Suggestions - minimum effective range, lean, wire fencing, corpse looting, inventory space

Hi Team,

I’ve two thoughts I wanted to throw out there at the moment:
Minimum effective range:
I’ve a thought for the sniper rifle and other weapons which may be somewhat cumbersome to use in melee combat. In the theory that the game turns are representative of live combat one would not assume looking down the scope to take your shot would be very do-able at some distances, similarly tracking movement through a scope of close targets is a lot trickier than tracking ones at distance.

How replication of this could be achieved within the game I can appreciate would be difficult, but I wonder if it’s possible to have something like ‘if the middle of the target is within x distance, decrease accuracy by y percentage’. Using a non-cone shaped firing model could also work but I imagine could introduce a lot of interesting bugs.

Leaning:
A mechanic to lean your model manually would be appreciated. Not all the debris seems to trigger the automatic lean out, particularly debris that is not a wall or tree. A manual option would be an easy work around, and deal with somewhat annoying situations where something like a thin pole your character could realistically easily accommodate for is blocking a key part of the shot.

Wire fencing:
I’ve noticed the wire fences will absorb a shot before being destroyed. I have assumed this is something your team is already across and will change before the final production version of application is released, but if not here’s my thinking: standard bullet or small projectile weapons should not be significantly hindered by this kind of object - nor should they be capable of destroying it. Energy weapons and explosives may be a different story.

Corpse looting:
At end of battle it seems we get whats in the crates automatically, but have to manually scavenge the bodies during the battle or their loot is lost. Personally I don’t see why in standard missions these two things are treated differently; if it’s a mission we have to extract then everything not on the soldiers would be left behind, if it’s a mission we control the field then everything should be salvaged.

Inventory space:
Unless none of my guys have achieved high enough strength, it seems the space in the inventory is limited by items not just encumbrance. From memory I think this is new to this builder pack. From my view this significantly reduces the usefulness of Strength. Would it be possible to either increase the slots based on strength (or backpacks/equipment? Maybe I just haven’t found the magic backpack yet.) or infinite backpack space but limit the amount it’s possible to over encumber yourself intentionally.

Happy to throw around some ideas if you’re open to it.

2 Likes

I have been thinking about that for some time. Using sniperrifle too shoot someone in the face from a close distance does feel odd - I don’t know about real-life practicality, but we are condition by gaming tradition that sniper rifles are effective long range but not in close range combat.

I am not sure, though, if it needs to change. While perhaps not a traditional (or accurate?) representation of sniper rifles, it would be a problem only if rifles became the optimal weapon in close and long range and needed a nerf. Other weapons seem to perform better at close ranges, and rifles advantage is its range and accuracy. Sounds good enough to me.

I wouldn’t call myself an expert with sniper rifles in real life, but I can say they are far trickier to use than most games make them out to be. As an example though, you could zoom in on your camera phone and try and film the dog running round the back yard, if you were to attach about 10kg to the phone, it’s about the same. The difference is if you’re dog is in the park on the other side of the road the movements required from you are much less, so it’s easier to control - the reactive oversway tends not to happen. A pistol on the other hand is quite light, so the effect is much more like the phone on it’s own, and usually with a faster rate of fire - you’re less reliant on that one moment of having everything lined up.

Maybe the dynamics of combat I’m seeing an issue with aren’t articulated as well in the first comment as they could be - if someone is standing still then poking the barrel into them would in theory work. The issue is that the final resting place of a character who spent their turn running around is treated as the same as a character who spent their turn sitting still. Maybe a better way to represent this would be the animation applied to models that have performed vigourous movement being different to those who have not. Take the Trident for example - it’s movements are far more erratic than the arthro… other guys… which does make some shots miss or just hit the wrong location.

What do you think?

1 Like

All sounds fine to me, but so far the discussion is purely about real-life workings of guns, and not gameplay. Systems are always heavily abstracted, no matter whenever the game goes for Arcady or authentic feel. I don’t see comparisons to real life, as necessarily valid criticism, if system wise it works well. Sure, the more authentic the theme the better, but big picture gameplay is more valuable then details.

Ability to spend AP as players wishes is one of the core changes to PP from FiraXCOM, and I wouldn’t water down it, by punishing players for moving. Idea of “sniper” nests isn’t a bad one (encouraging snipers to find and hold a good position and move only when necessary), but I feel like PP intentionally doesn’t restrain movement.

If a system with varied accuracy were to be implemented I would rather prefer to see snap/aimed/autoshot from original UFO return, but I don’t think such system would be interesting in the current design.

Still, it is all theoretical from me. Perhaps someone who actually played beta might be able to better explore current implementation of rifles and if they could use a change from gameplay standpoint.

Food for thought…

Googled about it and the best answer I got is from here: Are snipers less effective at close range?

Matt Pickering, Gun owner, engaged in state/national gun policies and politics, instructor/FFL03

Answered Apr 8, 2017 · Author has 8.9k answers and 26.2m answer views

A sniper rifle would be more effective at close range. The bullet doesn’t gain power with distance; it loses it.

If you are shot at 50 or 100 yards with a .30 caliber, .338 or .50BMG round, you’re likely going to die then and there. Even if the round goes through you, the hydrostatic shock from the wound channel will relocate your organs even it doesn’t touch anything vital.

Anyone who has hunted white tail deer is well aware of what is possible at short range. In fact, the closer, the better. More energy transfers to the target.

Rate of fire has nothing to do with it. A bolt gun can still be fired at a round a second or faster without much effort. The scope may make initial target acquisition a little harder depending on the magnification but once on target, the round is going to do tremendous damage.

So, a sniper rifle is even more powerful at close ranges. But in my opinion it’s a cumbersome gun to use, especially on close range. The low fire rate, aiming is not pratical close to the target.

In game this cumbersomeness is reflected in how much AP costs to fire one shot. Maybe the aim circle should grow as you are closer to the target. This would reduce precision in close range.

1 Like

The thing is, PP doesn’t have “aim at” mechanic. You don’t target specific targets, but point which direction is the gun to shoot and it does just that and hits what it will hit.

It’s a bugbear of mine too. In the original XCom games there was a similar situation. I used to try to wound the last alien and then leave it cowering in a corner until I’d managed to get my guys to tramp around scavenging.

It would be really useful to be presented with a list of items and just pick what there’s space for the men to carry.

2 Likes

That’s true. I didn’t consider that.

1 Like

I like this idea - Jagged Alliance 2 did it perfectly; characters that were travelling but ran out of action points froze mid-step, and the animation represented this. Anyone aiming at that character suffered an accuracy penalty, depending on the stance and speed of the target, those being prone/crawling, crouched/(possibly sneaking), walking, and running.

In PP it’s not possible, as the UI doesn’t let you set a destination that is further away than your character’s maximum range on that turn, and thus paths can’t be resumed on the next turn. There could be some concession made for distance travelled in a turn, though.

1 - I was never talking about the force of the shot, just chance to hit. Apologies if that has been implied at some point.
2 - Yes I think we’ve reached a very similar conclusion on decreasing accuracy based on range.

I have played a bit further and found the snipers eventually get an ability which gives them increased accuracy if no-one is within 10 squares. This is kind of the effect I think we’re talking about, but they’ve applied it in reverse.

There’s a slight time delay between the time you say to shoot and when they do shoot. I believe the ‘super slow’ time stops, you get about .5 seconds of normal time and then the shot. That time gap would mean a more erratically moving model would be harder to hit in a precise way.

Alternatively that movement could have a slight distortion pattern to it. Maybe the model isn’t so much distorted as in super position between all possible distortions until the shot is taken.

Either way I don’t think we should discount the possibility of dealing with this mechanic of moving targets in this new shooting system.

It’s almost funny that this would have been so easy to account for in an old percentage based shooting system, but difficult the more realistic the system gets.

The benefit of heavy abstraction of concepts is that it allows for a lot of tinkering. You can use basic stuff like debuffs and buffs to express thing, even if they don’t work in a way they would in reality. There is a reason Firaxis loves this stuff.

I would like to hear though, why would Phoenix Point need this system.

  • Amount of AP expresses how cumbersome the weapon is to use

  • Other weapons are more effective in short ranges - sniper rifles advantage is their accuracy and effective range which looses meaning in short distances and auto weapons with bigger spread are more desirable.

Firaxis uses range, because this and slight difference in damage is the only parameter they have to differentiate weapons from each other. PP point has: spread, amount of bullets, damage per bullet, effective range. This is plenty. I think there must be a reason to add another thing on top.

One might increase AP to use Sniper rifle if enemy is close. Does SR need a nerf though?

‘Need’ is always going to be a stretch, as it’s a game so unless it’s making it unplayable is there ever really a need for anything?

Rhetoric aside, maybe we use the sniper in different ways. I’ve found in a number of scenarios that the sniper has been very effective for charging up to an enemy to get round a shield or ensure you can pinpoint the intended arm, then use the sniper rifle a little like a shotgun. The AP isn’t a huge issue for doing this kind of thing but each time I do it I feel like I’ve misused the system. The Tritons have done similar to me previously and its pretty annoying.

Your comment has given me another idea though - the AP used for a sniper rifle. Practically speaking a sniper rifle of higher calibre taking precision shots isn’t held in hand but braced in some way. An AP cost to brace and cut down the natural sway of such a heavy weapon may make more sense (same could be said of heavy weapons). The shooting AP could be reduced, brace AP included, which would mean things like the ‘shotgun charge’ with a sniper rifle wouldn’t feel so BS, but instead a fair trade off.

Even as I type this though, I’m reminded of the ‘crouch’ function in the old XCOM UFO Defense… which wasn’t a bad feature, and may make a lot of sense for this kind of thing. I’m guessing it was removed to simplify gameplay, but it would have a lot of uses, not just this.

The discussion you’re having has reminded my of an old darts game on the spectrum that gave a challenge to aiming by making your hand less than steady. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SRt1IZpwxc

I wonder whether you could use a similar concept in PP, rather than have your target move faster when closer, give the actual act of targeting more difficulty for a close up target.

+1

PP sorely lacks this common mechanic.

No, you didn’t.

Good to know they thought about this.

I remember games where you couldn’t shoot from a bow and crossbow if an enemy was standing near you.

You can move on 1 cell back and shoot.

But here say: here they write that it is more difficult to shoot from a sniper rifle than from a pistol.
All the difficulty in using an optical scope, but if the enemy approached you point-blank, will you target vulnerable points through the optics or shoot without aiming resting the barrel on his chest?

it all depends on the understanding of the game. if you take a static picture after each move, it is easier to shoot at point blank range, but if you use a real combat situation, then running up into a dense enemy simply takes the barrel away with your hand, preventing you from aiming. 100% miss.
the same with a conventional automatic rifle.

You can enter the shooting system from the hip. without the possibility of choosing the aiming point, in silhouette. how is it organized during an overwatch.

less time to shoot, lower accuracy, but easier to aim at the nearest.

Sorry if u not understand. Google translate here)

1 Like