Not only items - some cover/obstacles can be “seen” through at the edges. I mean if you try to aim at an enemy who’s behind something and the reticle still recognizes the enemy’ll be hit and shows how much damage the shot’ll do. I can’t remember a cover example but I do remember this with a destroyed aspida. I could target some enemy parts even though it was completely behind the aspida carcass. Also, the shot didn’t lose any power so it in fact didn’t hit the aspida carcass.
That’s a really minor issue because it’s not really bad, it’s mostly near the object’s edges. I’m just pointing out that not all hitboxes are perfect as Voland said.
I’ve also seen the different los from different weapons multiple times. I’m not sure it’s because los is positioned on the weapon end and that’s what causes the difference though. If the calculation was made with soldiers pointing the gun ahead, there would be no problem with the trapezoidal lamp post for example. I think it may be something related to the weapon’s accuracy… like in with more/less accuracy what’s right in front of you ends up getting its hitbox detected or not.
It’s really no much use trying to guess, besides making this a guessing game . Devs know how it goes and could probably fix this easily if it got in their radar.
It is because these lamp post are low cover and so the soldier crouches behind it (Edit: i.e. his gun is pretty low). If he would stand than it would be probably no problem.
The aiming origin is an interesting question. Like I said, if it were anything other than vertical position along an axis through the tile center, a rifle or pistol should be able to aim past the pole base. Instead, they all point straight along the centerline. The only time this doesn’t appear to happen is when you’re in a position where you can step out.
the soldier stands up when you hit fire, so that shouldn’t be it, unless the game is only showing the animation and not changing perspective. That would be a dumb bug…
I think this is, because your soldier stands or crouches in the center of the tile and so his weapon is almost also in the centerline when he aims.
What only happens when you behind high cover. Here you got the same aim as when you manually step to the side into the open adjacent tile to the high cover tile. I tested it, it is absolutely the same aim, even when the animation is slightly different.
You’re right, I just tested it, not only when you fire but already when you aim. But the problem with these lamp posts is that they are simply very large.
See screenshots … yes, I did it again
I will come back to this part of your OP, because I think long about it and why this is not a real problem for me.
I think the part “to move a soldier into a great position behind a corner” is the key difference how I play the game compared to some others.
Why is this a great position behind a corner? Because of cover, because of your aim to the target or because of both?
What I have often see in let’s play videos of PP is a behaviour what I would called “trained by Firaxis” (probably a bit unfair, but well, they are the ones that bring the 2-AP-System almost into perfection). The way to go here is looking for a great position with cover and line of fire to targets, because shooting ends the turn of the selected soldier.
But, this is not necessary in PP, you can move after you shoot as long as you have time units (TUs) to move left over. To use this mechanic effective it is mostly better first to look for a position with a great line of fire (LOF) and where you also have enough TUs left to move in cover AFTER you shot the enemy. Then shoot and then move in cover.
It takes also for me a long time to get rid of this “trained by Firaxis” and to make better use of the possibilities of PP. Even nowadays I still catch myself looking for a position with cover AND LOF to a target instead of taking full advantage of the flexibility of the mixed AP/TU system that PP has.
Only some thoughts …
Edit:
For clarification, it is still an issue that you often cannot see an enemy around a corner. I do not want to diminish this issue in any way with my remarks.
I don’t think it is “trained by Firaxis” it’s more like real life common sense. If there are rounds coming towards you, you want something hard between you and them. Getting into cover and returning fire is what is trained into armies, law enforcement etc. In some ways the gameplay in PP is counter to real life and what most players see on tv.
Of course, this perspecitve is also true, so lets call it “trained by reality and Firaxis”
Because we have no real time tactics. Looking from this perspective it is somewhat unintuitive to first move into a good cover position even when you can get better line of fire from a different position or even the position you start your turn and use the cover afterwards. At least for me. Except for overwatch and RF, there are no dangers in your own turn. And that is what Firaxis has done with its rule that firing the gun ends the turn (no doubt, very logical in their game setting). In old UFO/Xcom and also Jagged Alliance that wasn’t the case and also not a problem for many players to adapt and get the most out of it. That’s why I called it so …
I don’t do that — I often move back from the corner after shooting unless I want to trigger RF in my turn. Sometimes, however, I have just enough movement to reach the corner. To get there and discover that I can’t see the target is maddening. It makes overwatch from corner positions also very unpredictable. Finally, holding station at a corner means that you can fire twice on the next turn, which is not insignificant.
Sorry for going off topic, but it’s really interesting to read how differently the game is being played, and how after several 100s of hours you can discover some new combination…
PX is one of those games where I can’t picture how someone else is playing it unless I see it.
Except that low cover is not better than high cover, it’s just different. If an enemy has an angle on you, it’s definitely better to be crouched. However, if not, then high cover gives better protection and the ability to step out. Quite often, you can be a tile back from a corner and use the sidestep to still shoot around the corner.
The argument so far is that RF is better because X-Com had nothing like that… okay
But then its suppose to have effect similar to interrupts of JA2 or reaction fire from xcom. Well why not replace all this RF nonsense with proper interrupt system…
If RF is suppose to be something similar to interrupts then its more of a fail. It’s easy to predict as it is bound to perk, distance at which it triggers you can learn too. It’s nothing like interrupts and nothing like reaction fire in xcom. Former allows pieces to move and just use left over AP in any way, later is what made half of the fun in the game, as it lead to death, injuries and the whole emphasis on soldiers being less important.
What ever it’s role is suppose to be in the game, really depends on the players style. I rarely see any RF from crabs as I use mostly sniper rifles.Seriously, it’s a crappy mechanics. The fact that it got nerfed and changed so many times says on it’s own that it needs to go, it doesn’t fit into the game organically, its not intuitive and doesn’t make much sense.
Please, stop defending features of this game from perspective of “it’s better than how X works in X-Com”, argue from a merit of a good design choices for the game on it’s own.
If it helps, think of RF as an abstraction representing the fact that a close engagement specialist is dangerous to approach. That’s exactly the kind of combat that they train for, so they are going to dish out more damage.
The mechanic itself can be immersion breaking (arthrons with deployed shields should not return fire), but I think the advantage that it represents is legit
Yes, that is true, I’m just saying that similar effect can be achieved by a better means. And you don’t even have to invent anything - those systems where already done and they are more intuitive.
Have I said anything about usefulness of RF in the post you answered?
I’m not a big fan of RF and when it will go, then OK.
I’m slightly confused …
But I agree with almost anything what you wrote about it … confusing even more …
There is another way in which low cover is better, and that’s for Overwatch. Because when OW is triggered, the enemy continues moving, stepping to the side from high cover reduces the window of opportunity for the OW shot, as it takes some time for the side step animation to play.
However, in the discussion to which @MadSkunky is referring to, the other guy was saying flat out that low cover is best, and high cover is good for nothing [because it’s not hugged, i.e. because there is no ‘sticky’ cover in PX].
I get that, but honestly, it doesn’t bother me. I use it to my advantage. Assaults should be out on point. RF makes them more effective in that role. I only use overwatch with my assaults when I know that enemy will enter the cone. When there are multiple possible enemies, I leave OW off and depend on RF. it’s saved my bacon more than once
does it usually happen to a specific side? might be an issue where the soldiers are all right handed (or randomly handed) and that information isn’t being relayed to us.
i can tell you from experience that shooting with your off hand is really hard to the point i wouldn’t feel comfortable doing it
. Devs know how it goes and could probably fix this easily if it got in their radar.
