Home » MODDING HQ 1.13 » v1.13 General Development Talk » (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323260] Fri, 26 July 2013 08:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mmm is currently offline mmm

 
Messages:63
Registered:May 2013
Then it seem that making weapon related AP consumption(ready, aim, attack, or even switch target) stance dependent will improve the realism. If not, it will at least offer some options.

The modifiers can be described as take away/add a fixed amount of angular error from/to the shots. They don't work well everywhere, one example would be stability related parameters. Some may be better off to take a percentage modification. Scopes basically work this way, which is ill suited.

The other thing is that NCTH is based on spread radius. That is 70% accurate is 30% spread radius, 90% accurate is 10% spread radius. When the CTH goes up, the difference in final hit probability is just immense. Were it done based on area rather than diameter, it would have been easier to balance. Also it will give the less competent shooters at least some chance.

NCTH was probably pushing too hard to make sure that you have a chance to miss even at close range.

Report message to a moderator

Corporal
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323262] Fri, 26 July 2013 11:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
silversurfer

 
Messages:2793
Registered:May 2009
The less competent shooters have a good chance atm if given a good weapon with the proper attachments. I have Ira on my team and she was not exactly a sharpshooter with her 55 marksmanship but still she hit regularly. Of course she can't compete with my 80+ mercs but that is fine. I have to say that NCTH is the best realistic CTH system I have seen so far. Even my expert sniper with her 90+ marksmanship misses from time to time.

With OCTH none of my IMPs would ever miss assuming the target is seen and there is no tree between shooter and target. Is that realistic? I don't think so.

NCTH needs some tweaking (especially stance usage) to add more variety and usefulness to each gun and weapon category but I don't see a need to drastically change things.

Report message to a moderator

Lieutenant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323264] Fri, 26 July 2013 12:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mmm is currently offline mmm

 
Messages:63
Registered:May 2013
I guess the "proper attachment" means scope, shrinking the spread circle to 1/x is powerful indeed. But I'd better not go there again, it bores everybody out... Actually what I wanted to say is the difference between good and very good is a bit too great. For example, 70% and 90% CTH in area rather than radius would be roughly 3 time hit probability difference. Significant, but realistic amount of difference.

The possibility to miss(but also not impossible to hit) at any distance is presumably the thing that keeps people happy, it's the balance everyone talks about. I'd personally prefer a CTH system with a sound logic, even if it means exponentially increased CTH at closer range. That's realistic too because naturally short range fire fight is more dangerous, managing distance is of great importance. Of course the OCTH is the least preferred.

Stance need tweaking. But I'm afraid the existing modifiers won't suffice. I'd accept limited usefulness of certain weapons.

Oh, one more thing. Targets in prone position aren't really as small as they should be.

[Updated on: Fri, 26 July 2013 14:47] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Corporal
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323266] Fri, 26 July 2013 14:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
silversurfer

 
Messages:2793
Registered:May 2009
Proper attachment also means foregrip and a laser pointer (the longer range the better). Choice of weapon is important too. Give them a weapon that is easy and fast to handle. A Colt Commando is a good choice for poor marksmanship mercs for example.

Report message to a moderator

Lieutenant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323268] Fri, 26 July 2013 15:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mmm is currently offline mmm

 
Messages:63
Registered:May 2013
Can't say I familiar with the autofire CTH mechanism. But I do use foregrip whenever possible.

The working principle behind the projection factor is very similar to scopemagfactor. And it's even harder for me to understand why it should work the way it does. Maybe it was to retain laser's role as a generic accuracy boost in OCTH. But as I stated above, laser in the real world is generally either useful for night fight with some possible drawback, or useful for firing from non stand position i.e. hip fire. So I think such setting is all about "balance".

BTW, scopes are really screwed up in night fight.

And believe it or not, scopes(and lasers) does help you to stabilize your weapons. Let's say x point of handling value gives you 4

Report message to a moderator

Corporal
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323272] Fri, 26 July 2013 18:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
silversurfer

 
Messages:2793
Registered:May 2009
Handling has nothing to do with magnification.

It affects your base CTH and the aiming CTH.

A Colt M4 Commando will do so by -6 percent to base and -2,25 to aiming.
The G41A2 applies -32 percent to base and -12 percent to aiming.

At 23 tiles my standing test merc gets 64 CTH vs. 59 or 43,31 aperture size vs. 59,16 with non-pimped weapons.

Handling is unimportant? I don't think so. Especially for low skill mercs every point counts. It could be even more important if the stance based modifiers were used in the XMLs.

Report message to a moderator

Lieutenant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323286] Sat, 27 July 2013 02:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mmm is currently offline mmm

 
Messages:63
Registered:May 2013
Well, the significance of handling is greatly affected by the magnification. I'll basically just repeat myself, to make sure I made myself clear.

Yes, handling affects the CTH, base and cap. The "CTH" number is basically the percentage of radius you shaved off from the outer aperture. And the outer aperture is shrunk by the scopemagfactor. For the same amount of CTH difference produced by handling, it's impact on accuracy is really proportionally reduced by magnification.

Quote:
At 23 tiles my standing test merc gets 64 CTH vs. 59 or 43,31 aperture size vs. 59,16 with non-pimped weapons.


Didn't quite get the second part. I'll assume it's the size in terms of dispersion area. Again, you're the coder, you have the access to the debug info and the actual formula. I'm just relying on the observation and dumbed down(maybe outdated) version of the formula. You're more than welcome to clear up any of my misconceptions.

Then it didn't exactly match my conjecture((36/41)

[Updated on: Sat, 27 July 2013 12:07] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Corporal
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323380] Sun, 28 July 2013 20:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
silversurfer

 
Messages:2793
Registered:May 2009
Let's assume for a moment that we drop this whole magnification division (no matter where the divisor came from - scope, target or laser pointer). What exactly should scopes and pointers affect and how do we ensure usefulness of scopes and pointers?

Here is a list of what shooting modifiers we have at the moment:

  • AP used
  • BP used

    Initial Target Aquisition:
  • BaseChance by skills
  • BaseChance by fixed bonus from weapon and attachments
  • BaseModifier by effects on the shooter (injury, moral, drugs etc.)
  • BaseModifier by weapon handling (partly stance specific)
  • BaseModifier by target influence (shooting at same target, height difference, invisible target etc.)

    Aiming at target:
  • AimCap by skills
  • AimCap by traits
  • AimCap by fixed bonus from weapon and attachments
  • AimModifier by effects on the shooter (injury, moral, drugs etc.)
  • AimModifier by weapon handling (partly stance specific)
  • AimModifier by traits
  • AimModifier by target influence (height difference, invisible target etc.)
  • AimModifier penalty for using a scope below optimal range
  • AimBonus per aimclick by fixed bonus
All of the above form muzzle sway, something that somehow represented CTH in the old CTH system.


Here comes modifiers that influence the point where the bullet will go.
  • Magnification Factor at target range <- this is what we want to get rid of or at least use it differently
  • Muzzle Sway - a random point in our aperture where the bullet will go
  • Movement Offset - deviation because of target movement and the try to compensate; according to dinglehopper scope magnification factor should have a big influence on this
  • Recoil - only interesting in burst and autofire
  • Range Compensation if target is out of gun range
  • Bullet Deviation - depends on gun accuracy and target/gun range ratio
  • target facing penalty - shooting at a target from the side is more difficult than from front or back because the possible hit area is smaller
I hope I didn't forget anything important.

Report message to a moderator

Lieutenant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323407] Mon, 29 July 2013 05:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mmm is currently offline mmm

 
Messages:63
Registered:May 2013
uh, actually I prefer none of them. In my vision sights of all forms, be it iron, reflex, telescopic, laser, will be error producing rather than reducing(hopefully that's an easier to understand way to describe it). The difference lies in the amount of error. However the amount is the inherent property of the sight(dot size, reticle thickness+magnification, etc), which is unaffected by the shooter's skill. So it would be like the naccuracy stat... Or maybe a fixed amount of CTH difference if the maximum aperture is constant under all situation. Although I do believe we'll need to use the aperture divisor for something(if not as a replacement for handling), and probably in another way. Otherwise the game will be unplayable. Maybe it's good to consider not to provide the full divisor at low level of aiming?

But I could foresee a few possible problem with such implementation. To let anyone less than prefect to have a reasonable hit probability at sniping distance without raising the overall accuracy too much(DEGREES_MAXIMUM_APERTURE), bipod/resting will have to provide a large stability boost, at least something similar to current 2x~3x scope(but the bonus may be better to be somewhat base weapon independent, a CQBR with bipod is not necessarily much more stable than a heavier sniper rifle, especially consider the extra stable stock, cheek rest, light trigger pull etc). It will be rather powerful, and it will force people to drop to the ground if they want to hit anything(which is realistic). Those who hate to do so will complain. And if the stability required to hit target afar is provided through resting, hitting targets up close will be dramatically easier, since I don't think applying accuracy penalty to closer target is the way to go. It will be reasonable to penalize the speed though, but the options are limited now, the difference will still be somewhat limited too.

[Updated on: Mon, 29 July 2013 19:39] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Corporal
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323549] Thu, 01 August 2013 23:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
LootFragg is currently offline LootFragg

 
Messages:349
Registered:August 2009
Location: Berlin, Germany
I think most stuff that makes me a bit unhappy about shooting in JA2 is data related, so that doesn't matter here. One thing I would like to see changed code-wise, however, is how aiming APs are calculated. Shooting has originally been a process that takes the same time for Speedy McFast and Crawly McWheelchair. While the former has more APs, he also consumes more APs when firing his gun so both can perform the same regardless of AP difference when not moving but shooting.

However, aiming APs are flat and therefore, a fast merc will have more time to aim than a slow one. This needs to be based on a merc's initial APs to prevent high AGI mercs from outperforming others on the shooting field.

Edit: Also, I have been thinking about the discussion about scopes but I am too tired to understand the details, so I won't contribute yet.

[Updated on: Thu, 01 August 2013 23:43] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323556] Fri, 02 August 2013 11:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
silversurfer

 
Messages:2793
Registered:May 2009
I was wondering - since there is probably nobody willing/able to do a complete rework of NCTH and incorporate some of the suggestions made here, how about easing the pain a little with iron sight shooting? Some say that scoped shooting is overpowered compared to iron sights. I won't agree that scoped shooting is overpowered, for me it works fine with stock 1.13. What I have to agree is that iron sight shooting sucks. So instead of making scopes less useful how about making iron sights more useful?

I'm already working on a percentage bonus for the shooting aperture when iron sights are used. It's a bit complicated because there is no "iron sight" in game. We only have magnification 1x that we use as iron sight. Unfortunately this also applies to shooting from hip. So if I modify the shooting aperture it will make iron sight and hip shooting more powerful. Anybody thinks that this will be a problem?

Another question is whether to modify the basic aperture or the final aperture. I'm leaning towards basic aperture at the moment. It's like modifying DEGREES_MAXIMUM_APERTURE for iron sights. I want to limit the values of the modifier from -50 to 50 percent.
-50 means that you will double your aperture for iron sight shots. Nobody probably wants that but we need to have a lower limit. Wink
50 means half the aperture making iron sights basically as powerful as a 2x scope.
The default will be 0 which means no change.

I still have to figure out how to use lasers. Lasers have a magnification factor just like scopes (actually projection factor but it is used like magnification). You could end up with more accurate shots with iron sights only vs. iron sights + laser. That's not what I want. So I guess that I will have to introduce another modifier for lasers just like the one for iron sights. Laser projection factor will then only be used to calculate the effective range of the laser. I could make light level influence that... We'll see.

Do people use lasers for scoped shooting? I guess not. So I will probably make lasers only apply to shots that are done with magnification 1x. That means iron sights, shooting from hip and using reflex sights. Makes sense?


LootFragg
I think most stuff that makes me a bit unhappy about shooting in JA2 is data related, so that doesn't matter here. One thing I would like to see changed code-wise, however, is how aiming APs are calculated. Shooting has originally been a process that takes the same time for Speedy McFast and Crawly McWheelchair. While the former has more APs, he also consumes more APs when firing his gun so both can perform the same regardless of AP difference when not moving but shooting.

However, aiming APs are flat and therefore, a fast merc will have more time to aim than a slow one.


This has probably been discussed a million times already. As far as I understand the concept of game turns everybody has exactly the same time available. It doesn't matter if merc A or merc B shoots a gun, the percentage of time used is the same for both. The question is - can the more nimble merc aim faster? I guess not. Better shooters already outperform bad shooters. They don't need to apply so many aim clicks to achieve the same hit probability. This makes them "faster" shooters because they don't need to spend so much time aiming.

Report message to a moderator

Lieutenant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323557] Fri, 02 August 2013 11:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Gambigobilla

 
Messages:693
Registered:July 2008
I think problem with NTCH is every so often a guy tried to modify NTCH code but Headrock came and said "GTFO, my code!". We have not much coders, most of them doesn't want to mess with the NTCH code and most of the remaining is downed by Headrock. But it's about time to change things. Headrock is no more and if he ever comes back punch him in the face, put in an oil barrel, and dump in the ocean. So i'd say if you have ideas about the code don't hesitate, do it as you please, yet more go medieval! You can't break which is already broken.

Report message to a moderator

First Sergeant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323560] Fri, 02 August 2013 12:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot is currently offline DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3658
Registered:July 2009
Gambigobilla
I think problem with NTCH is every so often a guy tried to modify NTCH code but Headrock came and said "GTFO, my code!". We have not much coders, most of them doesn't want to mess with the NTCH code and most of the remaining is downed by Headrock. But it's about time to change things. Headrock is no more and if he ever comes back punch him in the face, put in an oil barrel, and dump in the ocean. So i'd say if you have ideas about the code don't hesitate, do it as you please, yet more go medieval! You can't break which is already broken.
We have a saying: If you don't know what you're talking about, just say nothing for once.
What you are referring to is one incident where a coder who, while having done a lot of good for the 1.13 project, was also notorious for "improving" other people's code made some hackjob "improvements" to NCTH while merging it into the trunk. Afair the stuff went against the concept and was largely redundant to existing modifiers so it was reasonable to revert it with HAM5.

Report message to a moderator

Captain

Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323567] Fri, 02 August 2013 21:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Flugente

 
Messages:3509
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
Not going to go into NCTH, but testing for 'iron sights' is easy - if scopemodes are used, check wether iron sight is currently used. Else its iron sight if no scopes/sights are attached, an if not in hip-firing mode.

Report message to a moderator

Captain

Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323568] Fri, 02 August 2013 21:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
silversurfer

 
Messages:2793
Registered:May 2009
DepressivesBrot

What you are referring to is one incident where a coder who, while having done a lot of good for the 1.13 project, was also notorious for "improving" other people's code made some hackjob "improvements" to NCTH while merging it into the trunk. Afair the stuff went against the concept and was largely redundant to existing modifiers so it was reasonable to revert it with HAM5.


I hope that I don't share the same fate... Wink

Actually usage of my changes will be voluntary. I'm testing with two modifiers in CTHConstants.ini at the moment:

1. IRON_SIGHT_PERFORMANCE_BONUS will apply a percentage bonus to the basic aperture as long as you don't use a scope. A value of 10.0 will shrink your aperture by 10 percent. I still need to find a good value for balancing in stock 1.13 but 10 percent is already a noticeable improvement.

2. LASER_PERFORMANCE_BONUS will apply a percentage bonus to the basic aperture as long as you use a laser but no scope. This is meant to improve iron sight and hip based shooting with lasers.
This modifier is affected by distance to target. As long as the distance is smaller than the laser has its full potential. If the distance is between maxLaserRange (this is calculated based on light level) and the laser is less effective.

LASER_PERFORMANCE_BONUS is also directly affected by light level. This is supposed to represent the fact that the laser dot is easier to see when the target is in the dark. When the target is in bright light you only get a small fraction of the bonus.
I know that this last part could probably be moved somewhere else in the NCTH code to influence something different (target tracking maybe?). But I will leave it here for the moment.

With this code is not used anymore to alter the aperture directly. This is now the job of LASER_PERFORMANCE_BONUS.

The code will only come active if USE_NEW_CTH_CALCULATION is set TRUE in Ja2_Options.ini (should be the default).
The defaults for both modifiers will be 0.0 which means no change to the current code behaviour. Modders that have balanced NCTH by other means (XML tinkering, item attachments etc.) should leave the modifiers at their default value to not break the balancing of the mod.

If I find the time during the next days I will test some more and hand in the changed code. We'll see if players like the changes.


edit:
Flugente
Not going to go into NCTH, but testing for 'iron sights' is easy - if scopemodes are used, check wether iron sight is currently used. Else its iron sight if no scopes/sights are attached, an if not in hip-firing mode.

Maybe I should only use the laser bonus for hip firing...
Yes, I think that this makes more sense.

[Updated on: Fri, 02 August 2013 22:04] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Lieutenant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323572] Fri, 02 August 2013 22:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Gambigobilla

 
Messages:693
Registered:July 2008
I have a question, how does the game check if an attachment is a scope, does it check a specific tag and does match sights counts as a scope?

Report message to a moderator

First Sergeant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323573] Fri, 02 August 2013 22:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Flugente

 
Messages:3509
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
It checks its attachment class. Which reminds me, there can also be attachments that grant ironsights. Match sights are sights.

Report message to a moderator

Captain

Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323582] Sat, 03 August 2013 11:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
silversurfer

 
Messages:2793
Registered:May 2009
I'm checking scope magnification factor for my little change. This is set by function GetBestScopeMagnificationFactor( ... ) which also recognizes scope modes btw. As long as the scope mag factor is <= 1.0 I take this as iron sights. I also check for alternative weapon holding now (aka hip-firing) to make sure that the iron sight bonus only applies when you aim via iron sights. Iron sights can also be reflex sights because they provide a 1x scope mag factor.
The laser bonus will also be provided when firing from hip.

Report message to a moderator

Lieutenant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323605] Sat, 03 August 2013 22:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Strohmann is currently offline Strohmann

 
Messages:287
Registered:August 2011
Location: Division Thought Crimes
Quote:
2. LASER_PERFORMANCE_BONUS will apply a percentage bonus to the basic aperture as long as you use a laser but no scope. This is meant to improve iron sight and hip based shooting with lasers.
This modifier is affected by distance to target. As long as the distance is smaller than the laser has its full potential. If the distance is between maxLaserRange (this is calculated based on light level) and the laser is less effective.
Will there be any way the can be displayed in the description box while NCTH is active? I think it would be better to go further and create a new tags in Items.xml for these purposes. Btw i endorse the concept of decoupling laser effectiveness from laser range.

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323608] Sat, 03 August 2013 22:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
silversurfer

 
Messages:2793
Registered:May 2009
is already in items.xml. If I'm not mistaken it was not used at all in NCTH. It was only used for OCTH. Therefore there is no indicator in NCTH. It is only in UDB if OCTH is active so I should also show it in NCTH. Thanks for that hint.

[Updated on: Sat, 03 August 2013 22:41] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Lieutenant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323621] Sun, 04 August 2013 09:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
silversurfer

 
Messages:2793
Registered:May 2009
This laser stuff is giving me a headache. Can someone please enlighten me about laser usage?
I mean there are those Laser Sights (item 241) that have a best range of 100 (which is supposed to be 100 meters) and then there is Rifle LAMs (item 949) that have a best range of 300. Maximum laser range is even higher than that. Who is supposed to see a laser dot at 300m with the naked eye? Even at 100m it will be most unlikely that anyone can spot it. So what is the maximum range that lasers can be used with iron sights and who uses lasers while looking through a scope?

Lasers provide a nice bonus to CTH at the moment which is cool for gameplay purposes but it feels unrealistic to use them at long range. I really need some help here about what to do with lasers.

The old NCTH system which basically made lasers work like scopes was not the best solution. The new way of adding a bonus depending on distance and light level is more to my liking but it still feels wrong. Sad

Report message to a moderator

Lieutenant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323625] Sun, 04 August 2013 12:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Flugente

 
Messages:3509
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
If you stick to 1 tile = 10m, then most lasers would be utterly useless... as would be quite a lot of stuff (grenades fore example).

Report message to a moderator

Captain

Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323634] Sun, 04 August 2013 14:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
silversurfer

 
Messages:2793
Registered:May 2009
So you mean that I should just ignore that tile/meters ratio? Ok. Still the question remains if real shooters use a laser together with a scope. At the moment I allow that laser bonus only with iron sights and hip-firing. Some players might complain about that but if I would allow that laser bonus on top of the scope bonus it would make scopes even more powerful. That's certainly not my intention behind the change. Wink

Report message to a moderator

Lieutenant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323656] Mon, 05 August 2013 00:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
pheloncab is currently offline pheloncab

 
Messages:278
Registered:August 2004
Location: So. Cal. or texas
the issue with Lasers, as well as grenades, chem lights, flares, flare radius and pretty much all that is that the base range from vanilla is 1tile to 10 meters, which means the range for everything ends up unable to be realistic and balanced. Since its a game balance trumps realism so the actual ranges given to items are based on how many tiles needed to make them effective.

Otherwise why does my chemlight get thrown the distance of a football field, and then proceed to light up over a quarter of that same field.

the unfortunate way to 'fix' this is the same.. too big to do at the moment range adjustment that would require big maps.

I think using the tiles not the meters is the best way to 'get along' with the current system.

my 2 cents.

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323750] Wed, 07 August 2013 17:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
LootFragg is currently offline LootFragg

 
Messages:349
Registered:August 2009
Location: Berlin, Germany
silversurfer
LootFragg
I think most stuff that makes me a bit unhappy about shooting in JA2 is data related, so that doesn't matter here. One thing I would like to see changed code-wise, however, is how aiming APs are calculated. Shooting has originally been a process that takes the same time for Speedy McFast and Crawly McWheelchair. While the former has more APs, he also consumes more APs when firing his gun so both can perform the same regardless of AP difference when not moving but shooting.

However, aiming APs are flat and therefore, a fast merc will have more time to aim than a slow one.

This has probably been discussed a million times already. As far as I understand the concept of game turns everybody has exactly the same time available. It doesn't matter if merc A or merc B shoots a gun, the percentage of time used is the same for both. The question is - can the more nimble merc aim faster? I guess not. Better shooters already outperform bad shooters. They don't need to apply so many aim clicks to achieve the same hit probability. This makes them "faster" shooters because they don't need to spend so much time aiming.

As far as I understood it, you said the same thing I said. Running speed has nothing to do with shooting, hence all mercs, regardless of APs, can place the same amount of shots, spend the same time handling their guns. Right? Right. Original concept.

We're not talking about the quality of the shooter, both shooters are exactly alike, only difference is that one is physically fit to run a Marathon and the other one has a leg injury. Difference in AGI only which influences APs. More AGI, more APs, more tiles to run since running costs flat APs. More APs, more shooting cost, because shooting is scaled. This leads to the AGI bonus being ruled out in shooting, everyone shoots the same on snapshots.

Last time I checked (and that's been some time ago, admittedly), aiming APs per click weren't calculated as a percentage of the maximum APs but had a fixed value per aiming click. You can correct me on this one if it doesn't apply anymore. If it still holds true, that means aiming, as opposed to shooting, consumes flat APs (like running does), not dependent on your maximum APs.
And that means, fast runners who have plenty of APs can aim more often than slow mercs with limited APs. Unless of course this has already been revised.

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323752] Wed, 07 August 2013 17:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
LootFragg is currently offline LootFragg

 
Messages:349
Registered:August 2009
Location: Berlin, Germany
By the way, as for distances in the game, I agree with pheloncab. We need to accept unrealistic proportions in JA2 because the game, due to the way it is designed, CANNOT POSSIBLY be turned into a shooting sim. So while it has to be intuitive and kind of balanced, the actual ranges here are relatively unimportant. Judging from the size of the characters, pistols and grenades have a pretty realistic range but everything else is scaled down a lot to fit on the map. Neither 400 tile firefights with 7.62 nor 3 tile firefights with pistols would make much sense as far as gameplay is concerned.

Towards the laser debate, I like the way you're handling this and making lasers a short-range snapshot helper and that light influences the effectiveness. From my personal experience, when you're using a laser module, you're not using sights. You may glance over the sights to align the gun with your sight line but the laser dot already shows you the cross section of the target with the aiming line which is what you'd find out using the sights as well. I don't know if there are cases of low light encounters where it would be useful to combine scope and laser sight but generally, since the laser is adjusted for a small distance to target, hence producing aiming error at larger distances and since your (possibly illuminated) reticle already shows you your aiming line, there is no point in combining them from my point of view. Genuinely interested in how this'll turn out. The most basic approach of limiting the basic aperture sounds like the best one to me.

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323753] Wed, 07 August 2013 18:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
silversurfer

 
Messages:2793
Registered:May 2009
LootFragg

Last time I checked (and that's been some time ago, admittedly), aiming APs per click weren't calculated as a percentage of the maximum APs but had a fixed value per aiming click. You can correct me on this one if it doesn't apply anymore. If it still holds true, that means aiming, as opposed to shooting, consumes flat APs (like running does), not dependent on your maximum APs.
And that means, fast runners who have plenty of APs can aim more often than slow mercs with limited APs. Unless of course this has already been revised.


:wb: Haha, now I understand. You are right. There are fixed values for each aiming click defined in APBPConstants.ini.
Never thought about that design decision and I have to admit that I didn't even notice it ingame. The difference between my fastest merc and the slowest is about 20 points. I always had enough AP to fire at least one fully aimed shot and another slightly less aimed one.
Also I tend to give my less skilled mercs weapons that are faster and easier to handle which helps too.

Report message to a moderator

Lieutenant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323778] Thu, 08 August 2013 13:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
LootFragg is currently offline LootFragg

 
Messages:349
Registered:August 2009
Location: Berlin, Germany
Yes, you instinctively try to avoid that issue because good mercs are good in all stats and bad mercs are just, well. Bad. But there are those slow-as-crap mercs which aren't overly bad in everything else and I personally noticed it when playing with Bull. Bull is among my favourites but he is very slow. So slow indeed that he usually doesn't even reach the firefight before it's over. And when he does, he is really bad with guns as he can neither aim properly nor fire as many bullets as other mercenaries because auto-fire does the same thing and allows for longer bursts only on high AGI mercs.

You end up giving them fast, cheap snapshot guns without autofire or aim requirements. This also counts for old mercs who are still excellent shots apart from not being able to move in line with the young ones. It makes no sense. I believe I've talked about this before once and suggested that AP costs for aiming and bursts (and other shooting related stuff) be calculated as a float value that gets rounded for use in the game. I have forgotten why this was supposed to be complicated. Yet this is among the primary coding requests I'd have, making temp float values for burst & aim AP calculation and making standard turn APs a factor.

But this, together with changing the diagonal movement AP cost modifier towards SqR(2) so that diagonal movement costs only +50% (or +41.421356237%) APs instead of +100%, making movement cost the same for a fixed distance in any direction, counts among the more complicated issues, probably because it affects AI calculations in every way. A shame that what holds us back is ultimately the botched AI.

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323807] Fri, 09 August 2013 00:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Flugente

 
Messages:3509
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
AP costs are, while not as much all over the place as other stuff, still rather untidy. Should you decide to alter the behaviour LootFragg suggested, it might be good to wrap them up in a simple function that also takes a SOLDIERTYPE* as an argument. That way any modification of AP costs depending on max APs can be done just once, while cleaning up the code as well.

However, it would first be necessary to decide which actions should scale and which shouldn't. For example, running should not scale - if you have more AP, you can run longer, as you are quicker/more agile. Aim clicks, as LootFragg pointed out, should scale, as there is no reason why a 80-year old should take longer aiming than a 20-year old if they are equal at shooting.

Report message to a moderator

Captain

Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323810] Fri, 09 August 2013 02:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Hazapuza

 
Messages:262
Registered:February 2009
Location: Finland
You could argue that a highly agile merc can initiate and complete the aiming procedure faster due to quicker reflexes and better fitness. IMHO, a good shot is not necessarily a fast shot, though I'd imagine those usually go pretty much hand in hand. Then again, between two equally skilled shooters, familiarity with the particular weapon design is probably the biggest factor in speed, but since that's not in the game... yet... Razz

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323811] Fri, 09 August 2013 02:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Flugente

 
Messages:3509
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
If we'd scale aiming time, we'd end up scaling everything, at which point APs become meaningless Wink

Familiarity with a gun class or even specific gun is doable (I've done something somewhat similar with corruption), though I don't think the game would benefit from it. All mercs would end up using the guns they'd use anyway, effectively punishing you every time you use other weapons.

Report message to a moderator

Captain

Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #323812] Fri, 09 August 2013 02:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot is currently offline DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3658
Registered:July 2009
For a rather "normal" playthrough, that depends a lot on how long you starve the player off better weapons, how fast familiarity changes and how big the bonuses are. (Blackwater 150M$ players won't care o/c)
There might be a variation of those numbers under which it's worthwhile to stick with ye olde AK until you really find something worth the breakup. I too doubt we'd find those numbers though.

Report message to a moderator

Captain

Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #324437] Thu, 29 August 2013 10:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
dzidek1983

 
Messages:92
Registered:June 2009
my opinnion after testing NCTH yesterday on 4870

Buzz missed a guy with a 10 bullet aimed burst from 5 tiles in Drassen
she missed all shots
ice being an auto weapon expert also had some problems
i gave them assault weapons from higher level mercs, they were healthy and rested
weapons even had the 2x scope

Buzz from like 5 tiles missed all 10 bullets they just all curved right from the target like there was som serious wind blowing she was shotting north so i could see exactly how they curve
she aimed perfectly in the middle, used the mouse scroll, so the inner circle was perfectly on the enemy torso

similar thing with ice, i aimed nicely and did a 5 bullet auto fire
now this is trickier... once he hit all 5 bullets and the second time all 5 flew in differnt directions around the enemy like he was holdinfg a 200 lb cannon and the weapon took over control over the shooters ability (strength) to hold it in line

Report message to a moderator

Corporal 1st Class
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #324438] Thu, 29 August 2013 11:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Shadow21 is currently offline Shadow21

 
Messages:328
Registered:November 2001
Location: on route to San Hermanos
at this range a two power scope i a hindrance take it of and it should work better. thats at least what if experienced

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #324439] Thu, 29 August 2013 12:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
dzidek1983

 
Messages:92
Registered:June 2009
the problem is you dont decide at witch distance the enemies pop up...

and franly the system works a bit to "linear" in my opinion cos when a bad dude pops around the corner a experienced soldier wont look at him through the scope as it would take to long and would, as you mentioned, be a hindrance...

i think when you take unaimed shots at point black (or in this case any unaimed shot) the game should never calculate optics bonuses/negatives "to-hit"

it would resemble you just poping a burst at a large target close

all those scopes, lasers, etc, should never be added to a non aimed shot

so Ice and Buzz at 5 tiles range would only depend on base weapon stats and own skills

Report message to a moderator

Corporal 1st Class
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #324440] Thu, 29 August 2013 12:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot is currently offline DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3658
Registered:July 2009
They aren't, but you are doing aimed shots by your own admission.

Report message to a moderator

Captain

Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #324441] Thu, 29 August 2013 13:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
dzidek1983

 
Messages:92
Registered:June 2009
ok so if i did unaimed shots they wouldnt be counted in and the scope would not give negative values?

Report message to a moderator

Corporal 1st Class
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #324442] Thu, 29 August 2013 13:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
silversurfer

 
Messages:2793
Registered:May 2009
dzidek1983

i think when you take unaimed shots at point black (or in this case any unaimed shot) the game should never calculate optics bonuses/negatives "to-hit"

it would resemble you just poping a burst at a large target close

all those scopes, lasers, etc, should never be added to a non aimed shot


Scope modes have been implemented for this reason. At short range you can select iron sights or a reflex sight or shoot from hip. When shooting from hip scopes apply no penalty because you don't aim through optics.
Headrock decided that scopes should apply half the normal scope penalty when using iron sights or other 1x optics. That was probably to simulate the fact that the scope is "in the way". I'm not so sure if that should really be the case but I'm no expert in gun optics.

Lasers should apply to non aimed shots (and they do) because they show you where your gun is pointed.

Report message to a moderator

Lieutenant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #324472] Fri, 30 August 2013 07:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
dinglehopper is currently offline dinglehopper

 
Messages:134
Registered:January 2008
I know more than a few things about shooting with scope mounted weapons. You are not going to like what I have to say though.

With most firearms, if it has a scope mounted then the irons are not usable. At all! And it is much harder to acquire and fire at a target that is close using a scoped gun.

Many modern firearms actually allow for the easy removal of the irons so that they do not get in the way of a scope or red dot or whatever you decide to use to acquire targets.

There are actually scopes designed to allow red dots to be attached to them in order to solve the ranging problems of scopes. These are not a clean solution though. They give your gun a higher profile, making it much easier for enemies to spot you. They also force you to fire with the gun in a slightly awkward position when using the red dot.

Lasers do not make quick firing from the hip just as easy as if you are aiming down the sights. In other words they should not negate the penalty. Take your laser pen out in the day sometime and from your hip light things up at distnces from 5 to 50 feet. Now swing around a corner, pick a target in that range and see how long it takes you to get your pointer on the target, if you can even see the pointer. It is slightly easier at night. Despite what Hollywood shows, lasers work best when used while aiming down the sights, this is because the sights give you a great point of reference and if the laser is there it provides some assurance you are on target. In fact lasers are moving more and more into the nonvisible spectrums so that you have to use a scope to see them. Since you should be looking through a scope when using laser the military figures making it required is a small price for making it harder for the intended target to see the laser. Many of the lasers in mods are supposed to be these sorts of lasers. Anything with IR or UV in the name or description is for sure not a visible laser without a scope.

Just my 2 cent.

Report message to a moderator

Sergeant
Re: (Potential) NCTH Code Change Discussion[message #324485] Fri, 30 August 2013 12:22 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
pheloncab is currently offline pheloncab

 
Messages:278
Registered:August 2004
Location: So. Cal. or texas
oh, and don't forget.. 5 tiles is 50 meters or more than 150 feet, which while not far is still far enough to cause accuracy issues.

I think the penalties are probably still a bit unbalanced, they probably need to be a more graduated scaling.
I always figured acquisition of the target with a high powered scope would be more of the issue than actual accuracy since once you have the target correctly in the field of view, and if you properly account for the ballistics involved (drop, wind etc). then the higher power should not matter or be a benefit.. being able to pick which button your shooting at or the pen in the guys pocket etc. as opposed to kinda sorta the right side of body mass...

Report message to a moderator

Master Sergeant
Previous Topic: [request] (female) russian (and/or other) IMP-Speech-files
Next Topic: HOW DO I GET THE 7623 EXE TO ACTUALLY RUN WITH SVN CHECKOUT 7623
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Mar 28 10:18:25 GMT+2 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03784 seconds