Burst/Auto fire balance - A different root cause

[Xeth Nyrrow]

It was revealed on the stream today that they settled on a 50% damage penalty for multi shot attacks for balance reasons after having tried other methods, including accuracy penalties. In testing they said the go to tactic had become rushing up point blank and unloading in to enemies. This means there another, bigger design problem:

Why are mercs allowed to be able to rush up point blank in the first place without being picked apart by overwatching enemies? This is a large design problem that also extends to making melee too powerful as it's the same thing with a different weapon. Based on how the dev today said melee feels OP and might get nerfed, I have a feeling it's still an issue. If they have addressed this since then then they should go back to testing accuracy penalties instead of counter intuitive damage reductions.

If they haven't, then there needs to be better overwatch/reaction shot mechanics in the game. Allowing such risk-less movement by the players is not good and further creates a comic book game play vibe of dashing around the battlefield without any fear of being shot. I really would love for them to make a demo for us to test and give feedback on before release but I know that can take away from dev time. With some of these weird balancing decisions though I feel it's probably worth it.

[Grim]

That -50% damage on burst/auto bothers me too, but I get why they are doing it that way.
An accuracy penalty would mean a lot of misses, and since we don't have a visible CTH, the educated guess would be messed up a bit.
 

[Woody]

TRUE TRUE TRUE

another massive limitation or issue I spotted with the beta footage is precisely this:

mercs are too mobile (in my opinion, I think in some of the footage it wasn't actually that bad)

Or, locations are too CQB and the overall average distance and range of engagement is too short.

If they have time or interest in re-balancing this aspect of JA3, I'd make things a lot more long distance, or punish movement.

Or alternatively, it really doesn't really matter if they punish it or not. The reason why people tended to avoid rushing in to point blank an enemy in JA2 wasn't for one reason or another. It was because in JA2 you had 100 enemies (at least on hardest difficulty) and if you tried to rush them there'd be 5 more enemy npcs waiting to shoot you on the next turn.

Maybe add more enemies or reduce the number of mercs in a squad.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Woody

[Reloecc]

1 hour ago, Xeth Nyrrow said:

It was revealed on the stream today that they settled on a 50% damage penalty for multi shot attacks for balance reasons after having tried other methods, including accuracy penalties. In testing they said the go to tactic had become rushing up point blank and unloading in to enemies. This means there another, bigger design problem:

Why are mercs allowed to be able to rush up point blank in the first place without being picked apart by overwatching enemies? This is a large design problem that also extends to making melee too powerful as it's the same thing with a different weapon. Based on how the dev today said melee feels OP and might get nerfed, I have a feeling it's still an issue. If they have addressed this since then then they should go back to testing accuracy penalties instead of counter intuitive damage reductions.

If they haven't, then there needs to be better overwatch/reaction shot mechanics in the game. Allowing such risk-less movement by the players is not good and further creates a comic book game play vibe of dashing around the battlefield without any fear of being shot. I really would love for them to make a demo for us to test and give feedback on before release but I know that can take away from dev time. With some of these weird balancing decisions though I feel it's probably worth it.

I will copy paste this multiple times in the future I believe:

This game is not meant to be serious nor tactical. It's meant to be "fun" in the chaos. Do not expect anything logical or realistic from the game. It's clear they're just patching issues with another issues.

It's a long chain of snowballed decisions:

• We have conical overwatch instead of sound/vision based interrupts. >
• > We have active perks that allow free movement and bypass the overwatch. >
• > We need enemies to reposition to mitigate ambushes thx to free movement and overwatch bypass. >
• > We need 50 % dmg reduction on auto weapons because mercs are too close because of bypassed overwatch. >
• > We need melee nerf because everything we did to stop mercs coming close is not working.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Reloecc

[Reloecc]

If you ask me, I'd balance auto weapons around crit chance:

• Reduce bullet dmg so it does around ~20% enemy hp in average (hits that just scratch).
• For aimed single shots, increase crit chance greatly (like +20 % per aim) and increase crit damage to ~80% of hp (direct face / heart hits).
• For auto weapons, reduce accuracy only slightly but keep crit chance very low, like 5 % (you can't aim to face with such recoil).
• For snipers, make the setup ap cost high (scoping + aiming) and reduce accuracy greatly for a first shot.
• For melee, keep damage and crit chance considerably low, but keep crit damage high enough (for neck / heart stabs).

Edited May 4, 2023 by Reloecc

[Xeth Nyrrow]

Two more thoughts:

1) Make it so a merc can't move and then shoot full auto in the same turn. It even makes sense from a realism point of view as well as game balance. This along with an aim penalty would make full stay as a suppressing role but enough bullet spam to maybe do serious damage.

2) Alternatively, why does there have to be a full auto mode anyways? I would say for suppression but that would have to be really good to justify me wasting have a mag of bullets on. However if overwatching is so rare then why do I need to suppress them? Instead just a merc could just run and flank. Full auto seems like something added that maybe causes more problems than fun it adds to the game.

[Solaris_Wave]

I've expressed my concerns regarding full-auto damage reduction in the Combat Developer Diary and also suggestions to work it out another way. It is something they are going to have to confront and fix because they are saying that your mercs can just run up and unload into the enemy soldiers at close range, while @Hendrix showed his concerns that your mercs can just sit at the back with sniper rifles and click enemy heads for maximum comfort. I've pointed out my concerns about what he was referring to as well, based on my gameplay of JA2.

Also, if you are able to just run up, knife someone in the throat while they are facing you and not really suffer, that needs fixing. Anyone that enters close combat shouldn't just get to attack and that is it. There should be a chance for the assaulter to be countered in some way, as if they are able to resist, dodge, overpower or shove the assaulter back. Maybe even from some calculation, it could go seriously wrong for the assaulter and they are stabbed themselves.

[Solaris_Wave]

17 minutes ago, Xeth Nyrrow said:

1) Make it so a merc can't move and then shoot full auto in the same turn. It even makes sense from a realism point of view as well as game balance. This along with an aim penalty would make full stay as a suppressing role but enough bullet spam to maybe do serious damage.

I think moving and then shooting can be okay, as long as it was not being done at the same time as that is very inaccurate. It depends on how fast the shooter is moving. Walking and shooting while keeping the gun steady is fine. Charging flat-out while trying to fire is something else entirely and should have a heavy accuracy penalty. It depends if Haemimont will have different movement speeds when upright.

 

17 minutes ago, Xeth Nyrrow said:

2) Alternatively, why does there have to be a full auto mode anyways? I would say for suppression but that would have to be really good to justify me wasting have a mag of bullets on. However if overwatching is so rare then why do I need to suppress them? Instead just a merc could just run and flank. Full auto seems like something added that maybe causes more problems than fun it adds to the game.

Without intending to be patronising, having a need for full auto is the same as it is in real life:

1) One bullet might not be enough and no matter how fast you can pull the trigger (even if some are better than others), automatic fire will be faster.

2) You might be trying to hit a moving target.

3) You might be trying to clear a room or building, not knowing how many enemies are in there. Closer range with less visibility due to walls and objects means you have less reaction time. There might be three enemies inside and another one in the next room after that, ready to join his comrades as soon as you enter.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Solaris_Wave

[Xeth Nyrrow]

50 minutes ago, Solaris_Wave said:

I think moving and then shooting can be okay, as long as it was not being done at the same time as that is very inaccurate. It depends on how fast the shooter is moving. Walking and shooting while keeping the gun steady is fine. Charging flat-out while trying to fire is something else entirely and should have a heavy accuracy penalty. It depends if Haemimont will have different movement speeds when upright.

 

Without intending to be patronising, having a need for full auto is the same as it is in real life:

1) One bullet might not be enough and no matter how fast you can pull the trigger (even if some are better than others), automatic fire will be faster.

2) You might be trying to hit a moving target.

3) You might be trying to clear a room or building, not knowing how many enemies are in there. Closer range with less visibility due to walls and objects means you have less reaction time. There might be three enemies inside and another one in the next room after that, ready to join his comrades as soon as you enter.

By moving and shooting I don't mean simultaneously but rather as 2 games actions performed in the same turn. Running with a machine gun or even an assault rifle then unloading half the clip/belt/mag would take a lot of time so only short movements or none should be allowed before using full auto. If you want to move far and still be able to shoot, there's always burst or single shot.

And nothing patronizing at all in what you said, I appreciate your thoughtful replies. Your examples are good as applied to the real world but not so much in game I'm afraid. Since turn based combat isn't very realistic compromises have to be made to translate it to a viable game format. For example, instead of a full auto mode a machine gun maybe could have very low AP cost bursts so that you could do 3 or 4 bursts in a round that simulates full auto. I'm not suggesting this just saying there are alternatives.

Using auto fire to hit a moving target or clear a room just doesn't exist in the game which means even less reasons to have the mode. Right now it looks like full auto is only used for big damage (but not with the nerf?) or suppression. I wonder if they even let you spread your full auto shots over an arc to allow multiple target suppression? This is why I ask if having the cool and realistic full auto mode is even worth having because it's creating more issues than it's solving.

[Solaris_Wave]

There have actually been games (or at least one game) that allowed you to set up a firing arc before firing in automatic. It was in Laser Squad all those years ago. It was a novel idea but was rarely needed. Also, you would choose how many shots to fire and the firing arc separately. Therefore, it was very likely you would miss every target because your soldier fired to the left of the target and then to the right.

Still, I thought it had merit because there would be times when you would want to suppress an area or try to hit multiple targets that were close but not clustered together, especially if you had a light or heavy machine gun with plenty of ammo and a high firing rate.

[Stuurminator]

43 minutes ago, Solaris_Wave said:

There have actually been games (or at least one game) that allowed you to set up a firing arc before firing in automatic.

Jagged Alliance 2 allowed you to set up a firing arc for your burst fire.

Don't feel bad for forgetting it. It was never useful.

[Solaris_Wave]

You're right. I completely forgot it was available in JA2. Aside from the fact that it has been years since I played the game and have played so many other games since, it must have been like you said and not very useful. It sounded like a great idea but I must have only tried it a few times and always been disappointed with the results.

[Woody]

Btw mods may want to take a look at @Stuurminator account too, it's also fishy.
It's brand new, and so far it's only been responding to other @Solaris_Wave posts, and talking like him and reacting to him.

[Stuurminator]

3 hours ago, Woody said:

Btw mods may want to take a look at @Stuurminator account too, it's also fishy.
It's brand new, and so far it's only been responding to other @Solaris_Wave posts, and talking like him and reacting to him.

Yeah, that's why I've contradicted Solaris multiple times, because it's my alt account.

Uh-oh, I'm disagreeing with you now! I guess that means you're my alt account, too!

[agris]

I agree with the OP and some of the other observations here. From the combat dev stream the other day, around the the 35 minute mark, Boyan discussed what led them to the current burst/auto fire system.

• a recoil system was tested, wherein each bullet fired impacted the trajectory of the next
• this apparently resulted in "unpleasant gameplay effects", wherein there were too many kills
• this also resulted in a "cartoon" like effect where, when bursting against enemies at range (not sure if select fire or full auto), the enemy's outline would be 'painted' with bullet holes, and no bullets hitting their intended target

As others have pointed out, the solution to eliminate recoil modeling and implement a boardgame-like -50% CTH/ -50% DMG to multi-shot attacks is a poor band aide to the issues identified.

It's been said above, but the problem with the supposed optimal strategy being to run up to an enemy and burst-fire on them points to the need for enemy interrupts. If such a simple gameplay strategy was resulting in too many kills, that doesn't just mean that burst fire is "too strong", it can also mean that the underlying enemy spacing, map design, etc is not optimal.

Finally, modeling recoil resulting in the cartoon-like situation described on the stream. Full auto fire should be inaccurate at medium to long range! Select fire burst should be less accurate the more shots that are fired. It is natural that auto and burst have niche uses in close range fighting, and are only viable at medium to long range by the most skilled and strong marksmen.

 

19 hours ago, Reloecc said:

This game is not meant to be serious nor tactical. It's meant to be "fun" in the chaos. Do not expect anything logical or realistic from the game. It's clear they're just patching issues with another issues.

It's a long chain of snowballed decisions:

• We have conical overwatch instead of sound/vision based interrupts. >
• > We have active perks that allow free movement and bypass the overwatch. >
• > We need enemies to reposition to mitigate ambushes thx to free movement and overwatch bypass. >
• > We need 50 % dmg reduction on auto weapons because mercs are too close because of bypassed overwatch. >
• > We need melee nerf because everything we did to stop mercs coming close is not working.

Unfortunately I expect this is right. Based on the comments made by the community manager, wherein he thanked THQ Nordic for giving them time to implement the ballistics system, I expect the program manager(s) for JA3 sees no benefit in making this even more like JA2 / Silent Storm, and the devs are being pressured into making fast, easier mechanical decisions - at the expense of the tactical layer - to hurry through content production and ultimately release.

Given the history of JA2 successors and the success of nuXcom, I'm honestly shocked we have ballistic simulation at all.

Edited May 5, 2023 by agris

[Solaris_Wave]

JA2 was both fun and tactical, with plenty of seriousness in it. I don't mean in terms of storyline and subject matter, but in terms of the combat. However, it did favour aimed, semi-auto head shots over automatic fire due to the amount of armour the enemies would end up wearing. Automatic fire was only really useful at close range to ensure all those bullets would hit and kill the enemy soldier before they had a chance to counter-attack.

I think JA3 can be altered but I do honestly appreciate what Haemimont are trying to do. They are open about their testing and why changes were made. It goes to show that they are genuinely trying to make a decent game, even if it means taking creative measures instead of realistic ones.

That said, the realism addict in me (I'm not sure what else to call it), when it comes to modern day military games means that, if something doesn't behave in a way I expect it to because I am used to how something works in reality, it throws me off. I have trouble enjoying the game because it feels like it needs adjusting before I can enjoy it. It is almost like driving a Lamborghini but the exhausts are hanging off and dragging across the road, rattling away. It niggles an otherwise enjoyable experience.

[Reloecc]

20 hours ago, Solaris_Wave said:

Also, if you are able to just run up, knife someone in the throat while they are facing you and not really suffer, that needs fixing. Anyone that enters close combat shouldn't just get to attack and that is it. There should be a chance for the assaulter to be countered in some way, as if they are able to resist, dodge, overpower or shove the assaulter back. Maybe even from some calculation, it could go seriously wrong for the assaulter and they are stabbed themselves.

There is a perk Hit and Run.

Hit and run
- Gain free move after making a Melee Attack

I am very sure it's a root of said "full melee build is op". Things like this just throw you off (as you said) for being not realistic at all.

[Solaris_Wave]

I wonder if a merc with that perk could be overpowered if they are high in stealth? Could it turn Jagged Alliance's combat into something like Splinter Cell as one merc moves under the cover of darkness, silently killing each enemy and then moving back into cover before the other soldiers spot them?

[DonBilbo]

I haven’t read all your comments, sorry. But wouldn’t be an quick an easy solution to just raise the detect/watch range of enemies so that you are too far away to run up and shoot with given AP? That way nothing else needs adjustment or rebalancing. 

[Stuurminator]

2 hours ago, DonBilbo said:

I haven’t read all your comments, sorry. But wouldn’t be an quick an easy solution to just raise the detect/watch range of enemies so that you are too far away to run up and shoot with given AP? That way nothing else needs adjustment or rebalancing. 

From what I've seen, the maps seem considerably smaller than in JA2. You can't increase the detection range by much without effectively making you detected as soon as you enter the map.

It also looks they're trying to make melee more practical, as it was basically useless in previous JA games.

[Xeth Nyrrow]

3 hours ago, DonBilbo said:

I haven’t read all your comments, sorry. But wouldn’t be an quick an easy solution to just raise the detect/watch range of enemies so that you are too far away to run up and shoot with given AP? That way nothing else needs adjustment or rebalancing. 

It has nothing to do with stealth or detection, this happens in the middle of combat they are saying. So the issue is there's not enough counter threat (interrupts and overwatches) to you just moving your mercs around the map in the middle of combat.

[Godzilla]

The best way to solve this wouldve been how they did it in ja2, heavy accuracy oenalty with maybe a slight damage reduction and the accuracy gets worse over time until i5 plateus out at a minimum accuracy.

The devs said they didnt want to follow this route because it looked like a wiley cotote cartoon when all bullets were tracing an outline behind the target.

They also said that the meta became to run up to enemies point blank and full auto fire them. But theres a 100 ways to respond to that like reducing the amount by which proximity bonus can help you or capping that bonus. etc. Also reducing the mobility of mercs or increasing the ap of full auto fire or making maps larger or making the enemy count larger.

[DonBilbo]

Ok now I see. More AP cost for burst/full-auto fire seems at least more believable than reduced bullet damage in burst/full-auto. After all, one could argue that holding the weapon steady requires more concentration/time commitment. So that you can just move very little if you wanna use burst/full-auto. Melee could also be balanced this way. Make it useful in some situations but not exploitable. 

Edited May 14, 2023 by DonBilbo

[Solaris_Wave]

Melee needs to have a counter-attack or resist attack if your merc tries to attack them from the front. Maybe even from any angle if the enemy is alerted, otherwise you could just move your merc around towards their back if you had enough action points.

If they are oblivious to your presence, then a stealth detection check would be active, meaning that if you wanted to kill the enemy outright with a melee attack, you would need to approach from behind.

Edited May 15, 2023 by Solaris_Wave

[Xeth Nyrrow]

JA2 had a chance to dodge so maybe they added it already. Personally I don't like this and would prefer making melee attacks be expensive AP wise but deadly. Stabbing with a knife should be quick but less lethal unless you hit the head. Swinging a sword or other bigr melee weapon should take a lot of AP since it's much slower than pulling a trigger but be very damaging. This all assumes getting in melee range to a target is difficult which is currently quite in doubt.