Instead of complaining lets find a solution

[Godzilla]

4 hours ago, Tzg said:

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. 

With cth or without

Removing cth is a mistake, and as devs have themselves said it was done for the wrong reasons. The argument is flawed. They said they didnt like cth due to pixel hunting, which is neither an issue necessarily nor has to be solved in this way.

Its like if devs realized their helmet defense points were overtuned so they just decided to get rid of all armor. Like wtf. lol. Just balance it instead.

Again I am nit interested in arguing about this point, because there doesnt APPEAR to be an argument against cth which isnt "trust the developers". Most of what people have said here defending the decision was a version of that.

Ive yet to hear a good argument against it anyways.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Godzilla

[Godzilla]

5 hours ago, DougS2K said:

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.

😆 No

Those issues are small. CTH and CRPG elements are big.

[DougS2K]

1 hour ago, Godzilla said:

😆 No

Those issues are small. CTH and CRPG elements are big.

You don't know what your talking which has already been proven time and time again.

[Solaris_Wave]

2 hours ago, Godzilla said:

😆 No

Those issues are small. CTH and CRPG elements are big.

We all have a different opinion of what is more important. There is no singular vision and none of us really have a greater say than the other.

To you CtH is the biggest thing since the assassination of JFK. To me, it is superficial and I am far more interested in the inventory system, body part aiming, automatic fire damage reduction and the weapon modding.

[Tzg]

7 hours ago, Godzilla said:

Again I am nit interested in arguing about this point, because there doesnt APPEAR to be an argument against cth which isnt "trust the developers". Most of what people have said here defending the decision was a version of that.

Ive yet to hear a good argument against it anyways.

No. CtH is a mistake - unrealistic(not that JA is realistic), unnecessary and most  importantly absolutely useless. 
 

Similarly, I haven’t heard or see any argument why CtH is good or needed? The ‘I want it so I scream loud’ argument isn’t one. That’s what my 3.5 year old does when she wants something she can’t have. 
 

Bottom line - JA and JA2 never had this. For me is enough of a reason. 

[Godzilla]

1 hour ago, Tzg said:

No. CtH is a mistake - unrealistic(not that JA is realistic), unnecessary and most  importantly absolutely useless. 

Yeah that must be why its included in every other strategy game lol

Its good for multiple reasons such as seeing the immediate impact of stats perks and different weapons at same ish range like when you can see that merc 1 has better cth than merc 2 at the same ish range. Its also good to make sure you arent firing at 20% or 40% chances when you should be moving in closer.

[Godzilla]

5 hours ago, Solaris_Wave said:

We all have a different opinion of what is more important. There is no singular vision and none of us really have a greater say than the other.

To you CtH is the biggest thing since the assassination of JFK. To me, it is superficial and I am far more interested in the inventory system, body part aiming, automatic fire damage reduction and the weapon modding.

I wouldnt say its the biggest thing since the moon landing I would just say its obviously a mistake and a very costly mistake that changes JA3 significantly away from strategy to a much more simpler casual affair.

[Tzg]

4 hours ago, Godzilla said:

Yeah that must be why its included in every other strategy game lol

Its good for multiple reasons such as seeing the immediate impact of stats perks and different weapons at same ish range like when you can see that merc 1 has better cth than merc 2 at the same ish range. Its also good to make sure you arent firing at 20% or 40% chances when you should be moving in closer.

No, it is not included in every other strategy game, lol. 

It is included in most console-focused, hardly strategic games for kids with the attention span of a goldfish. However, in some games, it makes kind of sense due to, say, advanced technology - Battletech being one - I have no problem there as 'I am inside of a massive machine with advanced computing capabilities' equally, me sitting with a firearm in the bushes - I can't tell my chance to hit. Simples. 

Neither of the reasons you describe is suitable or needed  - if you played JA2, you would know your merc would tell you they can't hit something. Also, you would see when the firearm is outside of the effective range. The beauty of JA2 is in the fact that you know your merc. You know which one can hit from a distance and which one will never do it. You know you need to get your camouflage kit, NV, and sneaky guys to do specific ops. You don't need stupid % to tell you that... and if you do need it - this game is not for you. Move on. 

[Tzg]

4 hours ago, Godzilla said:

I wouldnt say its the biggest thing since the moon landing I would just say its obviously a mistake and a very costly mistake that changes JA3 significantly away from strategy to a much more simpler casual affair.

You have it backwards. CtH is for a casual console gamers who can't handle keyboard and mouse in the same time. That's why XCOM's are pad optimized and have CTH... 

[Xeth Nyrrow]

2 hours ago, Tzg said:

No, it is not included in every other strategy game, lol. 

It is included in most console-focused, hardly strategic games for kids with the attention span of a goldfish. However, in some games, it makes kind of sense due to, say, advanced technology - Battletech being one - I have no problem there as 'I am inside of a massive machine with advanced computing capabilities' equally, me sitting with a firearm in the bushes - I can't tell my chance to hit. Simples. 

Neither of the reasons you describe is suitable or needed  - if you played JA2, you would know your merc would tell you they can't hit something. Also, you would see when the firearm is outside of the effective range. The beauty of JA2 is in the fact that you know your merc. You know which one can hit from a distance and which one will never do it. You know you need to get your camouflage kit, NV, and sneaky guys to do specific ops. You don't need stupid % to tell you that... and if you do need it - this game is not for you. Move on. 

This is the point I was going to make, that showing CtH is actually a, "dumbing down" feature is why it's in so many games. I'm sure this idea will shake Godzilla's core because he's of the mind that it makes the game more complex but it's actually a simplification of game mechanics being reduced to a single number to help the player only have to consider that number instead of all the other factors.

Developers have to decide what things they want to make easier or harder and that can be the interface itself many times. I applaud JA3 for going this route as it's obviously a controversial decision but a good one.

[Stuurminator]

15 hours ago, Godzilla said:

Again I am nit interested in arguing about this point, because there doesnt APPEAR to be an argument against cth which isnt "trust the developers". Most of what people have said here defending the decision was a version of that.

Ive yet to hear a good argument against it anyways.

I'm probably wasting my time, but fine, here's one.

Combat in the Jagged Alliance series, as a whole, simulates firefights. Firefights are chaotic and unpredictable, because you never know for sure if a shot is going to land. Jagged Alliance ups the unpredictability by making bullets less lethal than in real life, so even if you land a shot, you almost never kill your target unless they're already wounded. The result of this is that you never know how a round is going to go.

Games with visible CtH, like the new XCOMs, aren't trying to capture that unpredictability. In fact, they may deliberately work against it. I've got a hot take that most of this forum will disagree with: the new XCOMs are more punishing than Jagged Alliance. I don't mean they're harder or more hardcore, I mean punishing - screwing up your shots and leaving your soldiers open to counterattack has a very good chance of getting them killed. Losing more than one unit this way can doom an entire mission or even your entire campaign. That's because XCOM doesn't simulate messy, chaotic firefights; XCOM is a puzzle game where a missed shot is the result of bad planning and bad tactics and should be punished.

In Jagged Alliance, a missed shot or an entire round of missed shots is not the result of bad tactics. It's an expected part of the gameplay loop, and the game is designed to benefit from that being part of the experience. Part of this design is that the player is not punished as severely for these misses.

Now, do you hate messy fights where you don't have perfect control? Do you not like that gameplay? That's totally fine, it's a matter of taste. But it means you don't like Jagged Alliance. Maybe you like a fanmade mod that fundamentally changes the gameplay design principles, but you don't like Jagged Alliance games themselves, and you're only banging your head against the wall expecting Jagged Alliance to become something it's never been in order to fulfill your unfounded expectations.

[Solaris_Wave]

54 minutes ago, Xeth Nyrrow said:

This is the point I was going to make, that showing CtH is actually a, "dumbing down" feature is why it's in so many games.

In some ways it is correct to say that. In other ways, it makes it more complex but needlessly and unnecessarily so. Instead of estimating your chances of a hit as being impossible, average or great, you are slapping a more precise number on there, such as 42% or 67%. How does anyone calculate it down to those very numbers unless, like myself and others have said, you are a machine? That extra 2% or 7% doesn't really help me decide any better.

Besides which, those percentages can be incorrect, according to multiple conversations I have seen on other sites, when it comes to the XCOM reboot. There are quite a few frustrated gamers saying that the estimated percentage doesn't reflect the way the battles are playing out.

[Xeth Nyrrow]

1 hour ago, Solaris_Wave said:

In some ways it is correct to say that. In other ways, it makes it more complex but needlessly and unnecessarily so. Instead of estimating your chances of a hit as being impossible, average or great, you are slapping a more precise number on there, such as 42% or 67%. How does anyone calculate it down to those very numbers unless, like myself and others have said, you are a machine? That extra 2% or 7% doesn't really help me decide any better.

Besides which, those percentages can be incorrect, according to multiple conversations I have seen on other sites, when it comes to the XCOM reboot. There are quite a few frustrated gamers saying that the estimated percentage doesn't reflect the way the battles are playing out.

In what ways does it increase complexity? The devs said it best when they said it changes the game to be about playing the numbers rather than tactics. Also like you said people aren't calculating percentages but are using the number as an easy guide to follow. 50% = coin flip, 66% means hitting 2 out of 3 shots on average. We take the percentages and dumb them down even more in our head to something relatable and decide from there.

[Tzg]

1 hour ago, Stuurminator said:

 

Games with visible CtH, like the new XCOMs, aren't trying to capture that unpredictability. In fact, they may deliberately work against it. I've got a hot take that most of this forum will disagree with: the new XCOMs are more punishing than Jagged Alliance. I don't mean they're harder or more hardcore, I mean punishing - screwing up your shots and leaving your soldiers open to counterattack has a very good chance of getting them killed. Losing more than one unit this way can doom an entire mission or even your entire campaign. That's because XCOM doesn't simulate messy, chaotic firefights; XCOM is a puzzle game where a missed shot is the result of bad planning and bad tactics and should be punished.

In Jagged Alliance, a missed shot or an entire round of missed shots is not the result of bad tactics. It's an expected part of the gameplay loop, and the game is designed to benefit from that being part of the experience. Part of this design is that the player is not punished as severely for these misses.

Now, do you hate messy fights where you don't have perfect control? Do you not like that gameplay? That's totally fine, it's a matter of taste. But it means you don't like Jagged Alliance. Maybe you like a fanmade mod that fundamentally changes the gameplay design principles, but you don't like Jagged Alliance games themselves, and you're only banging your head against the wall expecting Jagged Alliance to become something it's never been in order to fulfill your unfounded expectations.

You are dead right. XCOM et al are doing exactly that - hence my reference to chess. In fact this reminds me an old game, Incubation, which on the face value was a turn based strategy/tactical game. But it really was the puzzle game Xcom et al are like spiritual descendants - you had to solve the puzzle. Don't get me wrong, I like these games, I play/played a lot of it and enjoyed it. But once again, its not JA and not what I want from JA3. 

[Godzilla]

9 hours ago, Stuurminator said:

I'm probably wasting my time, but fine, here's one.

Combat in the Jagged Alliance series, as a whole, simulates firefights. Firefights are chaotic and unpredictable, because you never know for sure if a shot is going to land. Jagged Alliance ups the unpredictability by making bullets less lethal than in real life, so even if you land a shot, you almost never kill your target unless they're already wounded. The result of this is that you never know how a round is going to go.

Games with visible CtH, like the new XCOMs, aren't trying to capture that unpredictability. In fact, they may deliberately work against it. I've got a hot take that most of this forum will disagree with: the new XCOMs are more punishing than Jagged Alliance. I don't mean they're harder or more hardcore, I mean punishing - screwing up your shots and leaving your soldiers open to counterattack has a very good chance of getting them killed. Losing more than one unit this way can doom an entire mission or even your entire campaign. That's because XCOM doesn't simulate messy, chaotic firefights; XCOM is a puzzle game where a missed shot is the result of bad planning and bad tactics and should be punished.

In Jagged Alliance, a missed shot or an entire round of missed shots is not the result of bad tactics. It's an expected part of the gameplay loop, and the game is designed to benefit from that being part of the experience. Part of this design is that the player is not punished as severely for these misses.

Now, do you hate messy fights where you don't have perfect control? Do you not like that gameplay? That's totally fine, it's a matter of taste. But it means you don't like Jagged Alliance. Maybe you like a fanmade mod that fundamentally changes the gameplay design principles, but you don't like Jagged Alliance games themselves, and you're only banging your head against the wall expecting Jagged Alliance to become something it's never been in order to fulfill your unfounded expectations.

Cool story, unpredictability isnt an argument, and its not even the argument the developers used. They specifically stated that the only reason why they disabled cth which they did have initially (because how do you not have a core feature of all strategies since 2000) was to prevent a certain playstyle.

If you like unpredictability so much then go wear a hankerchief over your eyes, and then things will be truly unpredictable.

Plus you dont gain unpredictability by removing cth, you remove the quality of decisions youre capable of. You will constantly make mistakes you will constantly spend too much AP on a shot that was already high CTH, you will basically fumble every combat encounter.

If I dont see you wearing a hankerchief over your eyes come release time Ill assume youve eaten your words and have agreed with me that not knowing vital information about the combat encounter is extremely stupid and cth is arguably the most important piece of information that you'lleverbhave in JA3.

You're literally saying you want your decisions to be of much worse quality by having no idea what your cth is. And that is the only thing that happens when cth is removed, instead of making good quality choices you end up making terrible choices consistently.

[Taurean]

On 5/9/2023 at 12:07 AM, Stuurminator said:

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.

I disagree. It is not punishment. It increases difficulty by making you have to learn and understand factors that affect chance to hit.

Why do i have to repeat myself all the time?

[DougS2K]

This topic is still going on? I was hoping it would have died by now. There will be no CtH in game. This is what the devs and majority of people want. Get over it already and talk about something else. Someone needs to use their handkerchief to wipe their tears away I think. 

[Solaris_Wave]

10 hours ago, Xeth Nyrrow said:

In what ways does it increase complexity? The devs said it best when they said it changes the game to be about playing the numbers rather than tactics. Also like you said people aren't calculating percentages but are using the number as an easy guide to follow. 50% = coin flip, 66% means hitting 2 out of 3 shots on average. We take the percentages and dumb them down even more in our head to something relatable and decide from there.

I was pointing out that a vague indicator is more basic in appearance than a percentage with a specific number, such as 41%. It is more down to the appearance of complexity, rather than actually being more complex. I probably should have worded it differently and even now, I am not entirely sure I am managing to describe it the way I want to.

Edited May 13, 2023 by Solaris_Wave

[Godzilla]

8 hours ago, Taurean said:

I disagree. It is not punishment. It increases difficulty by making you have to learn and understand factors that affect chance to hit.

Why do i have to repeat myself all the time?

You cant learn or understand them.

You are not going to be busting iut a ruler and running the calculation for cth from stats+ attachments + perks every time you make a shot and I challenge you to.

The point of removing cth is to turn the entire battlefield into a very casual arcade type experience where you dont have certainty of a shot being a hit or not so you can dedicate more or less resources (AP). And Im not even sure its a good solution for that, because its not like youre dedicating more or less ap resources to a certain kind of action and can see what the result will be like an increase in cth, youre just dedicating more resources to an action and guessing hoping that it will work.

at the end of the day the devs made this decision to disincentivize a certain kind of play style, which im not even sure is common or bad.

[Godzilla]

10 hours ago, DougS2K said:

This topic is still going on? I was hoping it would have died by now. There will be no CtH in game. This is what the devs and majority of people want. Get over it already and talk about something else. Someone needs to use their handkerchief to wipe their tears away I think. 

This topic will never be over because a key feature has been removed and theres been no effort to reimplement it.

[DougS2K]

5 hours ago, Godzilla said:

This topic will never be over because a key feature has been removed and theres been no effort to reimplement it.

I'll fix this sentence for ya. 

This topic will never be is over because a key feature has been tested and removed and theres been there will be no effort to reimplement it since it had undesirable gameplay mechanics and doesn't stay true to the series and how it plays, nor is it what the majority of the player base wants.

[Xeth Nyrrow]

13 hours ago, Solaris_Wave said:

I was pointing out that a vague indicator is more basic in appearance than a percentage with a specific number, such as 41%. It is more down to the appearance of complexity, rather than actually being more complex. I probably should have worded it differently and even now, I am not entirely sure I am managing to describe it the way I want to.

I think I understand what you're saying by the appearance of complexity. A lot of games do that like adding a bunch of features that actually do the same thing in different ways but really are only 2 choices not many.

But that doesn't make sense in the context of CtH showing or not so maybe not? Without CtH the player is supposed to calculate these things mentally and decide if it's, "good enough" to take the shot. Range, cover, environment, gear, skill of a merc are all considered then estimated. Good players will do well, bad players won't. Showing CtH removes all this player skill and reduces the decision to if that number is, "good enough". There are of course other tactical factors of skill like enemy positioning, amount left, condition of your team, etc. But those are shared regardless of CtH showing or not.

[DonBilbo]

I watched a lot of the streams and really liked how differently players made their decisions on whether or not to take a shot and how much AP they put in, which led to very interesting situations and outcomes. I've seen shots that were at the far end of the range with only the base amount of AP put in on the opponent's head! (I wonder what kind of CTH that would have been?) And every now and then such shots hit.
I can't imagine that the same player would have taken that shot if there had been a CTH of 5% there. So it really creates a different style of play, which in my eyes is also better and ultimately more enjoyable. Also, you don't get annoyed about 90% misses and primarily just take the option with the highest percentage. That sounds a lot like min/max gaming and I think it's better that the game is designed in such a way that you don't always have to take only the shots with the highest CTH.
I think it's very good that the developers have made this decision and are sticking to it.
I still hope that all those who miss CTH will give the game a chance and try it out. Maybe you will be positively surprised. 

[Godzilla]

13 hours ago, DougS2K said:

I'll fix this sentence for ya. 

This topic will never be is over because a key feature has been tested and removed and theres been there will be no effort to reimplement it since it had undesirable gameplay mechanics and doesn't stay true to the series and how it plays, nor is it what the majority of the player base wants.

You keep on being upset but you know Im right

Edited May 14, 2023 by Godzilla

[Godzilla]

11 hours ago, DonBilbo said:

I watched a lot of the streams and really liked how differently players made their decisions on whether or not to take a shot and how much AP they put in, which led to very interesting situations and outcomes. I've seen shots that were at the far end of the range with only the base amount of AP put in on the opponent's head! (I wonder what kind of CTH that would have been?) And every now and then such shots hit.
I can't imagine that the same player would have taken that shot if there had been a CTH of 5% there. So it really creates a different style of play, which in my eyes is also better and ultimately more enjoyable. Also, you don't get annoyed about 90% misses and primarily just take the option with the highest percentage. That sounds a lot like min/max gaming and I think it's better that the game is designed in such a way that you don't always have to take only the shots with the highest CTH.
I think it's very good that the developers have made this decision and are sticking to it.
I still hope that all those who miss CTH will give the game a chance and try it out. Maybe you will be positively surprised. 

Hello brand new account 😉

Yes yes Ive seen the "youll get annoyed if you miss at 90%" argument. Nobody gets annoyed by missing at 90%. They either reload or accept the bad RNG. Sometimes the RNG is bad, which is fine. Getting annoyed by that is not an argument.

And dont forget youll get even more annoyed without cth because youll nw have encounters where you 1 think youre close enough for a good cth but you arent and you miss not understanding why, and youll also put all your points in aiming and this will have a similar effect if you miss because yiu wouldve thought outting all your ap in aiming will guarantee a good cth but it mightnt because you dont see the cth change, as far as you know for the ENTIRE PLAYTHROUGH youll be outting in tons of ap into aiming and all itll be doing is adding 5% max to cth.

 

at the end of the day cth was removed to disincentivize a certain playstyle byt will have the unintended effect of causing many more poor decisions, not being able to see the difference between weaponsvand mercs at the same range in terms of cth, and not being able to learn which weapon is better which perks are better did a attachment cause a difference in cth etc.

Edited May 14, 2023 by Godzilla