BP Logo
Home » PLAYER'S HQ 1.13 » v1.13 General Gameplay Talk » NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?
NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319468] Mon, 13 May 2013 03:51 Go to next message
sardonic_wrath

 
Messages:48
Registered:June 2011
Hi,

Can't figure this out... are penalties for scopes at short ranges broken?

I've read all about it in the NCTH thread, however I am unsure what has changed since then...
However, more recent developments (like scopes with changable magnification, the button to change between scopes) indicate that penalties are still in place... I just can't seem to find them :confused:

My test setup: fresh install, the most current of depris SCIs (Rev 6072 on GameDir1673) on top of it, all values untouched.
I hire Lynx with kit 4 I believe, which gives me a M14 with reflex sights (1x) and 4x acog scope.
Whatever range I choose, the scope gives WAY better results.

The scope might have higher AP cost to begin with, and extra aim clicks might not do anything on short ranges, but even without aim clicks its very precise. Only on very short distances & highest aim level I can get a comparable CTH with reflex sights, which then costs more APs.

I tested the same with other weapons/scopes, various other versions, I tested with the "stock data overhaul" and AFS mods, tweaked all the values in CTHconstants.ini... results are always the same, more or less.
NOTE: I tested under the premise that the NHTC crosshairs working correctly... mostly I only looked at them and didn't actually shoot.

Am I missing something important here?

[Updated on: Mon, 13 May 2013 03:53] by Moderator

Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319470] Mon, 13 May 2013 04:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CapnJack

 
Messages:56
Registered:June 2012
I've noticed either the penalties or the NCTH cursor are broken as well-possibly both. Laser sights no longer give a bonus to CTH as far as I've tested (except, for whatever reason, on the combo reflex sight which gives MASSIVE boost to CTH) and so do not show a magnification factor on the NCTH cursor. Previously when using a scope below its optimal range you would get a red magnification factor on the NCTH cursor and it would be reduced depending on how close you are to the target indicating a penalty for using a high powered scope. This also no longer happens. I posted a thread regarding this in this same general discussions section to little attention. Perhaps moving this discussion the the bug reports section would bring more notice? I can't hold out much hope because it seems like few here are willing to mess with NCTH.

[Updated on: Mon, 13 May 2013 04:19] by Moderator

Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319480] Mon, 13 May 2013 07:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Strohmann

 
Messages:288
Registered:August 2011
Location: Division Thought Crimes
The scope modes feature is likely the source of this behaviour:
Toggle Spoiler
Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319500] Mon, 13 May 2013 13:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sardonic_wrath

 
Messages:48
Registered:June 2011
ah, you are right... didn't check that setting.
Given there is no mention of this in flugentes thread - can we assume this is a bug and not intended behaviour?

You are also right that even without this bug the behaviour is a akward... many things in NCTH are. For me its the first time I really tried NCTH, and I am beginning to understand why so many people are reluctant.
Its a shame, headrocks concept is very thought out and logical... I have a feeling there is not that much missing to make it work, a few tweaks and changes... and proper item values of course.
Will test (a lot) more Smile

While I am at it, two only slightly related questions:
1)is gun accuracy/bullet deviation in any way shown on the NCTH cursor? Or does one just have to get a feel for that?
2)what exactly is "muzzle stability" (shown when pressing "f")? Couldn't find any info on it...

[Updated on: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:30] by Moderator

Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319519] Mon, 13 May 2013 16:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Strohmann

 
Messages:288
Registered:August 2011
Location: Division Thought Crimes
Well, i think it's difficult to test whether just the targeting aperture is broken or the calculation without extensive tests or a debugger, given the values are close. So feel free to report this in the scope modes thread and/or the bug thread.

For proper values you can contribute to wil473's or my mod(s) if you don't mind shameless selfpromoting.

The influence of gun accuracy is shown in the targeting aperture; you can quickly verify that by editing the accuracy of a gun with low/0 handling to 1 and 100.
Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319683] Tue, 14 May 2013 23:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Flugente

 
Messages:3528
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
Found it. Was a bit tricky to find: projection factor is used both on scopes/sights and lasers. When using scope modes under NCTH, only the projection factor of those scopes/sights we are currently looking through should apply, but until now lasers also fell under that rule, thus their bonus was ignored. Fixed in r6078.

The rest of the pictures is fine. It is only naturally that with scope modes your CTH is worse than without, as you are only using one scope and not two.


Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319692] Wed, 15 May 2013 00:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
grim

 
Messages:349
Registered:July 2006
Location: France
So, with your fix, when is laser projection factor used? Always? Fire from the hip? With another scope mode?
Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319763] Wed, 15 May 2013 20:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sardonic_wrath

 
Messages:48
Registered:June 2011
haven't checked about laser projection, but the problem that penalties for scopes at short ranges aren't applied persists.

Screenshots taken with r6078
Lynx with m14, either 4x scope OR reflex sights installed, never both. Distance 9 tiles.

http://i.imgur.com/EqIdZf4.png

So, in fact the option to toggle between scopes (great feature by the way, thanks flugente!) makes itself obsolete, because scopes are superior in almost any scenario Razz
Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319765] Wed, 15 May 2013 20:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Flugente

 
Messages:3528
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
The only difference I see here is that with scope modes turned on and using the 4x scope, the projection is 4x instead of 1.3x, as with scope modes scopes don't magically adjust to best size.

Yes, scopes are almost always better than no scopes, except for very short ranges.

Also, when scope modes are on, you have multiple scopes/sights, an you didn't specify which one you used, I assume it was the sight you mentioned and not the iron sights.

So... what exactly is the problem here?


Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319865] Thu, 16 May 2013 19:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Strohmann

 
Messages:288
Registered:August 2011
Location: Division Thought Crimes
(I exclude the possibility that sardonic did stealth-edit his post and screenshots after you answered)
Quote:
The only difference I see here is that with scope modes turned on and using the 4x scope, the projection is 4x instead of 1.3x, as with scope modes scopes don't magically adjust to best size.
I'm sorry, but how do they magically adjust to best size if the screenshots in this thread show the opposite? If this would be true, the targeting aperture (specifically the inner circle) would be at least equal or smaller with scopes modes disabled.

The old display scheme was:

The displayed numeric magnification in the targeting aperture changes depending on range, purely visual.

If the distance was equal or greater than NORMAL_SHOOTING_DISTANCE x ScopeMagFactor, it turned green, indicating the optimal range.
If the distance was lower than NORMAL_SHOOTING_DISTANCE x ScopeMagFactor, under the minimal range, the displayed magnification turned red, indicating penalties.
If the distance felt inbetween the optimal range and the minimum range (if the SCOPE_RANGE_MULTIPLIER was below 1.0), it turned white and the displayed magnification stayed static within this range.
Quote:
Yes, scopes are almost always better than no scopes, except for very short ranges.
But that shouldn't be the case. The screenshots show that with activated scope modes feature the penalties disappear. Scopes having an optimal range and being worse outside of it is one core concept of NCTH. If you don't believe me:
Toggle Spoiler
----
After some quick testing with 6078, the displayed magnification turns green, if you are within laser range and viewing through a scope, but still shows the scope magnification. So the display is green within the scopes optimal range, then white and then green again at close range, that could be confusing for newbies. I propose reverting the display scheme to be closer to the old system:

If within optimal range, turn green.
If below minimum range, turn red (with reintroduced penalties).
If within the range of an installed laser and viewing through a scope, the projection factor overwrites the scope magnification in the display.

[Updated on: Fri, 17 May 2013 00:39] by Moderator

Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319869] Thu, 16 May 2013 20:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
grim

 
Messages:349
Registered:July 2006
Location: France
Strohmann
If within the range of an installed laser and viewing through a scope, the projection factor overwrites the scope magnification in the display.


Concerning laser, why not adding a "laser" mode or applying the laser projection factor to the "fire from the hip" mode?
In real, does a laser benefit to a shot with any sight? (Iron, reflex, scope...?)
Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319879] Thu, 16 May 2013 23:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CapnJack

 
Messages:56
Registered:June 2012
The problem with the demo photos above is that in Headrock's original NCTH presentation and it's former behavior before the introduction of the scope modes was that a scope was to be less effective if it was being used at a range closer than what it was designed for. That is, you wouldn't use a 4.0x scope to shoot a target 10m from you because the magnification makes it harder to aim at a target so close. The current scope mode behavior allows scopes to remain effective all the time, distance be damned, making it a totally stupid choice not to use a scope (excepting the increased aim and ready costs though this is probably offset by the CTH bump). The magnification factor is not showing that your scope has "magically adjusted zoom" it is showing your "effective zoom/scope power" taking into account distance.

[Updated on: Thu, 16 May 2013 23:59] by Moderator

Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319880] Fri, 17 May 2013 00:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Flugente

 
Messages:3528
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
Eh... no. Using a scope when to near is even more stupid now, as magnification doesn't magically adjust, but one can simply not use the scope in that instance by selecting to aim with the iron sight/some other sight.

Laser boni that do not come from sights/scopes are applied all the time, regardless of scope used.

In the above pictures, the colour might indeed be wrong... have to check. :blah: Bleh, this is ugly.

[Updated on: Fri, 17 May 2013 00:07] by Moderator



Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319883] Fri, 17 May 2013 00:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CapnJack

 
Messages:56
Registered:June 2012
I feel like a point is being missed here. With scope modes off the correct NCTH behavior of making a scope at close range less likely to hit is maintained. It has very little to do with adjusting of zoom and such, which, I acknowledge cannot be done on a fixed magnification scope. The real problem is that with the scope modes feature on in the demo photo sardonic posted you have a greater chance to hit with the scope on all the time. This is in direct opposition to what is presented by Headrock in the scopes below optimal range photo and blurb in his NCTH presentation. The aperture should be larger using a 4.0x scope at 9 tiles than the Iron sights aperture at 9 tiles. According to the photos sardonic has posted this is not the case with scope modes enabled, the scope's aperture is always smaller.
Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319885] Fri, 17 May 2013 00:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Flugente

 
Messages:3528
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
That, however, is sadly true Sad. I'm currently stepping through the myriad of functions do determine the reason for that.


Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319890] Fri, 17 May 2013 01:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Flugente

 
Messages:3528
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
Doh, that was insultingly easy. It's only natural that the cth indicator shows a smaller circle when using scope modes... as the mag factor does not change, and we divide the aperture through it...

This is very reasonable when you think about it... if you have a 10x scope and aim on a guy ten feet away, he'll fill the entire view through your scope... so the scopes indicates are sure hit (as he fills the entire view). The NCTH target cursor is based around this idea - so in the NCTH idea: small circle - good CTH.

But as scope mode has fixed magnification factors, this assumption doesn't hold anymore. Hmm.


Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319928] Fri, 17 May 2013 15:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sardonic_wrath

 
Messages:48
Registered:June 2011
I agree that the old system (with scope modes off) isn't all that logical and has a lot of room for improvement.
But if it's going to be improved, it should be done consciously, and it should be documented, explained and discussed. Whereas this seemed more like an accident...

Basically, the usage of high powered scopes at close ranges should be discouraged, I think we can all agree on that.
Flugente

This is very reasonable when you think about it... if you have a 10x scope and aim on a guy ten feet away, he'll fill the entire view through your scope... so the scopes indicates are sure hit (as he fills the entire view). The NCTH target cursor is based around this idea - so in the NCTH idea: small circle - good CTH.

Just because the scope indicates a sure hit, doesn't mean the cursor should. The cursor represents the chance that something goes wrong with your aiming - which is quite likely in a scenario like the one you described.

But I can understand what you are getting at... a CTH penalty reeks of arbitrary balancing decision.
In reality, you should be able to get a sure hit on a static target. But it shouldn't be easier than doing so with iron sights.

Personally, I think an additional dynamic AP penalty (maybe something with aiming levels, haven't quite understood that concept yet) is the way to go.
You have to figure out what exactly you are looking at - not only is everything too big, but also blurry/out of focus. If the enemy is not in your view you don't know in which direction you need to correct. Basically, you get poor visual feedback on your aiming movements - you have to be very skilled to compensate for that.

Realistically, moving targets would be extremly difficult to hit. Have to reread that part of the NCTH thread to see how it works now.
Regardless of that, I think small movements (within one tile) should be accounted for. If an enemy is so close that you can't even see his entire head trough your 10x scope, even a small head movement could throw your aim way off.

Generally I think whatever penalties should be applied exponential rather than linear.
Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319960] Fri, 17 May 2013 18:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Flugente

 
Messages:3528
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
Yes, but the NCTH idea was to have the cursor, with apertures and such, 'represent' the real cth. Now my problem is that the cursor indicates a too high cth, because one of the basic assumptions of NCTh isn't true anymore with scope modes. So I can either dig in NCTH and somehow alter it...

... or I can just cut my losses and reapply magically adjusting scope magnification factors. As much as I dislike it, this is much more in style with existing mechanics (and eases code maintaining, cause I can restrict scope modes to just excluding scopes.)


Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319962] Fri, 17 May 2013 19:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sardonic_wrath

 
Messages:48
Registered:June 2011
Still don't really get this, from what I have read I didn't have the impression that NCTH magically adjusts magnification factors.
And i though that the number on the cursor was just displaying what magnification would be ideal at that range. (well, I found it a bit odd to be honest)

Anyway, I am sure you know what you are talking about. Glad we are roughly on the same page now and in agreement that something is going wrong at the moment.


I really hope work on NCTH will continue at some point... it has incredibly promising approaches and a lot of work and heart has been put into it, would be a shame to let it go to waste.
Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319963] Fri, 17 May 2013 20:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Flugente

 
Messages:3528
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
Oh, it does. The 1.3x on the pic is a clear indicator of that.

At the moment I'm changing scope modes as described above.


Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319971] Fri, 17 May 2013 22:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Flugente

 
Messages:3528
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
As or r6084, scope magnification for scope modes is no longer fixed, it adjusts just like when its off.


Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319972] Fri, 17 May 2013 22:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sardonic_wrath

 
Messages:48
Registered:June 2011
hmm... is that it?
Headrock

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v726/Headrock/Jagged%20Alliance%202/HAM/HAM%204/CTH/10-ScopeAiming-NormalDistance.gif

The Shooting Radius in this case is determined by the location of the target, rather than the scope. In other words, in the example above, our 2x scope is behaving the same as a 1x scope. It does not "push" the red arch further back as it did before, even when aimed to full extent. It could be summed up like this:

Distance at which the shooting arch is placed = Scope's Optimal Distance OR Target's Distance, whichever is LOWER.


("bold" effect done by me)
http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/board/ubbthreads.php/topics/249912/Headrock.html#Post249912

anyway, the way I understand it its done for calculation purposes only... the player should still treat magnification factor as a fixed value rather than a maximum value.


While you are a working on that stuff - would it be a lot of work to introduce a new modifier for CHTconstants.ini, like discussed here?
Basically, the idea is to allow for a higher NORMAL_SHOOTING_DISTANCE (= more effective iron sights) without giving 10x scopes too high of a range to be useful even on bigmaps.
A global scaling factor for all magnifcation factors would work, so with the factor set to 0,7 a 4x scope would have an optimal range of 2,8 * NORMAL_SHOOTING_DISTANCE
(effectively making it a 2,8x scope for CTH calculation purposes)
Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319974] Fri, 17 May 2013 22:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Flugente

 
Messages:3528
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
Nah. I dislike coding NCTH.

Edit: Sounds like its not much work, but I'm not interested to find out.

[Updated on: Fri, 17 May 2013 22:17] by Moderator



Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319977] Fri, 17 May 2013 22:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Strohmann

 
Messages:288
Registered:August 2011
Location: Division Thought Crimes
...But you are just claiming that, while the screenshots and the description of the creator of NCTH indicate the opposite.

So if the magnification magically adjusts, why does the inner circle of the targeting aperture grow if the target is too close instead of shrinking (scope modes off)?

Why did Headrock write:
Toggle Spoiler

Is that outdated codewise, or why are sure the scope magnification magically adjusts? Until you give sound (a) reason(s), i have doubts like sardonic.

Edit: that was directed at post 319963.

[Updated on: Fri, 17 May 2013 22:30] by Moderator

Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319984] Fri, 17 May 2013 23:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3698
Registered:July 2009
Easy: What the code says >>>> everything else


Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319986] Fri, 17 May 2013 23:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sardonic_wrath

 
Messages:48
Registered:June 2011
Strohmann

So if the magnification magically adjusts, why does the inner circle of the targeting aperture grow if the target is too close instead of shrinking (scope modes off)?

Maybe the bonuses are calculated using the adjusted magnification factor (which means, only a fraction of the bonus is applied below optimal range), while the penalty is calculated based on the actual magnification factor of the scope.
Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319988] Fri, 17 May 2013 23:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Strohmann

 
Messages:288
Registered:August 2011
Location: Division Thought Crimes
That's what i was thinking and what the description was indicating, so no "magical adjustment".

@Depri
Didn't you say you wanted to code a modifier for scope magnifactions back in december, or was that just misunderstanding? Or has that been settled?
Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319995] Sat, 18 May 2013 00:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3698
Registered:July 2009
I said I could do that, but the whole project died off so I'm not adding something nobody uses to the most fickle part of the whole code.


Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #319998] Sat, 18 May 2013 00:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Strohmann

 
Messages:288
Registered:August 2011
Location: Division Thought Crimes
Well, too bad.

I think one of the biggest remaining issues with NCTH is the skewed early game.
Flooding it with weapon attachments only partly solves this problem, but a multiplier to scope magnifications would allow us to increase the NORMAL_SHOOTING_DISTANCE without screwing the scope magnification-to-range balance.

Not sure if the abandoned thread is an indicator that nobody would use that multiplier, isn't NCTH only supported rudimentary and more or less "tolerated" instead of encouraged in AIMNAS, or am i mistaken?

Not to forget lack of continued support/correcting remaining issues likely causes increased player disinterest, which results in unwillingness to code for it , completing the circle. Accounting for the possibility that Headrock may never return, it would be a damn shame, if the whole NCTH project would remain in an unfinished state.
Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #320010] Sat, 18 May 2013 05:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sardonic_wrath

 
Messages:48
Registered:June 2011
On my last playthroughs, I went for OCTH because of some negative things I picked up in various threads, AIMNAS not supporting NCTH, and so on.
Only in the last few days, in preperation of a new playthrough, I decided to give NCTH a go and test it to get a feel for it and find the best values for the experience I want.

Looking at CTHconstants.ini, this was one of my first thoughts... setting the iron scope range to something that felt right to me would result in unusable optimal ranges for highpowered scopes.
A few lines down in the ini, I was happy for a moment and thought that problem was covered... but it turned out that SCOPE_RANGE_MULTIPLIER was doing something completely different.

I too think NCTH would greatly benefit from this. And having only very limited experiences with coding, it looks so simple in my imagination... like if the variable is defined like this:
magnification_variable_used_in_calculations = value_read_from_xml
and it has to be merely changed to:
magnification_variable_used_in_calculations = value_from_from_xml * value_from_cthconstants.ini

Please excuse if I am way off there, I'm not trying to trivialize the great work you are doing Wink
If that ini value defaulted to 1.0, no harm would be done.

Strohmann
Not to forget lack of continued support/correcting remaining issues likely causes increased player disinterest, which results in unwillingness to code for it , completing the circle. Accounting for the possibility that Headrock may never return, it would be a damn shame, if the whole NCTH project would remain in an unfinished state.
Very well put. The fact that this behaviour of scope modes was in place for almost a year kinda proves your point, people just accept NCTH oddities like it is determined by fate and don't even discuss them anymore... or rather they just stick with OCTH

Of course I respect the decision not to code stuff you aren't interested in. No hard feelings there.
Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #320013] Sat, 18 May 2013 08:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CapnJack

 
Messages:56
Registered:June 2012
I think a lot of players are put off by NCTH because they don't understand it. Part of that could be due to a lack of information (not having read Headrocks presentation) and confusion due to the inconsistent behavior of NCTH since its introduction (which is hopefully mostly restored and correct by now). I've seen gameplay videos of users using it and firing at targets close to them without adding aiming thinking they will hit despite the aperture being noticeably larger than the target. I will admit it is not for everyone because it is much further from the game-y nature that is guaranteed CTH. I do feel it truly does make auto weapons much more fun though. Anyway, thanks to Flugente for restoring the old behavior, even if it seems odd, it never bothered me since I understood the magnification indicated by the cursor was your scopes effective magnification to your target due to the close distance not the scope changing magnification (even if it is effectively calculated that way).

[Updated on: Sat, 18 May 2013 08:54] by Moderator

Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #320069] Sun, 19 May 2013 12:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CapnJack

 
Messages:56
Registered:June 2012
Has anyone tested this since the change in r6084? It appears to me that there still isn't any penalty at all being applied to scopes at close range (though the indicated magnification changes on the cursor now). Even right in the enemy's face with a 2x scope the aperture is the same size as the iron sight's aperture. Was the penalty ever significant compared the iron sights to begin with or would it only matter versus a reflex sight? According to Headrock's presentation a 2.0x scope should be half as effective as the iron sights at normal shooting distance.

[Updated on: Sun, 19 May 2013 12:48] by Moderator

Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #320081] Sun, 19 May 2013 19:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Strohmann

 
Messages:288
Registered:August 2011
Location: Division Thought Crimes
Uhm, look in the first posts at the two screenshots at the lower end i posted. The used formula was always erroneous in a sense, that the penalties didn't continue below 8 tiles (=NORMAL_SHOOTING_DISTANCE). As noone seems to want to mess with NCTH, this will likely stay.

As for testing:
- The displayed magnification with ACOG 4x only is always green, even below optimal distance (only turns white when reaching NORMAL_SHOOTING_DISTANCE)...
- There still seems to be no penalty in place, at all. The targeting aperture now does only shrink slightly instead of strongly as before if approaching the target, but it doesn't grow below optimal range like it should.
- Iron sights/reflex sight still give a worse, larger aperture size than ACOG 4x at close ranges...
- LAM-200 laser projection factor display seems to work correctly, the displayed magnification stays white from 1.0 till 1.5, then becomes green with 1.6.

So i get the impression, that this fix wasn't tested extensively or the concepts discussed in this thread weren't fully understood or not agreed with.

[Updated on: Sun, 19 May 2013 20:58] by Moderator

Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #320087] Sun, 19 May 2013 20:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CapnJack

 
Messages:56
Registered:June 2012
Wasn't aware of that, but it still stands there is no penalty at any range.

I'm beginning to see why this whole situation was avoided in the first place. Headrock's penalty to the scopes wasn't very well thought out. As it stands, the penalty is too harsh considering default normal shooting distance of 7 tiles and the default sight range of a merc.

ChrisL wrote about this in the code itself explaining how it basically makes high powered scopes worthless since all scopes will be at penalty by having any target in visual range. There is probably a post somewhere on the forums to this effect as well. Obviously the only solution besides what is already in the code (ChrisL halved the bestScopeRange it seems) would be to change the default sight range (which never happened with HAM5) and re-work the sight range bonuses provided by scopes (also never happened). It would probably break the entire game unless carefully balanced. Maybe it is best we never introduce this penalty anyway and accept that what is broken must stay broken.

[Updated on: Sun, 19 May 2013 20:40] by Moderator

Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #320090] Sun, 19 May 2013 21:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Strohmann

 
Messages:288
Registered:August 2011
Location: Division Thought Crimes
What?

If the penalty is too harsh, adjust AIM_TOO_CLOSE_SCOPE.

I think what ChrisL ment: in the early stage of NCTH there was no SCOPE_RANGE_MULTIPLIER. So for high power scopes the optimal scope distance was outside of the sight range, you got the scope penalty for shooting at a too close target AND the penalty for not seeing the target (yourself). With the addition of the SCOPE_RANGE_MULTIPLIER this was circumvented (was set to 0.7 a long while).

With HAM 5.0 and item transformations Headrock reverted it to 1.0 as it wasn't no longer necessary, as a scope could now transform into replicates with different magnifications. The invention of the scope modes feature made this even easier, as you just have to press the (awesome) button now.

"Halfing the bestScopeRange" surely just refers to adding the 2 to
Toggle Spoiler

So the concept of penalties below a scope's optimal range is still feasible and usefull, it just has to be reintegrated correctly.
Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #321227] Thu, 30 May 2013 23:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
krux

 
Messages:62
Registered:June 2011
I just want to add that I also would be very happy to see this looked into further. It seems pretty clear from the pictures posted that it's not working as it was once intended. If a few constants can be added that lets modders tweak how scopes behaves when closer than optimal range, no harm is done to those who prefer it as it is now. Of course I can only make a humble request as I couldn't say how much work it would require.
Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #321795] Fri, 21 June 2013 15:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
silversurfer

 
Messages:2800
Registered:May 2009
This issue caught my attention in the 1.13 Stock Data Overhaul thread. I'm going to continue the discussion here because it fits better.

Strohmann

http://i.imgur.com/qHV9OAi.png
Upper row USE_SCOPE_MODES = TRUE,
lower row USE_SCOPE_MODES = FALSE; at 28/14/8/7 tiles (revision 1678, 6100 exe).

silversurfer
The reason for this is that at 7 tiles the code says that you are in iron sight range and don't need to use the scope. This is working as intended by Headrock as far as I can see. At 8 tiles the game will still use the scope and you will get a big penalty.


I think it's just not very intuitive, that the scope suddenly ceases to play a role under an arbitrary range. I speculate at the time the code was written this should simulate switching to emergency backup sights on top of a scope and similar for short ranges. But today we can achieve this behaviour with item transformations or scope mode toggles, so i would prefer continuous penalties.


For solving the issue of the big CTH jump between 8/7 tiles I imagine something like this:

1. Scope Modes off:
Automatic check for what is better - scope or iron sights and then the game uses that. The trick is to find the point where scope and iron sights would produce similar CTH. This could even be dependent on wisdom and XP level of the shooter. Unfortunately I'm no good in inventing such formulas.

2. Scope Modes on:
The player manually selects what he wants to use (iron sights, reflex sight, scope) and based on this decision CTH and the aperture size is calculated. If he decides to use a 10x scope at 10 tiles range then it should cause a big penalty and this should be displayed on the screen.


Maybe someone else could come up with a solution for smooth transition between scope and iron sight usage (point 1)?

I will try to make at least Scope Modes work with penalties as it should be (point 2).

Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #321860] Sat, 22 June 2013 19:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
silversurfer

 
Messages:2800
Registered:May 2009
Ok, after changing the "GetBestScopeMagnificationFactor" function to use scope penalties again I get this with Scope Modes "on":

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/2922/bk9.png
top row is 4x scope (optimal distance 28+ tiles)
bottom row 2x scope (optimal distance 14+ tiles)
both at 28 / 21 / 14 / 7 tiles distance to target

In CTHConstants.ini the penalty multiplier was set to this (default value from 1679 GameDir):
AIM_TOO_CLOSE_SCOPE = -4.0

- As you can see at 28 tiles both scopes show their full potential (no penalty).
- At 21 tiles range the 4x scope already suffered a small penalty but would still provide better CTH than the 2x scope.
- At 14 tiles the 2x scope was at optimal range and outperforming the 4x scope which already had a worse CTH than at 28 tiles.
- At 7 tiles it would be better to use the iron sights or fire from hip instead of using the 4x scope. The 2x scope still was a little better than using iron sights (2x scope 19.99 vs. iron sights 23.31).

If the gun has a laser and the target is in range this will give a much better CTH even with scopes that are used below their optimal range.

As long as Scope Modes is "on" the code will just check the currently selected scope. You will have to manually change the scope mode to find the best result.



The penalty check was different in the original code that Headrock implemented. His code would check all available attachments that have a scope factor > 1.0 and select the best scope (smallest penalty) for the current target. This code is used if Scope Modes is turned "off".

Unfortunately I found a small bug in that code too. The code calculates a scope penalty and compares that to the "best" penalty found so far. The penalty formula uses "AIM_TOO_CLOSE_SCOPE" (from "CTHConstants.ini") as a multiplier. After penalty calculation it is checked if the new penalty is smaller than the previously stored penalty. So far so good.
The problem is that "AIM_TOO_CLOSE_SCOPE" has a negative value which makes the result of the formula a negative value.

example:
7 tiles range to target
2x scope penalty = -7
4x scope penalty = -31

Code ask: -31 < -7 ? Yes it is.
This is mathematically correct but means that the 4x scope is better than 2x scope at 7 tiles range. I don't think so. Wink

"AIM_TOO_CLOSE_SCOPE" can take values from -1000 to 1000, -4.0 being the default.
In function "CalcNewChanceToHitGun" where the actual CTH calculation is done "AIM_TOO_CLOSE_SCOPE" is used too. The penalty calculation is the same there but it makes sense because the penalty is added to aim bonus which will reduce the aim bonus.

First thing I changed is that "AIM_TOO_CLOSE_SCOPE" should have a limit of -1000 to 0. Larger negative values mean more penalty while 0 means "penalties off".

The next thing I changed is the penalty comparison. Now it is:
"current scopes penalty" > "best scope penalty so far" ?

For above example this means:
-31 > -7 ?
No and therefore stick with the 2x scope.

BUT this leads to a new problem. What if the higher power scope would provide better CTH despite its penalty? Just look at the picture for 21 tiles shooting distance above. The 4x scope has an aperture size of 21.19 while the 2x scope has 29.40.

At this range the code would have to check 4x scope penalty (-10) against 2x scope penalty (0). Guess who wins...
Any help to solve this problem would be appreciated. Smile

This stuff is giving me a headache...

[Updated on: Sat, 22 June 2013 19:57] by Moderator


Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #321968] Tue, 25 June 2013 12:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
krux

 
Messages:62
Registered:June 2011
That looks like a very good fix! Optimally iron sights should be slightly better than a 2x scope at 7 tiles, but I guess that could be fixed by changing "AIM_TOO_CLOSE_SCOPE", and at ranges below 7 iron sights outperform any scope I guess?

When it comes to lasers, I think they shouldn't really negate the 'too close' penalty when using scopes, firing from the hip with the help from the laser ought to be better at close range (at least if the magnification factor is much too high for that range). I think the penalty tries to simulate that it is hard to locate your target when zoomed in too much (and keep your sights on it) and a laser wouldn't help you much with that (could be wrong though as I'm no military guy). Maybe the calculated scope penalty could in some way affect the laser bonus, so a laser will always help you a bit, but as the scope penalty grows, the laser bonus also shrinks.
Re: NCTH Scope penalties below optimal range - broken?[message #322014] Tue, 25 June 2013 22:53 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
silversurfer

 
Messages:2800
Registered:May 2009
krux
That looks like a very good fix! Optimally iron sights should be slightly better than a 2x scope at 7 tiles, but I guess that could be fixed by changing "AIM_TOO_CLOSE_SCOPE", and at ranges below 7 iron sights outperform any scope I guess?


I didn't experiment with different values for "AIM_TOO_CLOSE_SCOPE". My primary intention was to make the penalty work again. But below 7 tiles iron sights are better even with a value of -4.0.

krux

When it comes to lasers, I think they shouldn't really negate the 'too close' penalty when using scopes, firing from the hip with the help from the laser ought to be better at close range (at least if the magnification factor is much too high for that range). I think the penalty tries to simulate that it is hard to locate your target when zoomed in too much (and keep your sights on it) and a laser wouldn't help you much with that (could be wrong though as I'm no military guy). Maybe the calculated scope penalty could in some way affect the laser bonus, so a laser will always help you a bit, but as the scope penalty grows, the laser bonus also shrinks.


I think that Headrocks intention was to simulate that at close range you will not use a high power scope if you have a laser pointer. So in the code he implemented a formula that checks if your scope causes a penalty and whether you have a laser pointer.

if(iBestTotalPenalty < 0 && iProjectionFactor > 1.0f)
BestFactor = 1.0f;

If that is the case the game assumes that you will use the iron sights (scope factor 1.0) instead. This is an automatism that is not necessary for scope modes. Without scope modes you had no means of selecting specific optics so this automatism was actually a good idea in my opinion.
Hmm, thinking about that I believe that I should remove this check from the scope modes part. :/
After all with scope modes YOU decide what you want to use even if it is a bad decision. Wink

Previous Topic: About tower defense on 1.13
Next Topic: Bobby No-Go?
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Jun 25 00:23:24 EEST 2021

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02814 seconds