Percentages on reticles (please let them at least be a toggled option!)

[asgelb]

I'm sure its been brought up before - but I wish they would add in to-hit percentages again. I understand why they removed them, but I Think its still better to have them.

 

AT LEAST have it be an option you can turn on/off in settings....PLEASE!!!

[asgelb]

or at least give us a "range" of chance to hit, say, below 10%, 20-30, 40-60, %75+, etc. or a color system red, yellow green that denotes 25% or below - red, 25-50 yellow, above 50% green.  How are we even supposed to begin to know if the shot is likely to hit? 

[Solaris_Wave]

I think people will get used to going without a percentage to hit display. Having said that, I think there should be some kind of indicator, but more vague. I have repeatedly mentioned this elsewhere that a good compromise would be a colour temperature outline or a thickening outline that pulses around the target. It ranges from 0-25%, 26-50%, 51-75% and 76-100%. It could even be more vague than that and be 0-33%, 34-66%, 67-100%.

In addition to this and what appears to actually be in the game are speech confirmations from the merc. If they can't make the shot under any circumstances, they will tell you.

[Image Miroir]

In FPS you don't have percentage to hit, and it's fine for everyone.

In X-Com you have them but it's influencing your game actions and sometimes it's even generating frustration (because your were so sure to hit, you find unfair not to say more, to fail).

Not having percentage to hit makes sense in the game experience of Jagged Alliance.

After, to be honest, if you don't have ammunition management you can add percentage. Who cares shooting for hours with 1% chance if you have an infinite bag of bullets.

I don't know if development team is reading these posts, but they should as there are here many people who have a deep knowledge of Jagged Alliance.

[anon474]

Bro I'm not going to lie, the amount of defenders and apologists for removing CtH on this forum is ridiculous.

I like the devs, I like the franchise, I'm not going to hate, or am a hater. But.

I'm almost willing to bet some of these accounts like Image Miroir are dev accounts created by devs defending things like CtH removal. The reason why I think this is because no regular RPG or strategy or tactical strategy enjoyer would either 1 be that invested or care about somethign that is such a weird change and 2 there's no way they would defend something that is that obviously a bad decision.

Basically I refuse to believe that there are real people, in such a great number, defending something which is CLEARLY a bad decision, and not just a bad decision, but a decision that even if you DID think it was good or justifiable, nobody would care about or would see as anything but not out of left field.

Removing CtH should generate the same reaction as removing helmets but keeping chest and leg armor. And then for some reason, there's like a 100 accounts all defending it like "Oh yeah this is an amazing decision!". Didn't Lunokhod or somebody say that people will have to get use to it? Lol, even the troll is nuts enough to defend this (maybe he's not a troll at all, if you catch my drift. Paid actors)

Plus there are CtH indicators, the smaller the circle gets the more like you are to hit. It just should be a % chance, why mess around.

[Lunokhod]

24 minutes ago, anon474 said:

I'm almost willing to bet some of these accounts like Image Miroir are dev accounts created by devs defending things like CtH removal.

100%. One of the Haemimont's or mb even Mr THQ Nordic himself. 🤡

[chr_isso]

1 hour ago, anon474 said:

Bro I'm not going to lie, the amount of defenders and apologists for removing CtH on this forum is ridiculous.

I like the devs, I like the franchise, I'm not going to hate, or am a hater. But.

I'm almost willing to bet some of these accounts like Image Miroir are dev accounts created by devs defending things like CtH removal. The reason why I think this is because no regular RPG or strategy or tactical strategy enjoyer would either 1 be that invested or care about somethign that is such a weird change and 2 there's no way they would defend something that is that obviously a bad decision.

Basically I refuse to believe that there are real people, in such a great number, defending something which is CLEARLY a bad decision, and not just a bad decision, but a decision that even if you DID think it was good or justifiable, nobody would care about or would see as anything but not out of left field.

Removing CtH should generate the same reaction as removing helmets but keeping chest and leg armor. And then for some reason, there's like a 100 accounts all defending it like "Oh yeah this is an amazing decision!". Didn't Lunokhod or somebody say that people will have to get use to it? Lol, even the troll is nuts enough to defend this (maybe he's not a troll at all, if you catch my drift. Paid actors)

Plus there are CtH indicators, the smaller the circle gets the more like you are to hit. It just should be a % chance, why mess around.

then maybe you wanna put on your tinfoil-hat, because I am more of less against CtH or at least i want to please both worlds by making it an option, but "off" as default. And I'm for sure no dev, my salary would be waaaay too high lol.

getting used to your mercs and knowing if a shot is worth it or not was a huge aspect of JA2/Vanilla and if you don't remember that, please install ja2 again and start getting the feel of JA2 again.

I'm not toggling CtH on if it's an option and if the Devs don't implement it, it's fine!

[Image Miroir]

47 minutes ago, anon474 said:

I'm almost willing to bet some of these accounts like Image Miroir are dev accounts created by devs defending things like CtH removal.

I'd love to be a developper but I doubt my limited skills in HTML/CSS would qualify me. Now, I'd love to be part of the team developing Jagged Alliance. So, if someone from Haemimont is kind enough to read it I'll be very happy to be even just a beta play tester. So everyone believing I'm already part of the team PLEASE do support my candidature. (If others also do it couldn't be better). I promise as soon as I'll be even just a beta tester I'll underline it everywhere.

What's true is that I love Jagged Alliance. I discovered the first one when it was released, played the second and never liked much what followed. Over the decades I checked the ware about of the game. As I already mentioned I played others games like Wages of war, or X-Com. Or even Syndicate with its cyberpunk universe. I enjoyed them quite a lot but my favorite remains Jagged Alliance.

I'm not a maniac of military stuff even if I served in Bosnia during the 90s.

What surprised @anon474 and @Lunokhod is that I'm very positive about the game. If you guys had enough of brains you should just imagine people around like a Gauss curve, you're part of a small percentage of people who are over negative about the game, I'm from a small percentage of people who are over positive about the game.

As a e-learning designer I know what's a project, what's your dream about it, and how reality ask some sacrifices from you. Still you do your best, even if you're paid, just because you're a professional. Some people just spit at your work because they're just ignorant and purposeless, and what they express is their hate of their own meaningless being.

One last proof, I'm not a dev, it's that if I was one of them I'd erase you from the forum. You're parasites, you waste the space you take. You're just anti ecological has there's no justification for the energy you cost in servers operation. You're just complain and pollution, and therefore should be sort out like the garbage you are.

[Lunokhod]

6 minutes ago, Image Miroir said:

One last proof, I'm not a dev, it's that if I was one of them I'd erase you from the forum. You're parasites, you waste the space you take. You're just anti ecological has there's no justification for the energy you cost in servers operation. You're just complain and pollution, and therefore should be sort out like the garbage you are.

This is what AI will think about all of humanity I guess. ^__^

"How dare you, insect? How dare you interrupt my ascendance?" © Shodan ❤️

[Image Miroir]

I do support artificial intelligence over natural stupidity!

Stay fit and keep faith, there are people in need of organs, so maybe one day you'll prove yourself useful.

[chr_isso]

@Image Miroir do yourself a favor and ... just block Lunokhod.
Forums has been much nicer for me since i blocked his comments 🙂

For beta tests: i guess you could count everyone on the forums in!

[Image Miroir]

Thanks for the support @chr_isso

I'm tired of non-constructive negative comments, I'll use my influence. I'll copy some of the post of Lunokhod and tell my students in community management not to hesitate to kicked out this kind of profiles from forum and followers.

In some social network they have an option where no one sees the moron posts, he still see them on screen, but doesn't know only him can see them. It's the limit of web 2.0, many people speaking have nothing to say.

[anon474]

17 minutes ago, Xeth Nyrrow said:

Wow this thread went toxic fast, but back on subject...

Isn't it ironic that CtH was NOT in JA2 but yet people want it, "added back in?" How did they manage without in in JA2, that game must have been bad, right? 🙂 I too would support it being a toggleable feature with the default of off.

Also valid is a general indication if a shot has a reasonable chance or not. In JA2 we would get a bark about not likely being able to hit a shot or not that allowed us to reconsider. Voices are expensive so I don't expect this in JA3. Instead an indicator if the chance to hit is above or below 50% with an arrow up or down on the aim circle could work as a compromise.

CtH was already in, there was a bar that very closely showed the percentages and went up to 100%.

Also almost all tactical RPGs show % to hit, this isn't new at all.

[Xeth Nyrrow]

7 minutes ago, anon474 said:

CtH was already in, there was a bar that very closely showed the percentages and went up to 100%.

Also almost all tactical RPGs show % to hit, this isn't new at all.

Not in the original game, but added in 1.13. I'm not disagreeing that it's a popular feature for sure. I think the issue of misses not having a chance to hit other body parts compounds the issue.

Implementation is key because if it shows say a 75% chance to hit the torso does that mean the other 25% chance is a miss (like JA3 does it) or some combination of miss with chance to hit some where else? I like when games use the aiming reticle like Phoenix Point and Project Haven which is even more realistic than a hit %.

[anon474]

12 minutes ago, Xeth Nyrrow said:

Not in the original game, but added in 1.13. I'm not disagreeing that it's a popular feature for sure. I think the issue of misses not having a chance to hit other body parts compounds the issue.

Implementation is key because if it shows say a 75% chance to hit the torso does that mean the other 25% chance is a miss (like JA3 does it) or some combination of miss with chance to hit some where else? I like when games use the aiming reticle like Phoenix Point and Project Haven which is even more realistic than a hit %.

I don't want to say you're right...but it appears that you are right, there was no bar that fills up to show chance to hit. An argument I can use at this point is to say that JA2 came out so long ago that even things we take for granted and staples of the genre, or any RPG, have not been implemented yet back then and people were still trying things out and "figuring things out" (not that all of the conventions of modern video games are good but...)

Edited May 3, 2023 by anon474

[DougS2K]

5 hours ago, anon474 said:

 

Basically I refuse to believe that there are real people, in such a great number, defending something which is CLEARLY a bad decision, and not just a bad decision, but a decision that even if you DID think it was good or justifiable, nobody would care about or would see as anything but not out of left field.

I'm a real person and am glad they removed the chance to hit percentage from the game. Gameplay will be much better and unpredictable without it. I wouldn't be opposed to it being a togglable option for those that want it but I believe the majority of people wouldn't use it like myself. 

[agris]

1 hour ago, DougS2K said:

I'm a real person and am glad they removed the chance to hit percentage from the game. Gameplay will be much better and unpredictable without it. I wouldn't be opposed to it being a togglable option for those that want it but I believe the majority of people wouldn't use it like myself. 

Another real human here to really likes that they removed CTH being displayed. Sure, make it an option for those who select "Easy" when they start the game.

 

I do think something like what JA2 Stracciatella does could help people, and that is a keypress showing the amount of cover a target has from the perspective of the highlighted merc. More cover will intrinsically be harder to hit. Combine that with the weapon range being shown, and knowing the merc's markmanship, it should be comfortable for people to judge the relative success of a hit.

 

Even further down the road of compromise is to have the merc express some level of confidence in taking their shot: little, medium, and highly confident. I don't like it as much, but is a nod the new generation that demands CTH.

[Hongweibing]

Wouldn't like to exacerbate anyone's paranoia regarding people defending the removal of the CTH, but I also think that its removal is for the best, though I think that commercially, it would be best to simply make it optional. As for the reasons for CTH being fairly useless:

- It adds the illusion of knowledge, without adding real knowledge to the player - knowing the exact % doesn't help, as you are never guaranteed to hit, so you can have 90% but still miss, even more than once in the row, creating unnecessary frustration. You can fairly easily deduce what shot is more or less likely to hit based on distance, position (elevation, enemy's cover...), weather conditions, skill, body part etc.

- It exacerbates tendencies to exploit certain types of attacks/preferring only some body parts (e.g. headshots).

- It makes aiming less realistic - you never know the exact chance in real life, and the point is to estimate it based on the various conditions, while knowing that you can miss even if you do everything right or hit through sheer dumb luck - which is part of the fun in JA games.

- There was no CTH in the original games, only in the JA2 1.13 mod - and that's, well, a mod. If the developers claim to remain true to the legacy of the original games, that's certainly part of it. Besides, I think it was rather elegantly done by the original games - a black indicator when you had no chance to hit (and the merc would also say that), a flashing indicator when the chance was low (usually because of the distance), and a regular indicator when the chance to hit was normal or high.

Edited May 3, 2023 by Hongweibing

[agris]

11 minutes ago, Hongweibing said:

though I think that commercially, it would be best to simply make it optional

Either in the most recent update or an earlier one, the devs discussed the negative spiral (something this thread regrettably knows a thing or two about) that they saw playtesters go down when they could see the CTH. I worry that if it’s a simple toggle and not tied to an overall easier difficulty system, many will toggle it on and never experience the game as intended. Further, it will likely enable all the common complaints surrounding probabilities that make them so hard for people to understand at an intuitive level and result in the complaints of “how do I miss 3x 95% in a row” etc.

 

If CTH were tied to a difficulty system, such as easy, it could also be implemented with a weighted probability system that I think some of the nuXcoms and their clones have adopted. Don’t just show CTH, give the player an easier path by which to play. Keeping the existing system and stapling CTH back onto it will give rise to all the problems the devs have already surfaced.

Edited May 3, 2023 by agris

[agris]

I think that’s because it’s a logical suggestion, rather than a conspiracy against you.

re: the PC gamer article, ok? Games “journalists” are notoriously bad at games and have even worse opinions. They’re functionally marketing tools, not sources for game development ideas.

[Hongweibing]

8 minutes ago, agris said:

If CTH were tied to a difficulty system, such as easy, it could also be implemented with a weighted probability system that I think some of the nuXcoms and their clones have adopted. Don’t just show CTH, give the player an easier path by which to play. Keeping the existing system and stapling CTH back onto it will give rise to all the problems the devs have already surfaced.

I tend to agree - while it doesn't necessarily have to be an easier difficulty, as someone mentioned in a different topic, the devs would have to do quite a bit of rebalancing for those choosing to have CTH (as the game as we saw it was designed around not having CTH). So making it a toggle option that can be changed at any time wouldn't work. If the option is added, it's something that one should choose at the beginning, which would change the balancing, even if not the difficulty as such. Not sure they'd go for it, as it's quite a lot of work, but it could be worth the extra players.

[agris]

Exactly @Hongweibing, what comes out from a thoughtful consideration of it is that “just” showing it doesn’t make a lot of sense. The devs have to weight the pros and cons of incorporating it into another game mode.

 

For my money, they should stick to their guns. Not divert resources chasing the few players who are interested in JA3 but only with certain nuXcom mechanics, and not ballistic modeling and fog of war regarding some decisions.

Edited May 3, 2023 by agris

[agris]

9 minutes ago, Stuurminator said:

I'm pretty sure I've seen mercenaries comment something along the lines of "this will be an easy shot" and "my chances aren't good" when aiming at particular enemies (even when they have a legitimate line of fire, in the latter case).

That’s great, I hope it’s the case.

If it is, the devs may want to tutorialize it for the press demo. 

[KyleSimmons]

13 hours ago, agris said:

I think that’s because it’s a logical suggestion, rather than a conspiracy against you.

re: the PC gamer article, ok? Games “journalists” are notoriously bad at games and have even worse opinions. They’re functionally marketing tools, not sources for game development ideas.

Oh no...what happened here 😆

Is somebody being accused of using bots?

[Godzilla]

yes i would agree with this theres very little reason to not include "cth" type calculation.