Instead of complaining lets find a solution

[Solaris_Wave]

It seems we have three choices:

1. Don't have a visible CtH display.
2. Have an alternative that is less precise and more of a basic (visual) indicator to show that opening fire is worth it.
3. Have a precise percentage visible.

 

Either of those options seems to annoy, or at least bother one or more people, either in this forum or elsewhere. There is no guaranteed universal solution, it seems.

Interestingly, I saw that @THQN Roger was recently reading the thread, even if he didn't post. It is possible he is taking notes.

[DougS2K]

47 minutes ago, Godzilla said:

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.

What exactly is this difficult position you keep referring to exactly? The devs don't want chance to hit and will not be reimplementing it. They stated this multiple times now. The majority of people don't want chance to hit which coincides with the devs decision so that's great. So, I just don't see what the issue is here.

If people want CTH then they are going to have to mod it into the game after release. It's really that simple. There is no "difficult position" or "impasse". I've literally only seen you and maybe 3 people on the steam forums saying they want CTH and EVERYONE else saying they don't.

Edited May 9, 2023 by DougS2K

[Stuurminator]

3 hours ago, Solaris_Wave said:

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.

Yes, you got numbers shown when you selected the fire mode, but not when you selected the target. I'm not sure how those numbers were calculated, but I imagine they were just based off the soldier's firing accuracy adjusted for the modifiers applied by the firing mode. They didn't (and couldn't) account for the target's distance or cover.

2 hours ago, Godzilla said:

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.

Then there's no conversation, because there's no impasse. They've chosen not to show CtH% and they're not changing their mind. They've studied the effects of having it and not having it and they prefer the latter. They don't want a way out of it, and even if they did, your OP proposes changing a fundamental game design element that can't possibly be changed at this stage.

[RAS]

I think a great option for hit percentage would be to not show an exact percentage but possibly a color code for a range of percentage chance. For example, Red=0-30%, Orange=31-50%, Yellow=51-75%, Green= 76-100%. It would provide better decision making space for tactical decisions but also provide enough of a variance to not alter players decisions to heavily as described the developers.

[Solaris_Wave]

55 minutes ago, Stuurminator said:

Yes, you got numbers shown when you selected the fire mode, but not when you selected the target. I'm not sure how those numbers were calculated, but I imagine they were just based off the soldier's firing accuracy adjusted for the modifiers applied by the firing mode. They didn't (and couldn't) account for the target's distance or cover.

I once edited a saved game for one of the soldiers, just to try and see how superhuman I could make him. The accuracy stats could only go up so far. Using another soldier to spot an enemy Snakeman, I used my 'genetically enhanced' soldier to fire a perfect shot that went through the windows of two buildings, killing the Snakeman on the other side. That was four small windows the laser bolt went through.

Edited May 9, 2023 by Solaris_Wave

[Solaris_Wave]

9 minutes ago, RAS said:

I think a great option for hit percentage would be to not show an exact percentage but possibly a color code for a range of percentage chance. For example, Red=0-30%, Orange=31-50%, Yellow=51-75%, Green= 76-100%. It would provide better decision making space for tactical decisions but also provide enough of a variance to not alter players decisions to heavily as described the developers.

That was another suggestion I had. Either a colour temperature or a thickening red outline depicting certain increments. I think that could be the next best thing instead of CtH number percentages.

[Godzilla]

16 minutes ago, Solaris_Wave said:

That was another suggestion I had. Either a colour temperature or a thickening red outline depicting certain increments. I think that could be the next best thing instead of CtH number percentages.

Isnt that just cth by any other means.

[Solaris_Wave]

CtH would be a more accurate representation rather than a baseline. CtH might say 54% as a specific number.

[Stuurminator]

52 minutes ago, RAS said:

I think a great option for hit percentage would be to not show an exact percentage but possibly a color code for a range of percentage chance. For example, Red=0-30%, Orange=31-50%, Yellow=51-75%, Green= 76-100%. It would provide better decision making space for tactical decisions but also provide enough of a variance to not alter players decisions to heavily as described the developers.

40 minutes ago, Solaris_Wave said:

That was another suggestion I had. Either a colour temperature or a thickening red outline depicting certain increments. I think that could be the next best thing instead of CtH number percentages.

JA3 already has this. Watch some footage and you'll occasionally hear mercenaries say things like "I feel confident about this shot" and "I don't think I'm going to make this". As far as I know, there's no official description of this, but I'm pretty sure those indicate a markedly high or low chance to hit.

[Godzilla]

13 minutes ago, Solaris_Wave said:

CtH would be a more accurate representation rather than a baseline. CtH might say 54% as a specific number.

Cant I infer precise % from the color shading.

[Godzilla]

2 minutes ago, Stuurminator said:

JA3 already has this. Watch some footage and you'll occasionally hear mercenaries say things like "I feel confident about this shot" and "I don't think I'm going to make this". As far as I know, there's no official description of this, but I'm pretty sure those indicate a markedly high or low chance to hit.

Yeah I dont think thats a great system 😆

Just implement cth. May as well do so, mercs yelling something out is a type of cth just a very poor one.

[Stuurminator]

6 minutes ago, Godzilla said:

mercs yelling something out is a type of cth just a very poor one.

The fact that you say this indicates that you don't understand what effect an explicit CtH% has on gameplay or why it was removed.

In fact, I don't think you can tell me why the devs decided to hide CtH%. Can you, in your own words?

[Solaris_Wave]

I just think about it all in terms of realism. Unless you are a machine, you don't know what exact chance you have to hit something, down to the very number. You are more likely to estimate your chances of being 'impossible', 'maybe', 'most likely', and 'definite'. That is why I am happy without a precise CtH being shown, actually having an audible response from the mercs (that we know is in the game and has been so for a while) and maybe a visual indicator. That visual indicator would have to be a general estimation like myself and others have suggested.

[DougS2K]

39 minutes ago, Godzilla said:

Yeah I dont think thats a great system 😆

Just implement cth. May as well do so, mercs yelling something out is a type of cth just a very poor one.

Nah, no CtH needed. We know you don't really want it anyways. Your just sticking to your story cause your afraid to admit your wrong. It's ok dude, we all make mistakes. We're happy you agree with us now so we can all move on and celebrate that there's no CtH.

[agris]

1 hour ago, RAS said:

I think a great option for hit percentage would be to not show an exact percentage but possibly a color code for a range of percentage chance.

We already have a functionally equivalent version of this with the mercs commenting on their confidence of a shot landing. 
 

I don’t know the increments that correspond to hit chance, like if it’s low/med/hi or more/less granularity, but it exists and is in the preview builds.

[Godzilla]

1 hour ago, agris said:

We already have a functionally equivalent version of this with the mercs commenting on their confidence of a shot landing. 
 

I don’t know the increments that correspond to hit chance, like if it’s low/med/hi or more/less granularity, but it exists and is in the preview builds.

So then why mess about just do it fully.

Are you scared of the numbers or something? Swiss arent scared of precision and neither are us dutch people, put it in.

[Godzilla]

2 hours ago, Stuurminator said:

The fact that you say this indicates that you don't understand what effect an explicit CtH% has on gameplay or why it was removed.

In fact, I don't think you can tell me why the devs decided to hide CtH%. Can you, in your own words?

Can I, yes, will I, no.

They said pixel hunting. I say there are other reasons for that and pixel hunting isnt inherently bad.

[Solaris_Wave]

I don't think many people enjoy pixel hunting. Adventure games and those hidden object games are known for pixel hunting, and that process when trying to find something you want was never popular, even during they heyday of adventure games (1980s-1990s).

[Godzilla]

17 minutes ago, Solaris_Wave said:

I don't think many people enjoy pixel hunting. Adventure games and those hidden object games are known for pixel hunting, and that process when trying to find something you want was never popular, even during they heyday of adventure games (1980s-1990s).

Adventure games sure, but I dont think thats what developers had in mind. Developers I suspect were just unhappy how players were moving up tile by tile to see where the highest cth was.

I say, first, maybe thats a case of who your playerbase is, I never found myself following that strategy EVER in any game even when pixel hunting was incentivized

And second there are ways to solve this problem by implementing a start up cost to movement like was implemented in JA2 where first run movement wasn1 or 2 ap higher than each subsequent one

Edited May 11, 2023 by Godzilla

[chr_isso]

54 minutes ago, Godzilla said:

Adventure games sure, but I dont think thats what developers had in mind. Developers I suspect were just unhappy how players were moving up tile by tile to see where the highest cth was.

I say, first, maybe thats a case of who your playerbase is, I never found myself following that strategy EVER in any game even when pixel hunting was incentivized

And second there are ways to solve this problem by implementing a start up cost to movement like was implemented in JA2 where first run movement wasn1 or 2 ap higher than each subsequent one

that is also an important thing, thanks for mentioning this.

i don't know why mercs have some free movement, the initial movement should be "penalized" to make it a real decision to move or not to move.
That leads me to the 10AP decision.. not sure if it's a good thing or not, I would need to test it out myself if it feels "organic".

 

[Solaris_Wave]

I'm not sure I ever moved my mercs one space this or that way to get a higher CtH percentage. I preferred to look at the landscape and think what was the best location to cover a certain area while giving my team the best natural protection possible. I would then have part of my team gradually move up, but still trying to maintain cover.

[Xeth Nyrrow]

Yeah, usually movement is used not to increase hit chances but for alternative firing angles because of cover (flanking falls in to this) and/or to get better cover. Getting closer is the direct way to increasing hit chances but it's a double edged sword where you become easier to hit as well. And any half way decent play knows you'd rather keep good cover with bad shot chances over bad cover with good shot chances unless you are mopping up the last enemy maybe.

[DougS2K]

11 hours ago, Godzilla said:

Adventure games sure, but I dont think thats what developers had in mind. Developers I suspect were just unhappy how players were moving up tile by tile to see where the highest cth was.

I say, first, maybe thats a case of who your playerbase is, I never found myself following that strategy EVER in any game even when pixel hunting was incentivized

And second there are ways to solve this problem by implementing a start up cost to movement like was implemented in JA2 where first run movement wasn1 or 2 ap higher than each subsequent one

They've already solved the problem by not including CtH in the first place. 😛

There are actual issues like basic inventory, no magazines, shared ammo, etc, that need to be addressed.

Edited May 11, 2023 by DougS2K

[Tzg]

Xcom(new) et all with the CtH are not tactical, are not tb strategy games etc - these are 'just' (I don't say it lightly) chess - nothing wrong with chess - but I want JA3 not chess online with guns. 

[Godzilla]

15 hours ago, chr_isso said:

that is also an important thing, thanks for mentioning this.

i don't know why mercs have some free movement, the initial movement should be "penalized" to make it a real decision to move or not to move.
That leads me to the 10AP decision.. not sure if it's a good thing or not, I would need to test it out myself if it feels "organic".

 

You ideally want around 100 ap because then you can really see tiny differences between various weapons and other buffs and debuffs, otherwise theyre too small to see.

There are others for a very small ap bar, but there are better reasons for a large ap bar that gives all ap costing actions a much greater amount of granularity.