Instead of complaining lets find a solution

[Solaris_Wave]

I am fine without CtH being shown but only if there is some kind of indicator that a shot was worth trying in the first place, even if it then misses. I believe that is present via the mercs audibly saying whether they can do it or not. You wouldn't necessarily be able to assume that by moving the camera behind your merc and pointing it at the enemy, that a shot is feasible. What you don't want obviously, is a game where you shoot regardless and your result is something where you never had a chance at all.

If the audible response is the indicator, that could be sufficient.

[Stuurminator]

49 minutes ago, Godzilla said:

A lot of what I see here is "just trust the devs" or "why are you complaining when everythings fine" type mentality. Blind happy content passive customers criticizing the one who isnt content or passive and is actively scanning the environment for problems and issues., and interrogating what he sees.

I don't think there's a single poster here that couldn't name a concern about what they've seen of JA3 if you asked. You are mistaking disagreement with you for blind, unilateral support for the devs when the latter does not exist. You fail to understand this because you refuse to believe opinions other than your own can have a legitimate basis and that anyone who disagrees with you actually agrees with you but refuses to admit it.

I'm pretty sure I'm wasting my time telling you this, but I figure I ought to try.

[Taurean]

2 hours ago, Godzilla said:

I dont recall any good options sorry. You can try posting them again...

Easy mode: Show hit percentage and factors.

Medium: Optional.

Expert: Don't show.

As you move the cursor around, the hit percentage shows up in a box or somewhere not obstructive, where it constantly shifts as you move the cursor and obstacles and such changes hit percentage.

Part of the fun in JA2 for me was not knowing the hit percentage, but trying to figure out how to increase that as much as possible by reading the terrain and such. That information was not readily available, but i got quite far in figuring it out. There are many factors to consider, and i found that intriguing.

[Godzilla]

1 hour ago, Taurean said:

Easy mode: Show hit percentage and factors.

Medium: Optional.

Expert: Don't show.

As you move the cursor around, the hit percentage shows up in a box or somewhere not obstructive, where it constantly shifts as you move the cursor and obstacles and such changes hit percentage.

Part of the fun in JA2 for me was not knowing the hit percentage, but trying to figure out how to increase that as much as possible by reading the terrain and such. That information was not readily available, but i got quite far in figuring it out. There are many factors to consider, and i found that intriguing.

Again that just sounds like you want to punish people for being intelligent enough to want correct design features.

[Taurean]

Just now, Godzilla said:

Again that just sounds like you want to punish people for being intelligent enough to want correct design features.

That's such a vague logic .. i can't even comprehend what you're trying to convey. A game is supposed to be a combination of challenge and fun. One is supposed to learn use one's brain. Remembering things and learning what to look for is part of this. It's like help tips in other games .. after a while, one turns them off. What's wrong with making this into a challenge? It also means a better challenge in a potential hardcore mode. No room for mistakes or misconceptions. I kind of like that idea.

[Godzilla]

Just now, Taurean said:

That's such a vague logic .. i can't even comprehend what you're trying to convey. A game is supposed to be a combination of challenge and fun. One is supposed to learn use one's brain. Remembering things and learning what to look for is part of this. It's like help tips in other games .. after a while, one turns them off. What's wrong with making this into a challenge? It also means a better challenge in a potential hardcore mode. No room for mistakes or misconceptions. I kind of like that idea.

not being able to comprehend logic would not surprise me in the slightest.

[scope112]

Both JA1 and JA2 had no CtH, and they were strategic masterpieces. The gunfights in those games are way more exciting and tactical compared to XCOM games.

 

The current setup already gives plenty of cues concerning CtH. Certain body parts receive a difficulty penalty, mercs indicate whether they are confident / not confident about the shot, and weapons display their optimal range. With this information, the player has more than enough information to make an informed decision, while at the same time keeping combat somewhat surprising, fun and tactical.

[Godzilla]

48 minutes ago, scope112 said:

Both JA1 and JA2 had no CtH, and they were strategic masterpieces. The gunfights in those games are way more exciting and tactical compared to XCOM games.

They were not strategic masterpieces due to the absence of cth Ill tell you that right now.

[Stuurminator]

3 hours ago, Taurean said:

Easy mode: Show hit percentage and factors.

Medium: Optional.

Expert: Don't show.

The lack of CtH% is not to create difficulty. It is to enhance the gameplay. Including it in some difficulties only punishes players for using those difficulties.

[Sarin]

I agree with the decision. Though I feel it should have been presented quite a bit differently. Though it's probably way too late for a change...

When you target an enemy for the shot, the game should go into first-person perspective, showing the highlighted target through the sights of the mercenary. You get a pretty good impression about the size of the target, which body parts can be hit, the sights will sway to show how capable is the merc of taking the shot. You won't get CtH, but you'll be presented with good enough impression of it graphically. You'll be working off the same information that a person would actually have in that situation.

[scope112]

14 hours ago, Godzilla said:

They were not strategic masterpieces due to the absence of cth Ill tell you that right now.

Agree to strongly disagree with you here.

[Hendrix]

49 minutes ago, Sarin said:

I agree with the decision. Though I feel it should have been presented quite a bit differently. Though it's probably way too late for a change...

When you target an enemy for the shot, the game should go into first-person perspective, showing the highlighted target through the sights of the mercenary. You get a pretty good impression about the size of the target, which body parts can be hit, the sights will sway to show how capable is the merc of taking the shot. You won't get CtH, but you'll be presented with good enough impression of it graphically. You'll be working off the same information that a person would actually have in that situation.

Cool idea, but wouldn't the transition between first person and isometric become tedious after a little while? 

Maybe it could be an option you could use if you wanted to, by hitting a specific button/key?

Myself I think the developers are right by not including a straigt % for CtH. I have never taken a shot IRL were I thought "here I have a 87% CtH". I have missed shots I were certain I would make, as well as hit shots I were certain I would miss.

If they would add any CtH I would prefear it much more vague, something like:

Impossible - no LoS, or way out of effective range for the gun.

Bad - 0 to 33%, why 0% and not 1% ? Because since projectiles are still simulated it might effect something close by the target or hitting something between the merc and target.

Average - 34 to 66%

Good - 67 to 100%

[Solaris_Wave]

I suggested those vague representations too. If a compromise has to be met, surely the vague indicators wouldn't harm both sides of the argument?

[Godzilla]

52 minutes ago, Solaris_Wave said:

I suggested those vague representations too. If a compromise has to be met, surely the vague indicators wouldn't harm both sides of the argument?

I dont see why there has to be a compromise in the first place

Everybody has cth. For good reason. Why would you choosee to avoid it.

[Solaris_Wave]

4 minutes ago, Godzilla said:

I dont see why there has to be a compromise in the first place

Everybody has cth. For good reason. Why would you choosee to avoid it.

That's the point though. Not everybody wants it!

[Godzilla]

3 hours ago, scope112 said:

Agree to strongly disagree with you here.

You think it was a classic because of cth?

Its not even that putting cth matters that much, taking it out is just such a strange and weird decision, like if you decided to take out crosshairs from an fps like somebody said already.

[Godzilla]

1 minute ago, Solaris_Wave said:

That's the point though. Not everybody wants it!

Dont they want it.

Or are they just blindly following what the devs tell them, caught up in the hype. And they dont see what the problems with removing it might be even if those problems exist and theyll be experienced on launch day.

Edited May 9, 2023 by Godzilla

[Solaris_Wave]

Well, I have the capacity to think for myself and I am sure that others do as well. There aren't a lot here that are fanatically following the developers, if at all. Other recent threads have proved that there is much to debate about.

[Godzilla]

2 minutes ago, Solaris_Wave said:

Well, I have the capacity to think for myself and I am sure that others do as well. There aren't a lot here that are fanatically following the developers, if at all. Other recent threads have proved that there is much to debate about.

Maybe you do, maybe you think you do. Its no slight to say that a person who doesnt actively analyze the information thats coming out takes the devs word for granted and trusts them perhaps mistakenly.

[Solaris_Wave]

I trust them pretty well on their decision about CtH but I am not happy about their other decisions, such as automatic fire damage reduction, the inventory system and being able to aim at body parts from all ranges. The latter point has been in JA2 so technically, I should be fine with it but that to me, was one of the bigger flaws that eventually showed itself as play continued.

[scope112]

1 hour ago, Godzilla said:

You think it was a classic because of cth?

Its not even that putting cth matters that much, taking it out is just such a strange and weird decision, like if you decided to take out crosshairs from an fps like somebody said already.

You are contradicting your earlier point. You claimed it was not a strategic masterpiece due to lack of CtH. 

 

JA1 and 2 were strategic masterpieces, and the lack of CtH indeed contributed to this. I far prefer it over XCOM type of mechanics. Combat is much more engaging and CtH is one of the factors that contribute to thst success. 

[Godzilla]

8 minutes ago, scope112 said:

You are contradicting your earlier point. You claimed it was not a strategic masterpiece due to lack of CtH. 

 

JA1 and 2 were strategic masterpieces, and the lack of CtH indeed contributed to this. I far prefer it over XCOM type of mechanics. Combat is much more engaging and CtH is one of the factors that contribute to thst success. 

I am? Not to my knowledge. Can you show me where the contradiction took place?
JA 1 and 2 were not benefitted from lack of cth Im sorry.

Ironically, you claim to dislike xcom mechanics but JA3 is more like xcom than it is like JA2. Active abilities, funny little and unrealistic systems like grit. Etc. Ammunition and attachment system in some respects heavily simplified.

[Solaris_Wave]

JA1 wasn't in the same class for me, personally. It felt like it had some good ideas and a great modern setting but was too clunky compared to the original X-COM trilogy.

Funnily enough, I just did a quick Google to see if I could get more information on whether U.F.O.: Enemy Unknown and Terror From The Deep had CtH shown. My memory is now hazy but I think it was shown when you selected the fire mode. While searching for that, I have seen multiple websites where people are complaining about CtH being in the XCOM reboot, saying it is inaccurate and doesn't reflect the actual chance to hit. Also, I was quite surprised to see that since the reboot, people have gone on to play the older versions. Even if they didn't play those originals the first time round, quite a few people seem to actually prefer the scale and flexibility of the older games, even if they find the interface truly old fashioned.

[scope112]

9 minutes ago, Godzilla said:

I am? Not to my knowledge. Can you show me where the contradiction took place?
JA 1 and 2 were not benefitted from lack of cth Im sorry.

Ironically, you claim to dislike xcom mechanics but JA3 is more like xcom than it is like JA2. Active abilities, funny little and unrealistic systems like grit. Etc. Ammunition and attachment system in some respects heavily simplified.

I am also not in favor of these new mechanics, and prefer the older, more complex systems that JA had in place. But then again, the original JA games were rather niche, so i understand that to a certain degree some changes need to be made to make the game accessible to a wider audience.

 

I can personally live with grit system. But the inventory system, especially the squad inventory and lack of ammo management is just plain horrendous.

[Godzilla]

Again none of these messages are about the point. The devs have found themselves in a difficult position and I am interested in finding a way out of it. We cant really have a productive conversation if you dont agreethat they arent at an impasse.

And if you think everything is great and dandy then fine, wait for release date. Im not so sure that that is the case.

Edited May 9, 2023 by Godzilla