Home » FULL CONTROL GAMES » #JAFDEV Tactical Layer » Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)
Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320555] Fri, 24 May 2013 15:36 Go to next message
Jimmious

 
Messages:10
Registered:March 2007
Location: Greece
So, if we know one new gameplay feature for sure, it's a "better" depiction and use of cover.
I am wondering how this will be achieved!
For example, when in cover will some bodyparts be unavailable to aim at? (eg when behind a short wall, "body" and "legs" won't be aimable)
Or will the cover simply decrease aiming percentages? (That I find a bit too simplistic for a JA game, unless we're talking about a bush or something - also that would make the game a "run-from cover to cover" game like the latest XCOM, not that it's bad but it's certainly different than JA2)

Let me see opinions here Smile

[Updated on: Fri, 24 May 2013 15:37] by Moderator

Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320557] Fri, 24 May 2013 15:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Shanga

 
Messages:3559
Registered:January 2000
Location: Danubia
I think for a 3D game, there should be no "shortcuts" for this. Cover should be both influenced by trajectory and by material resistance. Aka if you hide behind a thin hay ballot, some bullets WILL get to you. I am not a gun expert or material resistance engineer, but that's common sense.

When cover is penetrable, you should be able to aim at any body part (as if it was no object in between), but the bullet velocity and damage should be reduced accordingly.

[Updated on: Fri, 24 May 2013 15:49] by Moderator



Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320567] Fri, 24 May 2013 16:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jimmious

 
Messages:10
Registered:March 2007
Location: Greece
True about any cover that is penetrable, but what about it being that but also not "see-through"?
Like maybe a wooden door?
I mean you can "guess" the rest of the body but certainly not exactly aim at it..

Generally I'm interested to know how FC will approach this issue as I believe in a detailed combat engine like JA2's it's a tricky subject.

And I really hope it won't be just "no cover - half cover - full cover" Smile
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320570] Fri, 24 May 2013 16:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3807
Registered:July 2009
I really liked the SS system where you had a standing 'ghost' for all suspected enemies and could just burst at and hope to hit (in the process likely chewing up the door, the sofa on the wall opposite the door and said wall)


Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320572] Fri, 24 May 2013 16:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JP'TR

 
Messages:104
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
If you see the enemy, you should be able to aim at all bodyparts, Head, Body, Legs, like in JA2.
Even if the Merc is not seeing them (the targeted bodyparts), if you see just one part of a Body you can imagine where the rest is.

I would like this should be also possible (the aiming at all bodyparts), if the Cover is not penetrable, so you have self to think about whats possible and whats not, regarding to the weapon/caliber. Smile

In JA2, the Enemy allways was going dark red (i think it was, colorblind..) if your Merc was not able to see the part you shoot, that was a good way to show, that your Merc is not viewing the target, and has to make a blinshoot, with some aim penalties. At all i liked the old system in this points.

[Updated on: Fri, 24 May 2013 16:31] by Moderator

Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320573] Fri, 24 May 2013 16:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Shanga

 
Messages:3559
Registered:January 2000
Location: Danubia
Agreed, that's what I like about FC saying they're gonna use much of the good stuff JA2 had, with the improvements allowed by Unity's modern engine.


Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320575] Fri, 24 May 2013 16:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2028
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
Shanga
When cover is penetrable, you should be able to aim at any body part (as if it was no object in between), but the bullet velocity and damage should be reduced accordingly.

NACK. As Jimmi said, since you cannot see the e.g. legs you cannot aim at them; you may aim low and take a guess, where a knee may be and shoot a burst trying to hit the legs - but you cannot aim at a leg.

So aiming and hitting should be a different pair of shoes (if feasible with engine and complexity of game). IMHO.
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320577] Fri, 24 May 2013 16:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JP'TR

 
Messages:104
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
Sam_Hotte

..you cannot aim at them; you may aim low and take a guess, where a knee may be and shoot a burst trying to hit the legs - but you cannot aim at a leg.


Why can i not aim at your leg, if i dont see it? If i see your arm coming out behind a door i can aim at your leg, i know where legs are at a body, even if i dont see it.
For that reason you have aiming penalties, and the aimcircle is getting larger/skill related.
There would be no point to prevent me from aiming at your leg if i want to try that. Razz

I playd Egoshooters a lot, and aiming at things you don't see is differ in the players skills. i want my Merc to be able to do that too!

[Updated on: Fri, 24 May 2013 16:45] by Moderator

Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320578] Fri, 24 May 2013 16:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Shanga

 
Messages:3559
Registered:January 2000
Location: Danubia
Well it comes down to showing an outline when target is behind cover (without any body part indicator) and showing actual bodyparts when he's not behind cover. With an outline you can still "aim" at legs, but your shouldn't be able to focus APs to hit specifically legs if hidden. Would count as an un-aimed shot. While shooting at the head or whatever body part is in the open would allow you to do a fully aimed shot.


Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320581] Fri, 24 May 2013 16:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JP'TR

 
Messages:104
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
So he mean you can take the legs as target but you can not aim, yes thats a different, that makes sense ofc.

edit: But still, you can give more effort in trying to shoot at the legs you don't see, what brings back the possibilty to aim for me, with more APs you can use.
It should be calculated by blindfire penalties in the chance to hit.

[Updated on: Fri, 24 May 2013 16:53] by Moderator

Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320582] Fri, 24 May 2013 16:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2028
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
Voyevoda
Sam_Hotte

..you cannot aim at them; you may aim low and take a guess, where a knee may be and shoot a burst trying to hit the legs - but you cannot aim at a leg.


Why can i not aim at your leg, if i dont see it? If i see your arm coming out behind a door i can aim at your leg, i know where legs are at a body, even if i dont see it.


No, you don't know this, you can just take a (more or less educated) guess.

Exaggerated example: If you just see my arm, you cannot know that I am standing just on one leg ...

Quote:
There would be no point to prevent me from aiming at your leg if i want to try that. Razz

that's what I was trying to say: you do not aim at a leg, but to the area in which you expect the legs to be.

Edit:
So in terms of implementing this in game you'd need something like this:
Assuming targeting body parts was done as in JA2 by moving any sort of reticule over target's body and it will show "head", "right arm" or such.
If legs were to be concealed by penetrable cover, moving the reticule over there would not show you "legs", but you'd have to do something to force shooting there (like right clicking to bring up targeting cursor in JA2). on doing this, you could still hit a leg depending on luck, experience of merc etc.

[Updated on: Fri, 24 May 2013 17:03] by Moderator

Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320583] Fri, 24 May 2013 16:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JP'TR

 
Messages:104
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
Sam_Hotte
you do not aim at a leg, but to the area in which you expect the legs to be.


I got your point, but still i say i aim at your leg!, i think myself the lines of your body behind whatever and woudl try to give an most exact shot in that position, where i figured out your leg would be. If you stand on one leg your arm would be shacking. Razz
If you are not aiming, you are spraying, but skilled players aim. If it works in a Shooter, why not in real? The view is the same.

In the end the crowd is calling me a wallhacker, but thats the way it works.

[Updated on: Fri, 24 May 2013 17:03] by Moderator

Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320586] Fri, 24 May 2013 16:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
gdalf

 
Messages:89
Registered:May 2013
Whatever happens, they better not use the XCOM:EU model of adding percentages based on half cover or full cover + destructible environments that were either there or not there... that was horrible.

A typical assault rifle can penetrate a small tree trunk (eg pine trees) easily... obviously the bullet slows down a bit going through and it would be interesting to see if they can model this based on the thickness and resistance factor of your cover, both of which deteriorate under concentrated fire (rather than say fixed values like concrete=0% penetration; wood=50% penetration; glass=100% penetration or some similarly simplified mechanic). Rather the resistance factor combined with thickness gives you a value about how much the bullet slowed down, and consequently the damage it can inflict. And both decrease with every hit they take. Then you can do interesting things with destructible environments eg. bullet proof glass (which has its limits!), thin prefab concrete being chewed up by MG fire, etc

The second consideration would be profile - e.g. a thin tree provides you next to no cover at all, a thick tree provides very little effectively, but hide behind a redwood and you're pretty safe. This will be very complex in synching the graphics with the mechanic so that you could hide behind a broken down wall with some exposure, or good use of trenches, even street curbs or similar. But it would be great if they can work in a mechanic that allows profile to deteriorate under heavy fire too, so you can't hide behind a fallen tree and be safe forever. Movement then becomes much more important and you can't set up a fixed killzone and watch your enemies run into your sights.

The BF series had some of this but it was heavily simplified - some things were destructible, and others weren't. You just had to play the maps endlessly to know which was and wasn't, but it was nice to see that previously 'safe' perches become death traps with a nice RPG in hand Smile
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320587] Fri, 24 May 2013 16:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3807
Registered:July 2009
Sam_Hotte
No, you don't know this, you can just take a (more or less educated) guess.
Exaggerated example: If you just see my arm, you cannot know that I am standing just on one leg ...

Ultimately, we are fighting soldiers/commandos/militias/mercenaries/... all of whom will use reasonably predictable stances and not hop around like a ballerina with one leg tucked behind the ear.

[Updated on: Fri, 24 May 2013 17:02] by Moderator



Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320591] Fri, 24 May 2013 17:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
gdalf

 
Messages:89
Registered:May 2013
DepressivesBrot
Sam_Hotte
No, you don't know this, you can just take a (more or less educated) guess.
Exaggerated example: If you just see my arm, you cannot know that I am standing just on one leg ...

Ultimately, we are fighting soldiers/commandos/militias/mercenaries/... all of whom will use reasonably predictable stances and not hop around like a ballerina with one leg tucked behind the ear.

One thing I can't stand about Hollywood movies is when "soldiers" fire with their elbows stuck out perpendicularly from their bodies - it was practically the first thing I learned in basic training - DO NOT INCREASE YOUR PROFILE UNNECESSARILY YOU DUMMY. Do American soldiers really all do that or are Hollywood 'military' advisers all incompetent?
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320592] Fri, 24 May 2013 17:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jimmious

 
Messages:10
Registered:March 2007
Location: Greece
HAHAHAHA
Still if they're so good they might use that technique to avoid being shot behind cover Razz
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320594] Fri, 24 May 2013 17:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Shanga

 
Messages:3559
Registered:January 2000
Location: Danubia
Well I've read this article a while ago about the funds Pentagon showers Hollywood with when it comes to portraying the US Army in movies (Top Gun type of movies, not Apocalypse Now kind). And they do scrutiny the script a lot, but I bet their only interest is in making it a good recruitment poster, not educating the masses about the correct stance. Otherwise we would've never had Rambo, would we?


Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320596] Fri, 24 May 2013 17:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2028
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
DepressivesBrot
Sam_Hotte
No, you don't know this, you can just take a (more or less educated) guess.
Exaggerated example: If you just see my arm, you cannot know that I am standing just on one leg ...

Ultimately, we are fighting soldiers/commandos/militias/mercenaries/... all of whom will use reasonably predictable stances and not hop around like a ballerina with one leg tucked behind the ear.


I hoped that writing explicitly "exaggerated" would help in telling that I was utilizing exaggeration as a mean of explanation.

Even without exaggeration, you would still have to assume that I stand with spread legs (or not).
You cannot bring your optics in line with my e.g. knee because you do not see the knee. You can aim at the spot on the wall where you expect my knee to be.

Sorry, I am unable to explain in another way what I meant.
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320598] Fri, 24 May 2013 17:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3807
Registered:July 2009
I can still aim at that assumed spot. I'll hit with a 80% and then there's say a 60% chance that your knee was actually there, giving me about a coinflip of hitting your knee.
You are nitpicking semantics with your 'aiming at knee' vs 'aiming at the most likely location of your knee'


Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320599] Fri, 24 May 2013 17:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JP'TR

 
Messages:104
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
Example: You are running in PANIC Razz in a door into a hut without windows, 3 meters inside, you get killed with one single headshot, what happend?

A luckshot?
Or did someone maybe followed your path with a good calculated aiming and give an very exact shot?

Yes, turnbased is different, and without a "ghost" like DepressivesBrot exapmled it, you can't shoot invisible people, but with that bodypart thing its exactly the same.
I would be sad about if my Mercs can not do what i could do.

But liek i said, the Mercs have different skills, and if you have a system what gives penalties for shots at targets you don't see, everything is fine, don't you think?
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320605] Fri, 24 May 2013 17:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
gdalf

 
Messages:89
Registered:May 2013
If someone ran into a hut for cover I would assume they're going for one of the corners and crouched. Hell yes I'd aim low. But they'd be pretty dumb to run for some place without a second exit ^^
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320606] Fri, 24 May 2013 17:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2028
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
True this is some sort of nitpicking, but i would very like the game to be that nitpicking if we'd get such a detailed targeting system with different body parts at all.

We were coming from:
Shanga
When cover is penetrable, you should be able to aim at any body part (as if it was no object in between), but the bullet velocity and damage should be reduced accordingly.


And I would prefer the game to reflect that you should not be able to aim as if it was no object in between but that you should be able to shoot at the concealed body parts as if it was a object in between.
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320607] Fri, 24 May 2013 17:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JP'TR

 
Messages:104
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
Seriosly you run in a hut for cover and you are directly running in a corner to sit down there? I believe i would miss you. But i would go for you with my knife then! Very Happy
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320612] Fri, 24 May 2013 17:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2028
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
Voyevoda
Example: You are running in PANIC Razz in a door into a hut without windows, 3 meters inside, you get killed with one single headshot, what happend?
A luckshot?

Yes. You were lucky that I did exactly what you expected me to do. Razz

Quote:
Yes, turnbased is different, and without a "ghost" like DepressivesBrot exapmled it, you can't shoot invisible people, but with that bodypart thing its exactly the same.
I would be sad about if my Mercs can not do what i could do.

But liek i said, the Mercs have different skills, and if you have a system what gives penalties for shots at targets you don't see, everything is fine, don't you think?

Depends on implemention in game. If we stick with the example of me being invisible in the hut and you and gdalf shooting at me:
gdalf
If someone ran into a hut for cover I would assume they're going for one of the corners and crouched. Hell yes I'd aim low. But they'd be pretty dumb to run for some place without a second exit ^^


So gdalf had to aim "leg" or "body" (assuming he was presented a standing shadow); you would aim "head".
let's say I was crouched or prone just as gdalf assumed. so he would score a hit.
Would he just score (in the game implementation) a body or leg hit because he aimed there, or would he be given a headshot score if lucky?
I would prefer the latter.
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320615] Fri, 24 May 2013 17:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Flugente

 
Messages:3309
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
I guess this could be solved by having a 'ghost silhouette' as we do now. Targetting different bodyparts should be possible. If one cannot see the bodypart one is aiming at, that results in a severe cth malus.


Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320620] Fri, 24 May 2013 17:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
gdalf

 
Messages:89
Registered:May 2013
Well the problem is that in JA2 targeting is linked to a physical enemy and we're a bit stuck with that conception because outside of realtime you couldn't fire a gun unless it was actually aimed at someone. But if you could fire a gun without technically aiming at the person (which in effect is what you'd call suppression fire), then the problem goes away. No need for body parts - aim low; aim level; aim high. If the person was prone or crouched then his body parts would be in the "low" region and you could thus hit any of those parts
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320621] Fri, 24 May 2013 17:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3807
Registered:July 2009
Sam_Hotte
let's say I was crouched or prone just as gdalf assumed. so he would score a hit.
Would he just score (in the game implementation) a body or leg hit because he aimed there, or would he be given a headshot score if lucky?
I would prefer the latter.
Of course you'd hit whatever lies on your final trajectory, after targeted point, actual point of aim and mechanical deviation are accounted for. The body parts are just shortcuts to identify a point you would like your bullet to pass.


Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320623] Fri, 24 May 2013 18:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JP'TR

 
Messages:104
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
I think i have a good idea for that "blindfire"-thing...

like Brot said, the "feets" is just the position YOU want your bullet to hit, even if you don't see the feets.

It doesn't matter if there is written feet or not, in JA2 it was possible to aim at every grid on the map, only problem was, you was allways aiming the ground, how about to add the possibility to aim low/mid/high on all single gridfields you want. Unseen grounds, similar to JA2, with a lesser accuracy/skill related.

[Updated on: Fri, 24 May 2013 18:07] by Moderator

Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320629] Fri, 24 May 2013 18:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2028
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
The 'Blindfire' thing could even be handled differently depending on if and how detailed indication you might have if there is somebody or what part of body.

E.g. in the thing with the concealed legs, it's mainly determined by your experience and shooting skills if you score a hit on the unseen legs.
Whereas, if you fire blindly through a wall without any actual hint if and where there might be anybody behind it, scoring a hit on somebody being in the "tile" you fired at is mainly a luck thing ...
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320639] Fri, 24 May 2013 18:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
grim

 
Messages:307
Registered:July 2006
Location: France
We don't know how they will handle aiming and ballistics, so we can discuss this wildly for a long time, all for nothing.

I really hope they won't go the XCOM:EU way with pure CTH % and simplistic damage.
I'd prefer something like a free line of sight you can aim where you want, and a deviation system like NCTH for the individual skills, boni&mali, and gun stats.
The bullet/grenade/rocket... then uses ballistics to determine where it goes and what it does (path, power, penetration...). If a body part is on its way, calculate the damage and apply it to the character.

I loved the "faces of war"/"Men of war" way of handling this, though it was a RTS game. It can still be applied to a TB game.

(Example:Tank tutorial )

[Updated on: Fri, 24 May 2013 19:04] by Moderator

Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320641] Fri, 24 May 2013 19:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3807
Registered:July 2009
They don't know either, so we need to make sure that they want the same we want Smile


Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320642] Fri, 24 May 2013 19:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Shanga

 
Messages:3559
Registered:January 2000
Location: Danubia
Offtopic a bit, but I always dreamed JA would have a system like Arma THD will have (and apparently JA3 was planned to have too), where you could zoom in and actually aim FPS like.

Check this clip (second 23 or so)

ks8ezZiP298[/video]


Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320644] Fri, 24 May 2013 19:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
gdalf

 
Messages:89
Registered:May 2013
Firing blind would require a tile-based system. Not sure if FC are going to go for that yet, though I would support it to make it easier for modding. (Edit: tile-based system is very clearly shown in concept art and part of Space Hulk so yes!)

If each tile has low / mid / high properties (tile for ease of definition, even though you could have mid-level 'tiles' via steps/slopes), and each object has a %coverage value at each level in a given tile, coupled with the resistance/thickness values I outlined earlier, that would make for a decent pseudo-3D effect while being not a pain in the ass to mod. The engine itself would need to model line of sight and projectile trajectory (i.e. for misses, not suggesting bullet drop that's way too complicated) in the grid-based structure of course.

So for example, just some arbitrary percentages thrown in:

Tree stump:
Coverage Low: 80%, Mid: 20%, High: 0% (chance the bullet will hit the object in between you and the target)
Resistance: 40% (reduction in bullet speed)
Thickness: (arbitrary value) Medium

Wooden Door:
Coverage Low: 100%, Mid: 100%, High: 100%
Resistance: 10%
Thickness: Low

Fire hydrant
Coverage Low: 30%, Mid: 40%, High: 0%
Resistance: 100%
Thickness: Medium

Steel door with window
Coverage Low: 100%, Mid: 80%, High 5%
Resistance: 90%
Thickness: Low

Then different types of bullets have properties of how fast they wear out resistance (e.g. more from high caliber, low from hollow point) or bypass/degrade thickness (e.g. more bypassing with armor piercing but less degradation)

Is that too complicated or not realistic enough?

[Updated on: Fri, 24 May 2013 20:22] by Moderator

Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320669] Fri, 24 May 2013 21:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Cyborg

 
Messages:38
Registered:November 2006
Location: Europe
HAHA...let the mess begin..Wink

True blindfire is blind luck.

Assuming a tile is a meter or so. Then for practical purposes that enemy body can be anywhere within that meter. How much space does that body, never mind specific things like arms and legs occupy in that 1 meter space? Not very much.

One would have to account for body stance and attitude. F.e. the best case is a somebody standing turned towards you. You now have maybe a 50-50 chance of hitting something, firing at a random point at chest height...

if he's turned sideways..that goes down to 30-70 or so.

IMO, forget targeting specific body parts in such a situation.

[Updated on: Fri, 24 May 2013 21:21] by Moderator

Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320670] Fri, 24 May 2013 21:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Cyborg

 
Messages:38
Registered:November 2006
Location: Europe
@gdalf

any cover system needs to also consider that cover is concealment but concealment is not cover. So objects and terrain need to have different LOS and CTH values.

Last but not least...I agree barrier penetration is needed but there's also ricochets chance. Even something theoretically able to penetrate a barrier is likely to be deflected, especially if the hit isn't at 90

[Updated on: Fri, 24 May 2013 21:27] by Moderator

Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320673] Fri, 24 May 2013 21:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Cyborg

 
Messages:38
Registered:November 2006
Location: Europe
Grim
We don't know how they will handle aiming and ballistics, so we can discuss this wildly for a long time, all for nothing.

I really hope they won't go the XCOM:EU way with pure CTH % and simplistic damage.
I'd prefer something like a free line of sight you can aim where you want, and a deviation system like NCTH for the individual skills, boni&mali, and gun stats.
The bullet/grenade/rocket... then uses ballistics to determine where it goes and what it does (path, power, penetration...). If a body part is on its way, calculate the damage and apply it to the character.


I agree...NCTH is the right place to start, or at least try to work towards something in that direction.
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320684] Fri, 24 May 2013 23:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JayM

 
Messages:83
Registered:May 2013
we always need to keep in mind that "more realistic" doesn't always equal "better". and "more realistic" almost always means "more complex". and hex strategy games and flight simulators (anyone remember those?) taught us this quite well.

there needs to be a balance between realism and fun. after all it is a game and despite being challenging and satisfying it should not become "work". most of us want to go home and shoot virtual soldiers because we've actually been to work all day.

by being turn-based the game is unrealistic in itself so FC should be able to take a few liberties.

yes, shooting numerous times through a thin wooden door with the right calibre might kill somebody standing right behind it. but do we want to have to do the pre-emptive door shooting every time before we enter a house?

and yes, hiding behind a shrub is less effective than hiding behind a rock, but don't overcomplicate things by making the game calculate that a .45 bullet has a higher chance of hitting a merc sitting behind a bamboo twig than a .22 has when shooting at a merc sitting behind the trunk of a 5 year old oak. just let the game calculate some simple penalties/CTHs and it will be fine. or throw a hand grenade.

Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320687] Fri, 24 May 2013 23:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3807
Registered:July 2009
JayM
yes, shooting numerous times through a thin wooden door with the right calibre might kill somebody standing right behind it. but do we want to have to do the pre-emptive door shooting every time before we enter a house?
No, of course not. We want tactical entries from the neighboring tile and throwing grenades around corner ... why are you even asking :secret:
JayM
and yes, hiding behind a shrub is less effective than hiding behind a rock, but don't overcomplicate things by making the game calculate that a .45 bullet has a higher chance of hitting a merc sitting behind a bamboo twig than a .22 has when shooting at a merc sitting behind the trunk of a 5 year old oak. just let the game calculate some simple penalties/CTHs and it will be fine. or throw a hand grenade.
Don't oversimplify things because everyone else does. Massive Object = Better Cover and Stronger Caliber = F*ck Cover are simple enough guidelines even if you don't want to dive into the intricacies of how much Adamantium you need to stop a .75 Kraken bolt.


Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320689] Fri, 24 May 2013 23:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2028
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
JayM
and yes, hiding behind a shrub is less effective than hiding behind a rock, but don't overcomplicate things by making the game calculate that a .45 bullet has a higher chance of hitting a merc sitting behind a bamboo twig than a .22 has when shooting at a merc sitting behind the trunk of a 5 year old oak. just let the game calculate some simple penalties/CTHs and it will be fine.

As long as the game does these calculations without bothering player, the complex calculation have no negative influence on fun, IMHO.
Re: Let's start talking about game mechanics, shall we? (Cover)[message #320690] Fri, 24 May 2013 23:35 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Cyborg

 
Messages:38
Registered:November 2006
Location: Europe
JayM

and yes, hiding behind a shrub is less effective than hiding behind a rock, but don't overcomplicate things by making the game calculate that a .45 bullet has a higher chance of hitting a merc sitting behind a bamboo twig than a .22 has when shooting at a merc sitting behind the trunk of a 5 year old oak.


Hey, JA2 has that! Very Happy

Agree with the rest, of course it's always a trade off and I have no idea what the current state of the Unity engine is. However a pure cover system in an environment with lots of "non" cover will result in strange results and the XCOM cop out like only allowing solid objects as objects on the map won't cut it.

[Updated on: Fri, 24 May 2013 23:36] by Moderator

Previous Topic: Let's start talking about game mechanics: Artificial Intelligence
Next Topic: JAF CtH formula
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu May 24 05:12:23 EEST 2018

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02192 seconds