OCTH vs NCTH[message #332442]
|
Mon, 12 May 2014 06:37
|
|
Azure_Repeater |
|
Messages:144
Registered:March 2014 Location: Philippines |
|
|
Which Chance to Hit system is better? OCTH or NCTH? What are your opinions? I seemed to like OCTH better; I got annoyed because my weapons can't hit the enemy in NCTH that easily.
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: OCTH vs NCTH[message #332461]
|
Mon, 12 May 2014 20:24
|
|
Alex_SPB |
|
Messages:169
Registered:February 2008 Location: Russia, St.Petersburg |
|
|
silversurfer For most combatants a hit rate of 25 percent is already much.
It is more than 10 times better than the reported actual hit rate
Gorro der Gr
[Updated on: Mon, 12 May 2014 20:38] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Staff Sergeant
|
|
|
|
|
Re: OCTH vs NCTH[message #332472]
|
Mon, 12 May 2014 21:29
|
|
rummtata |
|
Messages:103
Registered:April 2011 Location: Germany |
|
|
I prefer NCTH because, as Seven has pointed out, it is less "gamey" and more "simulation". Ultimately, of course, we do not want a "realistic" simulation because that would only lead to the player being blown to pieces (a dozen mercs vs. a whole country? good luck with that).
What we expect is a coherent, reasonable system as close to the rules of physical nature as possible without making the game unplayable, because we accept the premise that what happens in a game is unlikely or even impossible as a whole, but we generally reject logical inconsistencies or severe violations of laws of nature without a context explaining why we should forgive such irregularities. We are, however, mostly willing to forgive exaggerations, as long as the tendency is correct and the overall structure of explanations and reasons is not damaged.
Most important: The same rules must apply to all characters in the game, whether they are controlled by the program or the player. That is why I always try to deactivate features like the "magical damage resistance" for elite militia & soldiers. If they are supposed to be better protected, they must have better equipment or better skills (to use cover, in this case).
Same with CTH: I don't want to hit better than the enemy unless it is through advanced tactics, better equipment, or another coherent ingame-explanation is given. If you have the choice of a) changing a contingent parameter (money, tech, training) or b) bend the rules of nature, this should be no choice at all ^^
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: OCTH vs NCTH[message #332504]
|
Tue, 13 May 2014 03:06
|
|
jasmith |
|
Messages:32
Registered:January 2013 Location: US |
|
|
You can get pretty similar performance with NCTH too, you just have to use the proper mercs. I like the increased number of variables, but I've only ever had problems connecting when using non-specialized mercs at range. Without a weapons trait and quite a bit of marksmanship, I would expect your average non-combat-origin merc to only make easy shots. OCTH just feels too simplistic. The big NCTH crosshair is there for a reason, and once you aim it should shrink right down, and the AI can still be pretty effective until you get long-range scopes, which is always true. Plus, you can tweak NCTH however you want.
Then again, I don't know how well the NCTH in the trunk is balanced these days. Try one of the specialized mods AFS, or try AIMNAS, since it offers OCTH and is adding NCTH support. That should give you a better feel for what the system is capable of without having to figure out all of the settings and options for yourself.
Report message to a moderator
|
Private 1st Class
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|