldiers learn to use their practice better", how would automatic fire, something that has the lowest TU-shot ratio in any weapon, assist any learning whatsoever? Soldiers certainly aren't gaining field experience in aiming with it, (before you argue, recall that a snap-shot is just that, raising a gun and firing quick style, without any particular aim - such as turning a corner to see an alien and simply letting a shot fly, autofire is less accurate than this) yet currently, you can gain as much experience in one volley of autoshot than you can in three snapshots. This is a balance issue that will cheerily overcome any weapon modification you can think of. Other than stripping autofire from plasma weapons a la Terror from the Deep.

Equally, if you assume that training IS more important than actual field experience in terms of increasing stats, why does X-Com have a history of rewarding the latter far more than the former? Why does the latter grant any benefit at all? Because training against live enemies in a life or death situation is far more valuable to any learning experience than simply maintaining those skills against unintelligent targets that don't shoot back.

However, I must disagree when you call this an "artificial" penalty, since as you said, it is intuitive. Autoshots being better at raising an accuracy stat than aimed shots, as well as being twelve times faster is something that enforces the superiority of any automatic weapon over any slower weapon.

And how extreme would this "forcing" actually be, in effect? People are still free to use heavy plasmas as frequently as they please, but, perhaps rather realistically, using the most powerful weapons available - weapons with which it doesn't really matter where they hit so long as it's somewhere vaguely near a major artery or organ - isn't going to be as good for training as using a weapon where you need to make every shot count.
In the end, the soldiers that spent most of their time sniping with aimed shots from a distance would improve more than the auto-firing heavies in the front ranks. A greater investiture of time units would reap a greater reward for the effort (Something that for autofire weapons would actually encourage people to use an aimed shot once in awhile - when's the last time you used an aimed shot with a heavy plasma when you had more than two ammo?).

This would really not be a dramatic change, if you calculate the difference between weapons, even larger weapons can pull off one or two aimed shots per turn, whilst autoshots would still be the best damage dealing shot type in the game (345 damage with a heavy plasma tops even the blaster launcher, who would really stop using that in favour of around 0.5 of a stat point every mission or two?) and the beauty of it is that it doesn't require editting weapons left right and center to get a balancing result.
Take autocannon versus heavy cannon. Why use heavy cannon? Well, with this system, because it's better for training up your troops with its snapshots and aimed shots than the automatic fire mode on autocannon. If you use autocannon, it will still be a more powerful weapon, all in all (and the ultimate reason why never to put full auto on a weapon that launches essentially small grenades with every shot), but it will no longer be better in every aspect, which it is currently without a doubt, and that's something that could be achieved without even beginning to modify the weapons at all.
Old, useless weapons like the pistol and heavy cannon don't suddenly become compulsory equipment, but they do suddenly start to be worthwhile equipment, and unless something else, far more catastrophic and far less subtle than tweaking a single set of experience gains, is done, then I don't see how you would achieve that.


So, all in all, with this system the snipers using laser rifles (the second quickest aimed shot weapon in the game) from the rooftops would gain accuracy faster than grunts who swept forward unloading fully automatic heavy weapons at short to point blank range.

Are you really saying this is unrealistic?
Posted Image

#4 sir_schwick

sir_schwick

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 481 posts

Posted 11 February 2005 - 05:04 PM

Yes, I am saying you do not go into combat to train. You go into combat to do a mission. You trained back at the base. Your experience was not, "Wow, that is how to aim a gun." Your experience in combat is, "That is how the enemy moves. That is what my bullets do to them. These are things I am doing here I need to improve upon back at base." Basically, you already knew how to shoot, the stats increases should come from learning how it applied to specific combat situations.

Currently weapons are pretty much defined by how much damage they cause. This is why everybody uses HP/Autocannon/Laser Rifle. What I meant by rework is the idea that at the ranges you usually fight, the accuracy of the gun is not going to deviate much. What should determine gun accuracy is how easily it moves in your hands, recoil, and a bit of the precision bit. I would like to see Heavy Weapons be more of squad support weapons while the Rifles are the main battle weapons. Pistols are good for close quarters because of reaction times.

#5 Blehm 98

Blehm 98

    Colonel

  • [Global Moderators]
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,626 posts

Posted 12 February 2005 - 04:20 PM

He's right. And don't you think that it will increase skills more if you can shoot off three rounds and hit an enemy than just hitting an enemy with one aimed shot? It definately takes more skill for teh first one, hence why it can raise skills better.
Top Secret Xenocide Status report

BF2 Hackers =5SF= have busted
]sD[ Engageo <-- couldn't get him banned though, no screenshot of him ingame
]sD[Nomisser
an AK guy
The anti-logarithm of the logarithm of X plus the logarithm of Y equals X times Y, or 10^(logX + logY) = XY
Posted Image
I hate spider solitaire...

#6 Sinscale17

Sinscale17

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 01:41 AM

Actually I don't. Consider the equivalent of loosing off a burst with an assault rifle, and all the shots hitting their target, compared to shooting a single bullet with an assault rifle and hitting the target.

With burst fire, the first shot is the one that counts. If the first shot hit, then all subsequent shots are inclined to follow the first. Something that X-Com doesn't show well is that autofire shots aren't "shoot, reaim, shoot" they're "aim once, shoot thrice". Hence why it doesn't cost three snap shots in TUs.
You might get lucky and hit all three times (or just be close enough to), but this doesn't especially imply skill - you don't have that much input over where the other two go beyond controlling the amount your gun shifts with recoil.

With a single shot, you still have every bit as much in the way of aiming involved (assuming you're using a "snap shot" equivalent), and if the first bullet hits, then you've used just as much skill to hit your target as you would to hit all three times with a burst shot.

Your experience in combat is, "That is how the enemy moves. That is what my bullets do to them. These are things I am doing here I need to improve upon back at base."


I agree entirely.
Actually, that's exactly what I was thinking, hence my reference to field experience and live targets. They would move, and react, unlike the very best training program (do you think any training program could cover the bobbing floaters, skittering sectoids and sprinting chrysalids?), and provide training in coping with battlefield pressures to pull this off.
And an aimed shot would be taking the time to observe this, an autoshot would be taking the time to see there was an enemy before you pull the trigger.

If you say every shot amounts to the same depth of "learning", does this include your opinion of a full auto weapon? Take a gun with 1% accuracy and 1 TU per autoshot, and three shots hit the target just because of the sheer volume, is this "skill"? Does this imply any concern whatsoever with "how the enemy moves"? Common sense indicates otherwise, and the same for burst fire - unless you're relating this experience to include "autofire is better for killing targets than regular fire", which still doesn't seem to imply any sudden revelations on how to improve your accuracy.

In the spirit of compromise, if autoshots, when all three hit, offered the same improvement as a snap shot, with aimed shots (for the reasons mentioned) actually offering a bonus to accuracy improvement (rather than there being a hindrance to snap/autofire learning), would this be more appealing/sensical?

I just don't want there to be the same flaw in Xenocide as there is in Apocalypse, where machine guns on fully automatic improve accuracy ten times faster than sniper rifles. :KooKoo:
Posted Image

#7 Durandal

Durandal

    Squaddie

  • Forum Members
  • PipPip
  • 1 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 08:43 AM

Also, this is an artificial penalty to force a certain kind of gameplay.  I do agree weapons need to be redesigned so its not the heavies that automatically win.  There are ideas about this, but those are in other threads.

The utility of smaller weapons under this system end whenever you train your guy high enough.

Auto-shot is not just spraying.  Its a controlled, three round burst.  This provides decent volume of fire while maintaining accuracy on the go.  I would like to see a full-auto option for suppresion or other fire when you can prop the gun in place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I agree, it is artificial, mostly because a Terran Pistol (the weakest weapon and one that requires the least TU to fire) does not work the same as a Heavy Plasma Rifle. Remember Fallout's system, where you had hand-to-hand, light, medium, and heavy weapons, and you couldn't use heavies if you weren't strong enough either? That is something that I would like to see in XCom. It would give those Rookies with crappy aim a chance when you invent Laser Weapons, they may turn out to be naturally good with Lasers or Plasma later on.

I agree that experience should not be gained by the shot, more like by the hit. But then that opens up a new problem: the Blaster Launcher hits so many enemies that anyone using that would gain experience 10x faster than everyone else. That also means snipers still lose out since they will hit less than everyone else (since they take riskier long range shots, unless we give Snipers a Rifle to use.)

Suppressive Fire would be nice because it would finally give you a tool to move fast. If you just run away, the bugs hit you before you get anywhere. If you run and shoot, they kill you. If you stay and shoot, you're not exactly retreating anymore. But if you suppress, a rapid advance or retreat is possible.

Training Centers are BAD. If they give you skills, then why go out and fight? You would divide your forces: everyone else fights while 26 rookies train all day and night for years. Then when you finally get to the Cydonia mission, you load the Avenger with the 26 rookies that never saw a mission but all have >150 TUs ACC and Stamina, >100 Str and (you see where this is going.) If we do have training, it could increase the limit your skills could get to (represented by a faded bar behind the solid one that represents your actual skill) then when a certain skill goes up during a mission, the solid bar could slowly fill up but stop when it actually reaches the limit set by the training bar. But if training centers give actual skills, then why send your elite troops on missions at all?

#8 Sinscale17

Sinscale17

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 12:56 PM

Never played Fallout, so I can't comment on that, but Rookies with crappy aim will improve quickly enough no matter what you give them.
As for pistols, they're already the best weapon to train reflexes with, whilst in UFO the best weapon for accuracy training was actually the laser pistol.

One possible way is to simply not increase Blaster Launcher at all. You're not exactly "aiming" anything.
But a simpler, more generalistic approach would be to simply count all hits done by explosives as a single hit, no matter how many units are actually injured - high explosives would therefore grant overall less experience than picking off units one by one, but not a bad solution.

That actually gives me an idea. Simply calculate autoshots in the same way as high explosives in that example, with all three shots counting as a maximum of one hit, and then perhaps the aforementioned aiming "sniper" bonus for the poor soul carrying around his rifle for little to no reward.
That would greatly level the playing field for all three types of shot, as well as for explosive artillery, and might even encourage people to use shot types other than autoshot on occasion.

And yeah, skip training rooms. Have increases to stat caps as limitted, one off, and expensive, not to mention anything but uniformly applicable, like one time upgrades purchased on a per-soldier basis (and having to be bought early in their career too, so a good risk of losing your investment). Shifting stat caps is actually one of the easiest ways to unbalance a game.

As for suppressive fire, so long as its treated so that the accuracy gain is limitted as per above, I'd not see a problem to it. Something that might make Morale shift more dramatically (as opposed to the extremely minimal number of fluctuations that happen in a UFO game), as well as make suppression actually plausible would be to have all shots fired at you reduce your morale when shot at (assume 1 per bullet, every bullet that comes within a certain "range" of the unit), and the resultant morale penalty with a full auto could be large enough to actually net results.

Loose fifty rounds with a machine gun, and the Muton charging down the street will either panic and run for cover, go beserk and retaliate mad-style, or keep his head through the hail of fire and let loose with an alien grenade to kill your entire squad, even if none of them actually connect.
Posted Image

#9 sir_schwick

sir_schwick

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 481 posts

Posted 13 February 2005 - 07:04 PM

I was not suggesting training rooms at all. What I mean is that being in combat should count for more than actually hitting things. Of course this means that combat experience needs to be defined in Battlescape(suggestions welcome).

Also, I was hoping suppression, would you know, suppress troops. Basically suppression fire is not designed to hit anything. It is designed so the Sectoids gaurding the path have to duck back and away.

I agree that hit bonuses from explosives and auto-shot need to be reworked. I was thinking that for projectile weapons, shots that kill count a full whatever(very small compared to experience) and any other hits are assists. You get a max of one assisst or kill per alien.

My real point is that hitting things should not matter as much as being in the thick.

#10 Sinscale17

Sinscale17

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 14 February 2005 - 02:02 AM

The maximum of one (not counting kills) experience gain per enemy is good, it would stop Pistol vs Muton abusers. With limitted per enemy gains this might balance the point blank autoshot. Still assuming all explosives only counted a maximum of one kill and one assist per blast would limit excess on that front as well.


It would also be good to have things other than kills to link to improvements.

Scouts - who spend their whole time running across the place would gain more TU experience - possibly a system where TU and Energy experience is gained at a tiny rate for every square moved, rather than by kills.

Heavies - Make every turn spent overloaded equate to strength experience? This would be particularly good for ammo carriers especially, who would swiftly attain muscle nirvana with five heavy rockets, two blaster bombs, three high explosives and two heavy plasma clips carried at all times.

Grenadiers - Make all throwing count. Unlike guns, throwing objects is aiming for a place, not a person, and people throwing clips to one another, or chucking forth those electro flares all counts.

Medics - They run a lot, so in that category they'd be eligible for scout bonuses - but unless there were to be a "medic" stat - which would be a tad excessive for a little used function - to make health/stun recovered per application, there's not that much they can gain in.

Cowards - Every time you're on low morale, one would assume you have a forced bravery test to see if you panic or not. Every time you resist panic successfully, you recieve bravery "experience".

Probers/Psykers - Have mind probe function as a minimal experience gain in Psi. Skill, have every successfully defended psi attack count as a minimal experience gain in Psi. Strength.

Decoys - Every time you're shot, you gain health experience, as all that scar tissue makes you harder to kill.

Assassins - Every close combat attack hit improves close combat accuracy, finally a chance to start equalling those Spawn.

And with that, every stat has a no-shot training method, and accuracy gains become the main (and only) purpose of shooting enemies.


As for suppression fire, as I said, a 1 morale penalty for each "round" of suppression fire they take, which then starts the suppressed unit to start consider panicking and thusly running for cover. A high bravery unit might stand in the middle of this hail of fire, secure in their super thick armour, and just take the gunner down with extreme vengeance.
It'd probably waste about 10 ammo per firing though, and only be available with a very few weapons.

An interesting point on machine guns is how they might fare against non-human troops. The general idea of any gun is that a single bullet is enough to injure the target. With something like a muton, full auto might actually be needed just to achieve penetration.
Posted Image

#11 sir_schwick

sir_schwick

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 481 posts

Posted 14 February 2005 - 10:25 AM

For the paradigm that specific actions in combat should improve stats, your proposed changes are very good. I personally do not proscribe to that paradigm, so I can't say I agree. However if I did proscribe to that particular gameplay paradigm, I would agree.

Personally I believe in a gameplay mechanic where its not what you do in combat, its the fact you were in combat that gains experience. Gains from kills, panick situations, etc. would all be marginal compared to having been in the thick of fire and seen the aliens. This means the guys in the Carrier gain nothing but the scouts, grunts, snipers, and heavies gain plenty o'experience.


As for suppression fire, as I said, a 1 morale penalty for each "round" of suppression fire they take, which then starts the suppressed unit to start consider panicking and thusly running for cover. A high bravery unit might stand in the middle of this hail of fire, secure in their super thick armour, and just take the gunner down with extreme vengeance.
It'd probably waste about 10 ammo per firing though, and only be available with a very few weapons.


They would stand in the middle of suppression fire if they wanted to die. While their designed purpose is suppression, suppression weapons are usually good caliber machine guns. The reason you cannot go through suppression weapons is volume of deadly fire. Of course they are usually too heavy and cumbersome to be used in mobile assault roles. A Muton may not be scared when he stands in front of the Mg42, but he will certainly feel the pain of hundreds of Nato 7.62mm rounds. Of course he might take immediate cover and toss a smoke grenade or get a sniper to help him.

#12 Sinscale17

Sinscale17

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 15 February 2005 - 02:23 AM

I'm not sure your version would, or could work, or indeed, would make that much sense for the physical stats at least.
1: Why would getting shot and seeing an alien inspire a soldier to start weight training? Do they get jealous of the Muton's buff physique?
Why would a scout who wandered in a bad direction and never saw an alien be open to any improvement whatsoever - barring from the fact that he spent so much time running about.
A soldier panics, drops their gun and runs into the middle of a road, where he's shot at by five different aliens, but by Light's grace all of them miss - how would you even begin to code something complex enough to calculate the variable experience gains for every type of action thinkable? Are there even enough stats to cover all the different actions?

It would be nice if a completely accurate, realistic model of improvement and advancement could be achieved, but one of the limitations is that this is a game, it's not 100% realistic, nor is it supposed to be (UFO allows there to be soldiers who simply cannot miss, for example, not to mention that each person takes it in turns to shoot at each other and is kind enough to stand still when it's the other peoples' turns). So to create a system, you have to work within the framework of the game itself.


As for suppression fire - how many bullets would actually hit, and how many of those bullets would penetrate alien armour? Or Power Armour for that matter? In some cases, you might as well try suppressing a tank, because that's certainly the amount of firepower they can respond with.
Posted Image

#13 Durandal

Durandal

    Squaddie

  • Forum Members
  • PipPip
  • 1 posts

Posted 15 February 2005 - 08:59 AM

The system you describe is essentially the one that XCom uses already (unless I misunderstand you) and I have no trouble with it. The only problems is that it creates unrealistic situations. For example, in real life overloading your troops in battle only tires them out. The two hours they are overloaded in battle are nothing compared to the weeks of being overloaded in training. Or, why would running laps around the Skyranger in battle help gain TUs and Stamina? They never think "Hey, if I run laps around the hangar back at base, then Sarge wouldn't make me run in circles in front of armed Mutons!" Really, in theory running in battle and at base would achieve the same thing, but training facilities are bad too. I see the battle-experience system as the lesser of two evils, less realism but much more fun gameplay. Besides, real life army training sucks. Most people would not play a game where you direct your troops in trench-digging, PT, shooting, and whatnot for hours and hours a day just for the two hours a month where you actually fight. The Experience system needs minor tweaking, the weapons are the problem.

I disagree that the weapons in Xenocide do not need modification from their original XCom variants. Every system from aircraft to handheld weapons had a clear "best of" for each category, which I do not agree with. No one can disagree that the ultimate soldier for ANY situation in the game wears Flying Armor, uses an Avenger to get into combat, fires a (one of: psi-amp, Blaster Launcher, Heavy Plasma), throws Alien Grenades... The only times that you would ever use any other equipment is if the situation is less than perfect or if there is a very specific situation (nighttime: AutoCannon with Incendiary ammo, base defense: proxy grenades, short on cargo space on Avenger: give rookies laser rifles) and that is where I'd like to see some major tweaking. The Fallout experience system was great because:
- You would use obsolete weapons long after they became useless because you know how to use them. If you were good with light weapons you wouldn't necessarily trade in that Mauser for a Plasma Rifle, simply because you could make shots to the eyes consistently with the Mauser (if you took extra TUs in Fallout, you could select body parts to aim at, eye shots were the toughest and most rewarding) whereas the plasma would miss even if you were aiming at the torso.
- Realistic divisions of expertise: just because an XCom agent can hit anything with a Laser Pistol, there is no reason why he would be able to use a Plasma Pistol, much less a Blaster Launcher or Heavy Plasma.
- Specialised weapons for specialised soldiers: if you are a whimp in Fallout, you can't use a Rocket Launcher. It's as simple as that. Your basic strength stat can improve slowly, but if you start really weak it will never improve enough. And if you're JUST BARELY tough enough to lift and fire one, you will not aim as well as a tougher soldier with equal heavy weapons training/experience.

#14 sir_schwick

sir_schwick

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 481 posts

Posted 15 February 2005 - 11:22 AM

The system you describe is essentially the one that XCom uses already (unless I misunderstand you)


Common misconception, that is not how to train soldiers. There is a good thread that explains this in more detail, but here is the jist. You get stat increases for hitting aliens with weapons. This is why BB and Pistols are such effective tools for training. You can shoot a MCed Muton with a Pistol dozens of times before it drops. Very useful exploit for training super soldiers in two missions or less.

A soldier panics, drops their gun and runs into the middle of a road, where he's shot at by five different aliens, but by Light's grace all of them miss - how would you even begin to code something complex enough to calculate the variable experience gains for every type of action thinkable? Are there even enough stats to cover all the different actions?


That is something I wondered myself. The programming would be the biggest nightmare. A compromise could probably be reached if the grossest exploits could be eliminated. Beyond that we would have to let players know the ones they cheat the most are themselves.

I'm not sure your version would, or could work, or indeed, would make that much sense for the physical stats at least.


I would propose not tying physical improvement heavily to combat. You could make the abstraction that the Strength stat is not only how strong you are, but how well you carry and handle equipment. However I go with my first sentence more.

not to mention that each person takes it in turns to shoot at each other and is kind enough to stand still when it's the other peoples' turns


In my UFOpia they would use something similair to a WE-GO system. However that is a different discussion for a different time. For now your point is very well taken.

In some cases, you might as well try suppressing a tank, because that's certainly the amount of firepower they can respond with.


With Sectopods or even Cyberdisks I would have to agree for the 7.62mm NATO. Mutons maybe, but consider the hundreds of bullets a second that are flying. With Mutons, some bullets are going to get lucky and hit a crack in the armour. Also, imagine if you replaced the machine gun with a Laser Repeater or Plasma Repeater. Can't seem to get near that barn with the Muton in it. Set up a LR and chew the shiat out of it.

#15 Sharp

Sharp

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 08 November 2005 - 01:02 PM

I was just pulling off yet another flawless shot from my TFTD sniper, when it occurred to me: Why doesn't using aimed shots increase your skill more than auto shots? With an aimed shot, the shooter is taking time to sight the target, concentrating on all the skills that make up the accuracy rating. On auto shot, it's spray and hope.

To rectify this, why not have only Aimed shots grant full training value for making the shot/hit. Snap shots would give about 25%, whilst each autoshot giving only 5% per shot.

This would, if the typical shooter did nothing but shoot each turn, grant approximately:

300% skill increases (assuming three aimed shots - the maximum possible)
125% skill increases snap shots (assuming an average of five snapshots per turn, again the maximum possible),
and a maximum of 60% for autoshooters, (assuming four autoshots per turn, again, the maximum possible).

So overall, it would more beneficial to use aimed shots every turn, giving a vastly under-used ability an even greater purpose, whilst punishing autoshot spammers.

As a little bonus, the maximum number of aimed/snap shots per turn is provided by....
The pistol. To train most efficiently, you have to use the weakest weapon in the game.  :devillaugh:

So, basically, balances out autoshots, makes pistols and laser weapons worthwhile for longer, and punishes people for going all Heavy Plasma with minor training penalties.

So.... Any opinions?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Erm I know this topic is a lil bit old but what the heck.

You may not realise it but the game does actually work in favour for increasing your accuracy for using aimed shots.

When you used the aimed shot you have a higher chance of hitting the alien, as it is only the hit that counts to increasing your accuracy then firing in aimed mode is the best way to increase accuracy.

Although if you hit with snap shot or auto-fire your accuracy increases the same amount, the reason being is that if fire (and hit) aliens constantly with snap shots and autoshots then your aim improves as you can judge your snapshots and autoshots better the next time.

In XCom the system of auto-fire i think of as different from full-auto, i think of it more as 3 very rapid snap-shots, if you look at the description of the rifle it says sniper rifle with laser guided sights, i think it is very hard to find a sniper rifle which has full-auto, therefore all the guns in the game that have the auto-fire option are semi-automatic weapons and you have to fire 3 rapid snapshots, that way when you hit the aliens you have to reaim slightly to account for the recoil (laser-rifle has no recoil which is why it has higher auto-fire accuracy but less aimed as no laser-sight), henceforth when a soldier uses auto-shot and manages to hit an alien, that soldier becomes better at aiming the gun for firing auto-fire as he can quickly judge alien movements and his aim will be better as well as far aimed and snap shots.

So really in conclusion there should be no bonus for hitting with an aimed shot as the bonus is more chance to hit the alien which is more chance to improve accuracy.

#16 Blehm 98

Blehm 98

    Colonel

  • [Global Moderators]
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,626 posts

Posted 09 November 2005 - 07:43 PM

Auto=burst

if you can hit something with all three shots from a burst, then you're better off with it than you are with aimed.

Burst is an aimed shot that isn't aimed as carefully, but it is less accurate to account for recoil

Snap is raising the gun up and aiming, but not taking the time to make sure the gun is completely stable.
Top Secret Xenocide Status report

BF2 Hackers =5SF= have busted
]sD[ Engageo <-- couldn't get him banned though, no screenshot of him ingame
]sD[Nomisser
an AK guy
The anti-logarithm of the logarithm of X plus the logarithm of Y equals X times Y, or 10^(logX + logY) = XY
Posted Image
I hate spider solitaire...

#17 Sharp

Sharp

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 10 November 2005 - 11:47 AM

Actually auto is just 3 very quick shots, not a burst fire, you cannot burst in a semi-auto gun becuase you have to pull the trigger for each bullet you fire.

If you look at the weapons XCom use, none of them are fully automatic, the ones which allow auto-fire are semi-automatic guns (which cannot fire in bursts).

I would say that auto-fire would be firing 3 quick snap shots at the target. Snap shot would be firing a quickly aimed shot at the target and aimed shot would be aiming the gun steadily and possibly even using breath control for an accurate shot.

#18 Blehm 98

Blehm 98

    Colonel

  • [Global Moderators]
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,626 posts

Posted 10 November 2005 - 02:50 PM

Rifle, Autocannon, laser pistol, laser rifle....

they should be able to shoot burst mode
Top Secret Xenocide Status report

BF2 Hackers =5SF= have busted
]sD[ Engageo <-- couldn't get him banned though, no screenshot of him ingame
]sD[Nomisser
an AK guy
The anti-logarithm of the logarithm of X plus the logarithm of Y equals X times Y, or 10^(logX + logY) = XY
Posted Image
I hate spider solitaire...

#19 Sharp

Sharp

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 11 November 2005 - 11:51 AM

Oooookay...

A burst is a quick fire, e.g. an MP5 press and hold the trigger for a few seconds and you will fire a stream of bullets (most likely around and away from your target).

Press and hold the trigger on say an SA80 or a 1914 Colt you will fire one bullet, until you release the trigger and then press it again.

The MP5 is an automatic gun
The Colt/SA80 is a semi-automatic gun

To fire quickly with an automatic gun, you hold the trigger and Burst out bullets.

To fire quickly with a semi-automatic gun you have to repeatedly press the trigger in quick Snap Shots.

The XCOM guns are either semi-automatic or bolt-action (have to manually pull back the bolt before firing another shot).

If any of the XCOM guns were automatic they would fire a lot more then 3 bullets at a time.

Because they fire in quick snaps for auto-fire it explains why the shots vary in where they hit as after the recoil of the gun you have to re-aim and fire quickly unlike bursts which would either have all the rounds following each other, or leading away from each other.

#20 Blehm 98

Blehm 98

    Colonel

  • [Global Moderators]
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,626 posts

Posted 11 November 2005 - 01:35 PM

The rifle in xcom is similar to M16A2, M4, and XM-8

why wouldn't it have a burst function
Top Secret Xenocide Status report

BF2 Hackers =5SF= have busted
]sD[ Engageo <-- couldn't get him banned though, no screenshot of him ingame
]sD[Nomisser
an AK guy
The anti-logarithm of the logarithm of X plus the logarithm of Y equals X times Y, or 10^(logX + logY) = XY
Posted Image
I hate spider solitaire...

#21 Guest_Azrael_*

Guest_Azrael_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 November 2005 - 01:50 PM

The rifle in xcom is similar to M16A2, M4, and XM-8

why wouldn't it have a burst function

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't you think that there is a game balance reason for that <_<

#22 Sharp

Sharp

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 11 November 2005 - 02:08 PM

Actually the rifle in XCOM is a sniper rifle (according to UFOpaedia) with laser sights, generally sniper rifles are semi-automatic or bolt action.

Also an M16 is not a rifle, it is an assault rifle, rifles tend to be bolt action or semi-automatic, assault rifles are more like machineguns in the way they fire automatically.