When crafting a new item, you should be able to pause it so you can start and finish another item that you need to prioritise.
It sucked big time having spent several days to build a Scarab, only to be forced to cancel it with just a few days left so I could instead craft a weapon I needed badly for one of my soldiers.
Recruit Soldier button needs info:
So I’m at a haven and want to recruit a new soldier. The button is for some reason greyed out, but I dont know why. I have the tech, materials and food for the cost, but there is no info if I am missing something else. So, unless this is a bug, please add information to pop up to show me what I am missing if I cant recruit said soldier.
Changing order of soldiers:
Looking at the soldier list, it would be nice if I could hold and drag soldiers to arrange them how I want them lined up.
Hovering the mouse over enemy icon should show percent to hit them:
In the bottom-middle screen, where the enemy icons are shown, it would be lovely if we could see the chance to hit them if we would fire at them. This would make it quicker to find a suitable target if there is more than one target to aim for.
Pressing F and aiming for a target should show probability to hit:
I’ve played several engagements now, and I still dont know how to see the probability to hit a target.
Maybe its a game feature you decided to go for, but if you want my suggestion then its to show us in percent the likelihood to hit a target. Same goes for when you are manually aiming down the scope.
Allowing the soldier to shoot without manual aiming uses the same mechanics as manual aiming. The only difference is that the cone of fire is aimed automatically towards the target’s center of mass. Each projectile still travels semi-randomly within that cone (it fires along a bell-curve meaning shots to the exact center or extreme edge are less likely).
More or less what i suggested a week ago; another thing could be to be able to have two building queues at half efficency: one for the new Manticore and another for weapons and armor.
Soldier list need a big improvement and filters; if i’m with Manticore 2 at base Charlie i want to be able to see only soldiers in that manticore and in that base
If you zoom in with the mouse wheel you see two circles: the inner one in where will go 50% of hits, the external one where will go the remaining 50%; if you have both circles inside your target you are sure to hit, and you can also decide if shooting the head, the arms or the weapon; if you see just a little bit of a leg and everything else is hard cover it’s pointless to show if you have 1% or 3%, dont shoot.
Once you get used it’s better that the % of XCOM; it looks a bit like Fallout VATS method of targeting.
But that is dynamic feature and showing it could be misleading:
Enemies have animation which change profile your soldier can see thus changing chance
While you aim manually percentage can also change drastically according to where you start to aim.
For many (me including) percentage gives false hope. If you see that there is 80% chance to hit - you automatically expect that shot to hit (it is more likely, not guaranteed, but you still hope for it and you feel disappointment if shot fails). Graphical representation with circles is better than raw number.
The calculation is still happening, but it’s in the background we’re not shown it. - The indicators showing expected damage from shots are derived from the calculation.
You still need RNG to determine where along the bell curve each bullet will hit, I don’t know how snapshot are doing it, but this would be an equivalent, randomise from 0-99 to get your distance from the centre of the target.
And then randomise from 0-359 to get the directional angle.
[quote=“Yokes, post:7, topic:4698”]
For many (me including) percentage gives false hope. If you see that there is 80% chance to hit - you automatically expect that shot to hit (it is more likely, not guaranteed, but you still hope for it and you feel disappointment if shot fails). [/quote]
And 80% shot means that you will hit 80% of the time, no more, no less. Player fallacy in understanding percentages doesn’t make the mathematics behind that shot wrong.
If your targeting circle is 80% full you can still have false hope.
Essentially what snapshot have done it taken an aiming system where some people didn’t understand the maths, and changed it into an aiming system where even fewer people people will understand the maths.
As someone who ‘gets’ the percentages I find it extremely frustrating to be aiming at something and having to spend time to try to interpret visual information when seeing a percentage to hit would be quicker.
If it uses a bell curve then the 100% hit zone is not a full 100% but there is a very small chance a bullet will go outside; that explains why a sniper shot with the blue circle just inside a triton head can miss, very rarely but it happened.
Auto aim at the center of mass means NEVER shot something with the body, or the carapace under cover, even if there is a part not in cover and vell targettable manually, because you will hit the cover.
There are some problems with point blank shots; i happened to miss a shotgun shot auto aimed at a target in the adjacent square, where manual aim doesnt work well for lack of zoom back, and the known bug where you aim from behind cover with a rifle and hit the cover even if it doesnt appear in the targeting; this also with manual aim
And from what I have seen expected damage calculation has some serious issues.
There is system which determines as to how bullets are projected from the gun, however they are not done against the target. Therefore the UI in place reflects that and is a better indicator, then fake percent to hit chance.
How would one determine a flat percentage anyway? Is it chance per bullet? If so which bullet do choose as a baseline? If we fire a burst and the enemy is fully covered by inner circle we have 100% to hit. Sort of. With some bullets. Do we average chance to hit? How is it helpful then? We might bet 60% chance to hit, while actually some of those bullets are guaranteed and some are not. Chance to hit, just isn’t a useful data with how mechanics work.
Ignoring the fact that I don’t know how one would calculate a flat percentage to hit, I just don’t seem the benefit of it. It is not as useful as info already in the game, and at worst it would discourage from engaging with the system, by providing simpler, and potentially inaccurate information.
In addition, from what I have seen, it is easy to gouge ones chances to hit - if enemy is closer and isn’t not in cover he will be easier to hit. Again, it is not FiraXCOM, where a giant enemy two squares away is harder to hit, then small bloke on the edge of your vision because of stats.
I believe that when fired a burst 50% of shots will land within blue circle while other 50% may/may not. When firing a single bullet it still can go off. From little I have seen blue circle still is more likely destination.
But do you really have to spend anytime longer by interpreting such visual information? I find this system really easy to understand or calculate: simply the more enemy you “catch” with aiming circle, the more chance you have to hit it. That’s mostly it.
It’s easy, very nice and clearly presented and I couldn’t imagine anything better. We just got used to rely on percentage system in other games.
Marriaging these two systems (percentage and new aiming system) would only do worse. And having the option to switch one or another wouldn’t help either because it’s already one of game’s unique feature. If we agree to have such an option why not to implement other as well, i.e. classic turn-based system? I think to much interference in such things would ruin whole experience and make the game mechanics very diluted, undecided.
On the other hand, if PP is got to be mod-friendly I am sure we will see some mechanics alterations eventually.
The manual says that 50% of the bullets will go in the inner circle and 50% in the larger one, but a bell curve is asintothic so there is ‘never’ a 100% chance even if it approximate zero very quickly.
True but only in cases those percentage numbers are accurate. I still fail to see how one would make percentages express anything worthwhile, in a system where individual bullets in one burst have different chances to hit.