Home » PLAYER'S HQ 1.13 » v1.13 Combat/Weapon Academy » NCTH: Weapons that Disappoint
| NCTH: Weapons that Disappoint[message #287867]
|
Fri, 29 July 2011 02:21 
|
|
 UniversalWolf |
 |
Messages:140
Registered:June 2009
Location: United States |
|
|
Cite one weapon that doesn't perform well in the NCTH system.
I'll start off with the AN-94 Abakan. This used to be a decent AR, but it's really disappointing now. I think the main problem is that, with focused bursts being so important, a 2-shot burst is a big liability compared to a 3-shot burst; there are ARs that cost fewer APs to burst-fire one more bullet, and two 5.45mm rounds just isn't enough to get the job done. In my experience, a merc armed with an Abakan can't pull his weight in a battle. I much prefer an AK-105 or even a SMG like the AUG Para.
The AN-94's one virtue is that it's pretty quiet.
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: NCTH: Weapons that Disappoint[message #288058]
|
Mon, 01 August 2011 01:38 
|
|
| UniversalWolf |
|
Messages:140
Registered:June 2009
Location: United States |
|
|
HazapuzaWhat happened to the extremely low burst-penalty the AN-94 had, was it forgotten or just hard to implement in the NCTH? That gun was already quite unremarkable in the OCTH, except for the accurate burst which should now be even better.
You could make burst fire use the same number of APs as a single shot (which may in fact be the case), and it wouldn't make a difference. If firing 2 rounds of 5.45mm costs 19 APs with the AN-94, and firing 3 rounds of 5.56mm or 6.8mm costs, say 24 APs (and it costs less with many guns), you're going not going to choose the AN-94. Two 5.45mm bullets just don't do enough damage to kill most enemies, while three 5.56mm bullets often do. In the end you have to fire two bursts with the AN-94 to keep up with one burst from other ARs. The UMP45 has a two-round burst, and it has the same problem.
I'm not really sure how to fix the AN-94, actually, unless it gets some kind of special accuracy, armor penetration, and damage bonus to its burst mode. It's good features just don't mesh with the strengths of JA2.
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: NCTH: Weapons that Disappoint[message #288874]
|
Thu, 11 August 2011 17:15
|
|
| Wil473 |
 |
Messages:2815
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada |
|
|
UniversalWolfwil473Recoil delay for the initial two rounds of burst/automatic fire is this weapon's main claim to fame in the real world, and under NCTH it is being portrayed.
That's cool, but try it in action and you'll see how poor the performance is compared to other ARs (AK-105, for example). In the game world it's just not that good.
Yes, I did see some of that in some comparison testing last night. Not so bad without optics, but with a scope it became rather apparent. Note, this is with the XML's from one of my projects, where I've taken steps to increase recoil and penalize scope utility during burst/auto (both in OCTH and NCTH). On looking at the stats last night, the AK-105 and AN-94 seemed a tad close in many regards. If anything it would be easier to re-balance the unexpectedly accurate AK-105 (and the AKS-74U which also seemed a bit too close in stats).
One thing is, I didn't do a comprehensive test with a mix of ranges, only medium. At close ranges the AK-105 should be superior at getting hits during autofire, which would also have the effect of making the AN-94's 2 round burst seem inadequate. At longer ranges (not tested yet), aimed two round bursts from the AN-94 should produce a higher rate of hits compared to aimed single shots from itself, and the AK-105. My take on NCTH would be that the AK-105 should be superior, but only at CQB to Short/Medium ranges. Also it seems that I need to put more effort into cutting down the effect of scopes, especially for these short range weapons.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: NCTH: Weapons that Disappoint[message #289552]
|
Sun, 21 August 2011 04:43
|
|
| Wil473 |
|
Messages:2815
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada |
|
|
...and if you check the XML's, you should find that the AN-94 is already using that feature.
UniversalWolfwil473Recoil delay for the initial two rounds of burst/automatic fire is this weapon's main claim to fame in the real world, and under NCTH it is being portrayed.
That's cool, but try it in action and you'll see how poor the performance is compared to other ARs (AK-105, for example). In the game world it's just not that good.
It's is not the two round burst that is the issue at hand here, but instead a matter of balance (the XML's), or something inherent with NCTH and how it portrays lighter weapons (concept). Or perhaps over expectation's over the AN-94 - I'm seeing under NCTH "easy" single shots missing for all guns***, it stands to reason that a burst that has the recoil of single (no recoil penalty) would see the same thing, except you are missing with two bullets.
***Unless that target cursor is smaller than the aimed at part of the target's body, you will have a chance of missing. NCTH has all but a stated goal of increasing misses (to counter the observation that the guaranteed hits of mid-late game make for a tedious experience). I tend to agree with this, which is why in my efforts, I've been rebalancing unexpectedly competent weapons and attachments to be less potent.
[Updated on: Sun, 21 August 2011 04:44] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: NCTH: Weapons that Disappoint[message #289733]
|
Wed, 24 August 2011 01:33
|
|
| Pariah |
 |
Messages:77
Registered:June 2004
Location: Suckit City, OH |
|
|
The following is what I had posted on another thread as part of a bigger post but the NCTH portion seems to fit better here so I am copy/pasting here since it seems others are having similar results...
NCTH:
I have some questions regarding the NCTH and sniper rifles. I had read some threads about the NCTH and how some like it and some don't. I haven't decided yet, but I would like some clarification if I may regarding how snipers are supposed to work with NCTH.
What I have seen so far is I have two people I have running around with snipers, an IMP with the Sniper trait using an IWM(?) and a MRK of 80 and Buns with the Marksman trait and her AIMNAS Mrk (80-something I think) using a Steyr Scout.
I have fought 5 battles including a major one and so far both of my snipers have hit a total of ONCE each. Yes, they have only tagged someone once and mind you, I have yet to attempt a head shot. Is this typical? The IMP must have fired close to 30 rounds and Buns is working on 40 rounds. And only 1 hit apiece.
I fired once standing up missed wildly and ever since they have been laying prone to fire and more than half the time firing from rooftop. I also only fire when I can use full aim, no snap shooting with a sniper rifle.
As for the ranges of the targets, I have read that serious penalties have been implimented (which I concur with) so I think the closest target has been around 14-15 tiles from the sniper and none of them have tried to fire outside of the range of the rifles. What is the actual minimum ranges for the scopes? You get a penalty if you fire at a tango 10 tiles or less with a 10x Scope? 20 tiles?
Heck, Buns has been massively more effective with her tricked out .40 S&W with the +1 range for a total of 12 tiles than she has with the sniper rifle. She has tagged a boogy three times out around 20 tiles with the pistol!
So what am I missing or is it simply that the penalties slapped on to a sniper rifle doesn't get negated until the shooter is higher level and his/her marksman is closer to 99? The reason I asked this was because prior to installing AIMNAS I was running with Scope (MRK 99) and she was hitting about 50% of the time.
This issue, I don't think, is related just to sniper rifles because another IMP (MRK low 70s) has a SOCOM 16 and he has fired close to 40 rounds and only has 3 hits. All of his targets have been at least 20 tiles out because if they are 20 and under he switches to a MPK. Speaking of which, how can a fire round burst miss a tango from 4 tiles?
Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: NCTH: Weapons that Disappoint[message #289775]
|
Wed, 24 August 2011 22:22
|
|
| Wil473 |
|
Messages:2815
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada |
|
|
UC is a total conversion, while I believe I'm on record as calling DL a semi-total conversion. UC emphasizes CQB, while we all know Alrulco campaigns have a mix of wide open spaces with intermittent CQB. All three of my projects have the same basic items and stats, including AK-105 and AN-94 changes that largely resulted from discussions in this thread.
Both original UC and DL are by the same modders, The Mod Squad, but UC is more advanced in that it applies lessons learned making DL. Overall, I'd say UC is more refined.
In the v1.13 Hybrid, the I3 bug was fixed very early on by The Judge, who discovered the cause. The mine order issue has been fixed as well, no more requirement to go to Calisto first.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: NCTH: Weapons that Disappoint[message #293283]
|
Fri, 11 November 2011 15:40
|
|
| Headrock |
 |
Messages:1760
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem |
|
|
I don't know how the system works now, because AFAIK ChrisL made several changes that I haven't looked at. What I do know regarding some of the above questions:
1) Sniper Rifles were explicitly made difficult to use in close-quarters, to prevent them becoming catch-all weapons in the late game as they were in OCTH (which I personally hated with a passion). So if your target is 14 tiles away ("2x Normal", if the game is still using NORMAL=7, which I guess it is) you need a 2x scope. A 10x scope actually makes your target HARDER to hit at that distance, it might even be better to take the scope off altogether. 14 tiles should be the engagement range for pistols, shotguns and SMGs.
2) Sniper shots at long distances have something that maybe wasn't documented well enough (or people didn't realize how important it was), which is target tracking penalties. The more your target moves before a shot is fired, the harder it's going to be to hit that target - especially if MRK is low. This isn't too relevant at short distances, especially with long autofire, which is what makes SMGs great for shooting moving enemies at close-range, though from what I understand pistols are just too good at doing that regardless of how quickly your target is moving... In any case, if you're going to snipe someone at 70 tiles, wait until he stops for a turn, or just moves very few tiles at most (or is moving towards/away from you, in which case no tracking penalties apply). Tracking errors are not indicated by the targeting cursor, which is probably why no one realized they were there... It's something you need to pay attention to as a player, though that may have been a little too much to ask.
3) Yes, NCTH was designed to require more discharge of bullets rather than killing targets with aimed shots. After all, this is a feature that was built for realism, and in the real world for each person that has been killed ina gunfight in any recent war, several dozen thousand bullets were wasted (I saw the number 250,000 somewhere, not sure if that's true or not). The idea is that in more firefights a lot of lead is being discharged. This ties together with the first true HAM feature, Suppression, which also increases the incentive to fire more bullets. It's probably also the reason why some players don't like NCTH so much, because they're used to one-shot kills and either like it that way or just can't adapt to a different method of combat.
4) The reason Handling doesn't appear in UDB is mainly because, when I designed NCTH (and UDB to support it) handling was a direct factor of "AP to Ready", not a separate adjustable amount. Displaying two numbers that were so intimately related would be redundant, taking up space that I didn't have to begin with. Then ChrisL created a new separate tag for Handling, but didn't add the info to UDB for obvious reasons (he made some... weird choices with UDB to begin with, but I won't get into that).
5) I would imagine that not all problems with NCTH can be solved with XML editing. It's likely that the NCTH Constants INI file is out of balance as well, and I haven't heard anyone reporting to have played with the values there at all, which is something I don't understand. Wil, have you tried altering any of the values to see how they affect your game?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: NCTH: Weapons that Disappoint[message #293300]
|
Fri, 11 November 2011 20:19
|
|
| Headhunter |
 |
Messages:264
Registered:November 2009
Location: Sweden |
|
|
Headrock3) Yes, NCTH was designed to require more discharge of bullets rather than killing targets with aimed shots. After all, this is a feature that was built for realism, and in the real world for each person that has been killed ina gunfight in any recent war, several dozen thousand bullets were wasted (I saw the number 250,000 somewhere, not sure if that's true or not).
The back-cover of Out of Nowhere (by Martin Pegler, excellent book) says 7,000 rounds/kill in WWI and 25,000 rounds/kill in Vietnam. Now whether that's accurate (pun) I don't know, but it sounds reasonable.
Report message to a moderator
|
Master Sergeant
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: NCTH: Weapons that Disappoint[message #293303]
|
Fri, 11 November 2011 20:48
|
|
| Wil473 |
|
Messages:2815
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada |
|
|
Headrock5) I would imagine that not all problems with NCTH can be solved with XML editing. It's likely that the NCTH Constants INI file is out of balance as well, and I haven't heard anyone reporting to have played with the values there at all, which is something I don't understand. Wil, have you tried altering any of the values to see how they affect your game?
Not yet. To be honest, I think I've made some sucess with simply adjusting XML values. The 10 NCTH Cap bonus I've given long arms (to set them apart from pistols and machine pistols) seems to be working. Interestingly, the lastest change was to lower NCTH accuracy by 10 for most long arms, more for full-power ammo (7.62x51mm) weapons. This was done to increase the range of values available for sniper rifles. Presently these changes are only available to the public via the UC-1.13 v3.60 Release Candidate(RC). While I'm somewhat concerned by the mass loss of accuracy, nobody who has downloaded the RC has commented (about this change or anything else for that matter EDIT: sorry, forgot the bug reports, so far no comments about the overall v3.60 NCTH rebalance). Then again, I've understood for some time that NCTH is desinged to increase the number of rounds per kill, so the decrease in accuracy is probably no issue in the overall scheme.
By the way Headrock, welcome back. Just visiting or ready to take up coding again? Specifically the variable item (scopes, folding stocks, etc...) concept you had been talking about as a post NCTH project? In a way, I've been testing the concept of variable power scopes with the Advance Reflex Sight and its system of low attachment cost magnifiers (2x, 4x, 6x, and 4x Night Vision). I'm finding them very useful in testing, and this feature of my mods has been available to the public for some time now - people seem to like the attachment(s).
[Updated on: Fri, 11 November 2011 21:10] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: NCTH: Weapons that Disappoint[message #293308]
|
Fri, 11 November 2011 21:38
|
|
| Headrock |
|
Messages:1760
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem |
|
|
When I wrote the system I was actually hoping it would be possible to make modder work easier by not requiring weapons to have modifiers that "toy" with values to achieve a balance - that's why there are so many INI settings for NCTH. Then again the XML values are there so that in cases where a modder doesn't get the desired result, they can toy with the XML values to get exactly what they need. Yes, it's weird, but I'm glad it works for you one way or the other.
EDIT: You realize that accuracy works on a sort of logarithmic scale, yes? At the high values, each point equals a HUGE bonus to accuracy...
Quote:Just visiting or ready to take up coding again?
Ugh, don't ask me that. 
Quote:Specifically the variable item (scopes, folding stocks, etc...) concept you had been talking about as a post NCTH project?
It's still the #1 post-NCTH project - the only question is when, if ever, I'll get around to the post-NCTH period. To be quite honest, it's a tricky place I'm in right now, because I don't want to mess with NCTH anymore (I think I did my part in it already), but I know that if I start coding again I will eventually have to deal with it. Not a good place to be, and it's unfortunately going to delay getting back to work on this stuff at all.
On the brighter side, the variable items thing is actually so easy to do that once I do get back to coding, it'll be out before you could say "HAMtastication".
Quote:In a way, I've been testing the concept of variable power scopes with the Advance Reflex Sight and its system of low attachment cost magnifiers (2x, 4x, 6x, and 4x Night Vision). I'm finding them very useful in testing, and this feature of my mods has been available to the public for some time now - people seem to like the attachment(s).
Could you explain what this is and how it works?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: NCTH: Weapons that Disappoint[message #293447]
|
Mon, 14 November 2011 00:36
|
|
| Inkompetent |
 |
Messages:22
Registered:November 2011
Location: Sweden |
|
|
DepressivesBrotHeadhunterThe back-cover of Out of Nowhere (by Martin Pegler, excellent book) says 7,000 rounds/kill in WWI and 25,000 rounds/kill in Vietnam. Now whether that's accurate (pun) I don't know, but it sounds reasonable. I read similar figures now and then. What I'm asking myself though, how do they arrive at these numbers? Do they just take all the small arms ammunition used during the entire conflict?
It's a rough estimate, but otherwise it would mean that a platoon can (on average) kill a single enemy spending their entire combat load.
Well, there's A LOT of suppressive fire in that. And it's extra bad in Vietnam because 1) The riflemen has much more ammunition than before with their M16s, 2) lighter machine guns in the squads (M60 can be fired from the shoulder or hip, which wasn't very handy with earlier machine guns), and 3) terrible jungle visibility and paranoia means much more shooting.
The numbers are indeed a count of used infantry ammunition divided by the number of enemies estimated killed by small arms fire, but it does show RL efficiency and survival instinct (i.e. shoot more without showing yourself so much you can shoot accurately), and the reliability on artillery and close air support.
As for your question: Yes, it is possible. In a breaking engagement when at least one of the sides is attempting to NOT fight there will be a lot of ammunition spent on suppressing the enemy while trying to get away. The likelyness for either side to kill anyone in such a fight is pretty small, as long as the firefight started at a large enough distance.
We also have to take into account that a lot of 'losses' in wars have been surrenders, where there doesn't necessarily have to be a lot of killing for many soldiers to give up. A large enough fire volume and feeling of hopelesness can be enough, and succeeding with making your enemy give up doesn't show up as a kill.
Report message to a moderator
|
Private 1st Class
|
|
|
|
| Re: NCTH: Weapons that Disappoint[message #293462]
|
Mon, 14 November 2011 02:18
|
|
| Headrock |
|
Messages:1760
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem |
|
|
Of course, HAM Suppression + NCTH aren't trying to reach 25,000 bullets per kill, not 200 if you can possibly help it, but I was aiming for generally high numbers such as 20 bullets with a machine gun (unless deliberately suppressing, in which case it's more), about 3 or so for sniper shots unless you can judge the conditions correctly and make elite kills, and about 5-10 with mid-range rifles (sight-range combat) with up to 50 extra for suppression.
So basically, the goal was to make it so that gunfights aren't all about just shooting and killing your enemy, but more about buying time for yourself to maneuver, as well as get expert shooters with good weapons into the exact conditions in which they can accurately kill the enemy. This stands in complete contrast to OCTH, where your average kill ratios per bullet constantly increase as progress goes up, regardless of what tactical situations you get yourself into or even what skills your mercs have. In OCTH it's usually better to give your sniper rifles to your WORST shooters, because they boost CTH so high that skills are much less relevant!
In a well-optimized NCTH environment, the player needs to restructure the tactical situation constantly to keep an upper hand, and the most important tool for doing so is - like in real life - using suppression fire to hold the enemy in place while you maneuver. You also need your team to carry as wide a variety of weapons as possible, because some weapons are just rubbish in some situations, and much better in others. Suppression buys you time to get the correct mercs into the situations where their weapons are superior to the enemy's. This is done with significant amounts of fire, though the kills themselves should be made with precision weapons when possible.
So, at the start of the battle, snipers can take out initial enemy troops from very far away, patiently waiting for the right moment to fire the shot. Then machine guns suppress the enemy, buying time for riflemen to establish a good firing line to keep the enemy back. Finally, close-range troops maneuver to kill the enemy up-close, and/or prevent enemies from sneaking through/around the suppression fire and flanking the group. At least, this is how it's supposed to go in the most straightforward battles - when the situation is different (such as ambushes etc.) different weapons need to be used.
I think however that right now there isn't a well-optimized NCTH environment, for a reason that I don't think I've heard anyone mentioning on these forums AT ALL. The problem is that although several XMLs for NCTH have been created so far, none of the modders has even for a moment considered resorting the coolness levels - which is absolutely crucial due to everything I said above.
Most of our pistols are still at Coolness 1-2, and sniper rifles start appearing much later in the game - but this is completely wrong in NCTH, it doesn't make sense. Instead, some SRs should now be appearing in the first few Coolness levels, as should some Machine Guns - and conversely, pistols, MPs and SMGs need to spread out over the mid and high coolness levels. The reason, again, is that with NCTH every weapon has its downsides and upsides in combat, which means that we NEED a wider range of weapons in each coolness level to keep things balanced. For example, really basic rifles like the M1 Carbine need to start appearing at Coolness 1 or even equipped on some low-level mercs by default, early SRs like the Zastava M76 or ColtCanada C7CT should appear at level 3 at most instead of level 6! Conversely, instead of appearing at Coolness 5, the Five-seveN might be pushed back all the way to coolness 8 - given how terrifyingly powerful such a pistol can be in close-range encounters with the enemy.
In any case, the bottom line is that NCTH is not supposed to function like OCTH - which is something many people still don't fully understand; and I don't blame them, because it takes a while to "unlearn" a system like OCTH which we've all been using for ages. NCTH is meant to solve the problems that OCTH had, and this constituted a major change in mechanics. I just hope that once the system is balanced and complete, and easier explanations can be written about how it works, people could see why NCTH is necessary, and enjoy using it as it should be used.
P.S. IIRC, HAM Suppression is very dialed-down by default in 1.13. Have people tried dialing it up, say, to 150 percent? That's the value I used to play with...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Jan 10 12:08:49 GMT+2 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03819 seconds
|
Blog
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
