We are talking about that:
50% of your shots in PP are not GUARANTEED to land inside the small circle. Just like 50% of values are not guaranteed to fall within 1/2 the range of a probability density function.
The only time you are guaranteed a hit is if the large circle is completely inside the enemy. Just like in XCOM you are guaranteed a hit if your aiming percentage is 100%. The difference is, in XCOM if your hit chance is less than 100% the game tells you what it is. In PP, you have to guess.
In a more precise sense, the PDF is used to specify the probability of the random variable falling within a particular range of values , as opposed to taking on any one value.
Something Julian Gollop wrote about was that gamers as a whole donât really understand probability that well. This is why they get frustrated with games like XCOM, rather than any inherent unfairness in the RNG. Thatâs why he introduced mechanics like the aiming to mask it. But the real difference between PP and XCOM is simply that PP is much more forgiving with its hit chances than XCOM. For example, an assault rifle fires 5 rounds. Each round has itâs own dice roll to hit so it is more likely that damage will average out over a burst. But this isnât a new concept. Games have been doing it for a long time.
2 Likes
The issue with cover stems only from the tons of movement characters can do. Itâs too simple to just waltz right by the enemyâs cover on your turn and blast them. Overwatch/ reactionary fire needs a rework. Iâd like to see something similar to Valkyria Chronicles.
Basically have overwatch fire follow a formula something like:
(Number of tiles moved within overwatch range) * (Number of AP used on overwatch) * (RF stat of weapon) * (overwatch stat of unit) * ( a dodge skill of the moving unit)
The idea would be: I move 2 tiles in front of a team of overwatching units. I take one assault rifle shot, but nothing else.
Next I move 15 tiles in- front of overwatching units: I take 7 assault rifle shots, an MG burst, and 2 Sniper shots.
The idea is that there is no single-use overwatch that fires a full shot, but that every tile moved within overwatch range results in chip shots that would kill the unit if they try to use all their movement AP in front of overwatching units, but moving 1-2 tiles to get to cover, or a slightly better angle doesnât trigger a full on overwatch attack.
This is contrasted with the current system in which I can overwatch with my whole team and theyâll all blast at an arthron moving behind cover and accomplish nothing, or theyâll all devastate the first arthron to move, but then do nothing to the other 10 arthrons moving around.
1 Like
Which explains the issue of comparison with Xcom 2. Players were frustrated with ridiculous misses and J G developed a game which negated these frustrations. Games may have been utilising the method before, but he brought it to PP.
There was never any special unique claim. This aiming system seems fairer and not frustrating. With Xcom 2 which is a great game and has great videos, still bugs and at times ridiculous. The original point was making comparisons between the two games. Both Jake Solomon and JG are neither bothered about the overlaps. But the players have their own opinions.
I prefer this aiming system. I have yet to see a shot miss, that I knew should not miss unless I knew it might miss. In xcom 2, one couldnât influence the situation unless you flanked the target. PP feels more probable than what xcom 2 does.
This system simply negates extreme random variants by modelling multiple bullets. Xcom 2 wouldnât. But the result with a single shot is still the same.
1 Like
Every flaw in this game you try to address ends with a fanboy saying how great free aim and ballistics are.
Its a: âDude its an iPhoneâ type of repetative response that should explain why this game is so perfect.
Facts are tossed aside for it. Bugs are ignored, and mechanics and potential is exaggerated.
Even when I say that units dont âtake coverâ, there are people here saying they do and can screenshot it but oops i have a big download so i cant.
The only thing about cover system does is that the unit crouches in low cover. Thats your whole cover system!!!
Ok so now a fanboy can come and say how great free aim is againâŚ
2 Likes
You mistake two things. Mechanics as principle and bugs related to them. 
Mechanics are way beyond what FiraXCOM has to offer. Of course they are bugged in some cases, but it is nothing that canât be handled without redesigning whole game.
No one here praise Phoenix Point as perfect game so your iPhone reference is misplaced. Actually I am in the Community Council more on the side advocating for changing many aspects of the game to make it more tactical, so I understand your arguments, but again I think that Phoenix Point in current state is way way better than FiraXCOM.
Also cover system is not just soldier âtaking coverâ so your argument again is not valid.
1 Like
Wow, very strange, because almost anyone here who responses to you is also not very happy with the current state of the game. I personally stopped to play it because of the many problems it has. The only thing I said is, that in my opinion the cover system is not a real issue and especially with your personal understanding of âtaking coverâ Iâm mostly on opposite to you.
Pretty offensive, but OK, the downloads ends very late yesterday evening and now I go to take some screenies. But Iâm pretty sure that this will be almost pointless, you wonât see that as sufficient in your terms of âtaking coverâ either.
True is that I was wrong, there is no animation or real âhugging the wall/coverâ, so sorry if I throw this in the ring.
But I will stay with my basic statement:
Any obstacle has a real protection effect to the soldier behind it and âLow Coverâ is not always better than âHigh Coverâ. With this i completely disagree with your âthere is no cover systemâ.
Cover screenies
The setup:
Aim 1, here you can see that the soldier behind the âfull coverâ is completely protected (100% of the bodyparts, but with the exception of his gun) from any shots direct in line to the cover:
Aim 2, arroung 45°, here the âfull coverâ starts to give no protection at all for the soldier. If he would âhug the stoneâ it would be clearly somewhat better in terms of âcoverâ:
Aim 3, close to 90°, the result is clear i think:
No you can go on to argue âŚ
1 Like
I dont know why the comparison with Firaxcom is needed all the time.
Firaxcom is a finished product, it dont need redesigning: it will get a sequal.
This game however is unfinished, major bugs, unbalance etc.
And when you address a flaw on this forum fanboys flock to tell you you are wrong, it does not exist, firaxcom is bad, pp is so much more, and we got free aim. And thats exactly how an iphone response looks like. But with one difference, the iphone did work
3 Likes
Dude, thereâs no need to be offensive,
The only âfanboyâ I can see here right now is you, who seems to think that the sun shines out of XCOMâs every orifice.
For the record, I loved XCOM. It revived TBS games for me. But it had its flaws, which is why I have basically ignored anything from WOTC onwards and concentrated on LW2 until this came along.
I suggest that instead of being obnoxious on just one thread, you go away and read some of the rest of this forum. Pretty much everyone responding to you on this thread, from the OP to Yokes, to Skunky to Voland has gone on record more times than you can count to say: âPP has a lot of potential, but itâs not there yet, and hereâs what we think you need to do do fix it.â
Weâre fans, but weâre not fanboys. We know its flaws even better than you do, and we have put hours of time into analysing and breaking them down in extreme detail - but unlike you, instead of being obnoxious about them, we patiently point them out to the devs and suggest ways that they can be improved. Thatâs why most of us are on the Community Council - because we want to make this game better, and we recognise that the best way to do that is not by being rude, but by being constructive.
So why donât you go away and play XCOM to your heartâs content, while we stay here and do the more grown-up job of trying to make this as good as it potentially could be, which could be way better than XCOM (though we all say again and again that itâs nowhere near there yet). 
1 Like
Thank you for taking time on this.
Aim 1 gives you 100% coverage, Aim 3 gives you no coverage. We can all agree on that.
Can you see the problem with Aim 2? he is open for shots 100%
If he took âcoverâ he might expose a leg or an arm. BUT HE IS NOT TAKING COVER!!!
Imagine we gave you a gun and a rock to hide behind, you would stand there like that?
He is standing there like a deer in the wilds, not knowing there is danger.
Heâs on the battlefield! his life depends on it. And high cover gives him a measily 20% angle of cover at best. That is not realistic
And a whole forum is like: oh people dont understand cover and trajectory, pp is the best, we got free aim, firaxcom is bad
Call your mother or your girlfriend, ask her if that dude is taking cover behind the rock or not, let her be the impartial judge.
2 Likes
Again offensive, why?
Simply NO, just read the posts âŚ
1 Like
Cover in all of these styles of games is an abstraction.
In PP, it is abstracted to the point that standing behind a rock gives you protection (ie. cover) against fire from the other side of that rock, until someone gets a flanking angle on you. Itâs not perfect - and its flaws are exacerbated by the fact that skill & armour buffs can essentially give Snipers pinpoint accuracy across the whole of the map, so that your little toe can be peeking out and the Sniper can shoot it off (though as a counter to that Iâd refer you to the countless âLoS doesnât work cos I canât see enough of the target to shoot at itâ complaints on this forum).
But itâs still cover - defined as âsomething that you can hide behind which will block your opponentâs shotâ - and itâs no more or less of an abstraction than an arbitrary -40% nerf on your âto Hitâ percentage, which is what you get in XCOM.
Personally, once Iâd figured out how to take advantage of it, I have found the cover system in PP to be much more flexible and ârealisticâ (inasmuch as a TBS can be realistic) than that in other games. Doesnât mean itâs perfect. Doesnât mean you like it as much as XCOM. But just because it doesnât work the same way as XCOM doesnât mean itâs not cover.
1 Like
OK. This thread is now closed.
Aside from being completely hijacked from the original topic and derailed - itâs just decending into petty sniping. I expect better.
6 Likes