Timeslip Softworks Forums
Vigilantes => Suggestions & Feedback => : Daithi June 28, 2017, 04:42:46 PM
-
Fun... well that's one way of thinking about it!
Aka reaction fire. Also hoping to look at attacks of opportunity. Unsure if these will be possible, but will have a go at it.
-
Overwatch/Reaction Fire is something that I have had LOTS of use for when facing superior numbers. I look forward to not wasting entire turns of AP.
Another alternative might be to allow the player to simply hold or delay their action (if Overwatch turns out to be a pain to implement).
-
Yeah, wanted to open suggestions about this too. We can do so much more with the ability to move [a part of] unit's turn down the queue! :)
Would make high initiative something to thrive for, whereas now it may be even a handicap. Daithi can already shuffle the order with spawning enemies, but I dunno, how hard would be for the AI to make good use of delay too.
Although you can anticipate an enemy's act with both, wait/delay and reactions are two different beasts in reality, not much an alternative really. With reactions you can actually interrupt an enemy in the middle of his action, but don't usually have much say in it. I mean calling it 'fire' implies it won't let us heal or move with saved AP.
Ideal to have both, but, yeah, I know, I know... So either would be awesome. Fingers crossed!
-
Yeah, I'm ok with either implementation.
I expect that changing the initiative order (moving yourself down the queue) would create all sorts of problems.
I'm used to XCOM, so I'm fine with Overwatch. It's something I'm familiar with.
-
Restoring Ushas comment:
Likewise interrupts I suppose. May as well bet. But it would requite to trick Daithi into doing both, so we can then ask what was harder...
Do you mean new XCOMs? May I ask how it works there?
Cause not sure if me babbling about the old one does any good, as there important were the visual range and facing, not here. Though analogously perhaps the initiative for attacker vs. defender comparison makes sense. Also liked notion that you can reserve more TU for better chance. For example, ending the turn with pistol on Snap with 6 AP unused, instead of only 4 AP, will give a higher reaction score.
-
New Xcom has similar overwatch to the old one, except it triggers regardless of CTH, and is guaranteed to trigger, regardless of facing/initiative. (You could set a minimum CTH to trigger in old one, right?)
Have made surprisingly good progress with overwatch yesterday - there's a working prototype for ranged overwatch. Some outcomes haven't been handled yet and there are some limitations. These might be possible to remove, but it's going to take considerably more time and I'm not sure it's worthwhile. The limitation is only one attack can be made per tile the enemy moves. So if you have 2 overwatchers and the enemy moves 1 tile and launches a melee attack, only 1 shot will be fired.
Going to look at melee overwatch today: if an enemy moves to an adjacent tile, and you have overwatched with a melee weapon, you can attack before they do. Then attacks of opportunity....
Now that you mention it, am sort of curious as to whether overwatch or initiative order changes would be harder to code... If overwatch goes well, will look at initiative queue - though am considering unlocking this as a leadership perk.
-
Leadership Perk sounds like the way to go.
That way you could leave the limitation of 1 attack per tile moved and write it up as a limitation of the Perk.
Can the game calculate which attacker has the higher hit chance and use them, or is it random who shoots if a target only moves 1 tile?
-
Thanks for info. Glad to hear it goes well.
Just to recap what I'm recalling:
If the actor does something to trigger reaction and he is in the position to defend-react (eg. they are facing each other), then actor's and reactor's initiative scores are compared (~Reactions stat times fraction of TU reserved). If the actor's is higher nothing happens (or in some games even he can shoot). If the reactor's score is higher though (or there is no defense) he will fire. Not sure about CTH, thought it was just used for the shot itself.
Not particularly happy about limitations, but you can make a feature out of them:) As Nomad mentioned, CTH (or/and initiative) of applicable overwatchers can be compared to determine the one who fires. But others haven't used their AP yet, right, thus they're sequentially reacting as trigger events go. You know, everybody discharging at the first one is a limitation on its own, never liked that rule. It's all about presentation...
Sounds that you're making overwatch as something pro-active. Does it mean ending the turn with enough AP for the current weapon+mode setup isn't sufficient for to be regarded as an overwatcher?
Now that you mention it, am sort of curious as to whether overwatch or initiative order changes would be harder to code... If overwatch goes well, will look at initiative queue - though am considering unlocking this as a leadership perk
May all coding go smoothly and errorless! (I bet on initiative)
Depends if a core or addition. Introducing additional features gradually is actually good. Then a perk works well. Initially imagined a sort of wait button that moves by 1 position in the queue (how many times can wait depends on some stats perhaps), but as a leadership perk, hm... Will a leader shuffle the whole party order?
-
The limitation of 1 attack per tile moved is gone now. And have a basic implementation of melee overwatch working.
@ Nomad - it's a possibility, and while logical, I don't think it will have much impact on how the system works. Currently set to melee first, then ranged, in order that characters entered overwatch.The thing that's jumping out about ranged overwatch is setting a minimum CTH before shot triggers, otherwise, you'll take really low CTH shots at distant enemies, and overwatch may be used up by the time the closer ones move.
@ Ushas: That's pretty much how I'd remember it with X-com. Either way, you'll have to press a button to end turn, and it may as well be the overwatch button. Pressing overwatch button is already set up to tell you if there's a condition preventing you entering overwatch (ap, ammo, item condition). If the initiative order change is added, am starting to think that it could be available to all players at an AP cost, maybe 1, which could be removed by the leadership perk.
-
You could just have three Overwatch presets based on distance. Near, Mid and Far.
Shotgun players would likely prefer Near, small calibre weapons would be Mid and snipers and/or high accuracy shooters could choose far. Or if it's early and enemies are still closing from distance and you just want a free shot off, then Far works then too.
This way it's just a distance check. Did the enemy move within X number of tiles from the Overwatcher?
It won't matter what the attackers skill is over distance.
I don't know if that would make a difference as far as implementation difficulty.
If you're going to make Overwatch automatic, please don't get caught up where we have to end turn twice if we don't have enough AP.
Actually... if you're going to make it automatic, then you don't need any warnings about AP. They just become attacks of opportunity. If the character has enough AP left over, then they'll take a shot at someone moving within their player-set control area (Near, Mid, Far).
Just some thoughts.
-
Thanks for the ideas. A viable alternative to CTH, will think more about which to use.
Feeling is that overwatch should be automatic, with some control over when to trigger. Otherwise, control will continually pass to player (on every tile the enemy moves), they will decide whether to take the shot or pass. The second approach gives more control, but it's going to undermine pacing and add a lot of clicks, which is going to be frustrating.
Can you give me a bit more on this, Nomad?
If you're going to make Overwatch automatic, please don't get caught up where we have to end turn twice if we don't have enough AP.
-
Can you give me a bit more on this, Nomad?
If you're going to make Overwatch automatic, please don't get caught up where we have to end turn twice if we don't have enough AP.
Ok, what I meant by this was in reference to:
Either way, you'll have to press a button to end turn, and it may as well be the overwatch button. Pressing overwatch button is already set up to tell you if there's a condition preventing you entering overwatch (ap, ammo, item condition).
From this I took it to mean that the End Turn button may as well set Overwatch (or BE the Overwatch button).
Then you said you've got it set up to tell you if there's a condition preventing Overwatch.
I just wanted to caution having us hitting End Turn and then the game stopping to tell us we don't have enough AP to enter Overwatch and then requiring us to acknowledge the message before continuing. Thus effectively having to hit enter twice to end the turn (once on End Turn and once on the message that we won't be using Overwatch).
-
And if you DO do something like having the Overwatch trigger be set by range, then I was just envisioning three buttons under the End Turn button that depict (or say) Near or Close, Mid, Far. Two are greyed out and one is active. We click on our preference and whichever is selected is used when we End Turn.
They would be similar to the current setting for Kill/Wound setting, in that they are set per character and then keep the character setting until changed. That way a shotgun character can be set to Near/Close and then forgotten.
When I say "three buttons under the End Turn button" I'm thinking of three small buttons in a line under the larger/longer End Turn. Just a strip that is selected to determine or show the range of engagement.
They could even just have the number of grid spaces that they activate at. Eg: | 3 | 6 | 9 |
-
Ah, ok, got you. Am a bit slow today (too many late nights this weekend)!
Here's some more info on OW. Let me know if anything's jumping out:
Pressing end turn does not enter overwatch by default. There's an overwatch button on the left panel (the one with reload). There a couple of reasons for this:
1) A player may not want to enter overwatch, but rather conserve AP for next turn. With AP bank and some toughness, it will be possible to carry several extra AP over
2) Will avoid the game accidentally mistaking a regular end turn with overwatch end turn, and displaying message (hey, you don't have enough AP). If you genuinely want to use overwatch, this message will be useful, rather than frustrating
3) Encourages players to think about what weapon, use mode they will overwatch with, rather than reflexively pressing end turn, and perhaps not having enough AP, ammo
On the flip side, there is the possibility of players reflexively ending the turn, instead of pressing overwatch button, but think reason 1) is enough to make separate buttons more attractive.
Currently tidying up the code for overwatch, then will add the threshold to fire, and AI overwatch. May restrict overwatch to certain enemies - seems like a good way to differentiate enemy types.
-
And if you DO do something like having the Overwatch trigger be set by range, then I was just envisioning three buttons under the End Turn button that depict (or say) Near or Close, Mid, Far. Two are greyed out and one is active. We click on our preference and whichever is selected is used when we End Turn.
They would be similar to the current setting for Kill/Wound setting, in that they are set per character and then keep the character setting until changed. That way a shotgun character can be set to Near/Close and then forgotten.
When I say "three buttons under the End Turn button" I'm thinking of three small buttons in a line under the larger/longer End Turn. Just a strip that is selected to determine or show the range of engagement.
They could even just have the number of grid spaces that they activate at. Eg: | 3 | 6 | 9 |
Was initially thinking of a pop up, but this sounds like a better, less clicky solution.
-
All me is on the reaction radius side here.
Yeah, also thought about low CTH shots at distant enemies, now I see what you meant with the minimum CTH, but if you use this for permitting reactions it's harder to guess for players (also some will whine that it's too low and some too high). So we may end up using only highly skilled ones, more so if can't control at who they shoot.
Whereas in case of something more simple like discussed distance being the threshold you have more clear base to build upon your positioning and to factor it in your decision whether to postpone your shot into overwatch or not.
Let me know if you're not diverted enough from the CTH threshold, have reserved one more argument as reaction fire.
Distance is usually based on some stat, but I like the spirit of presets idea. Giving some more control. Just not sure about usability vs. implementation yet (perhaps offer some slides in options, but that's also more work). If I may, depends what you want to accomplish - for similar principle it's also possible to use the weapon+mode combination itself as the distance threshold defying (aka loading a constant variable from an array). Pistol in snap reacting at lower distance than in normal mode, precision rifle having all distances bigger than pistol, a shotgun has it already defined, etc. This one loosely gives AP cost vs. distance correlation and is weapon dependent.
Ok, overwatch button makes a sense. Kudos for reasoning, also tells us more about your intentions. Just don't forget a key-binding. Btw. reaction radius can also be shown as highlighted on the ground when mouse-overing that button.
Rest later, am much slower to type.
-
I'm leaning toward CTH being the triggering factor, with 4 settings: 0-25%, 26-50%, 50-75%, 76-100%. It's likely that players will quickly get a feel for a good range, appropriate to the weapon and skill combination. Distance modified by fire mode is from a coding perspective more complex, and am not convinced a range for trigger is any better than CTH for trigger: it mostly swaps one unknown for another (unknown (when overwatch triggers) -> unknown (chance of attack being successful).
By all means, deploy your argument :) Won't get to it today, and would rather get ideas on it before committing.
-
By all means, deploy your argument :)
With pleasure :)
Unfortunately, my turns are delayed so it will be in the next one. Keep the shields up!
Might be wrong, but I believe who and when fifes does impacts the decision making.
So after vanishing the limitation is it now like everybody at their first trigger but sequentially? (what happens if one of them eliminates the target?)
I don't think it will have much impact on how the system works. Currently set to melee first, then ranged, in order that characters entered overwatch.
Perhaps may work with delaying actions or if being asked that y/n, otherwise other options would give better prospects, for example, the CTH order or distance from the target (both similar, CTH favors more real chance, while distance is again easier to use when you can guess the enemy's position)...
I suppose also boils down to additional calculations and programming though.
Feeling is that overwatch should be automatic, with some control over when to trigger. Otherwise, control will continually pass to player (on every tile the enemy moves), they will decide whether to take the shot or pass. The second approach gives more control, but it's going to undermine pacing and add a lot of clicks, which is going to be frustrating.
Depends if you operate under "reaction fire given on each step". There are some options, but what triggers a reaction - simply each step on a tile?
In old x-com there is difference between move then shoot and shoot then move. The former puts you into worse position at the shooting time as you already spent some TUs, thus having lower reaction score. Another example is UFO:AI with their reaction fire contest, see ufopedia.
So similar AP comparison mechanic:
Let's reserve some AP amount for overwatch (can simply remember the mode cost). Next it's an enemy's turn.
-- Till his AP spent is lower than our reserved -> he acts still faster.
-- Once his AP spent is higher than our AP reserved -> reaction fire!
Note1: Obviously, makes snap earlier to proc, but if an enemy is coming to us - using normal mode will proc when he is more closer (-> differs in CTH).
Note2: No need to evaluate costly conditions like cth or distance until the acting unit spends more AP than is the lowest AP reserved on the opposite side.
Back to the question when a reaction procs. Triggering closer to the beginning of enemy's turn may look good, but in case already inside the threshold (be it CTH or distance) that also pose the question why I wouldn't rather fire during the proper turn before as the conditions aren't so much different (eg. he steps just one tile, not necessarily in my direction)...
Obviously you've thought such situations over, even thinking to give us an y/n option. However, couldn't be choosing the weapon+mode and threshold on its own enough for declaring how we wish to trigger? The AP comparison above and sequencing watchers by CTH are examples how to do that. Yeah, asking rather to be constrained than y/n on each step.
PS: Not sure but based on what you said, the Overwatch button might work as the reservation. You can reserve weapon+mode & AP any time, so you don't accidentally spend AP or have the wrong weapon readied. Problem: it would require (un)locking the weapon on one of the hands when (un)reserved.
-
Might be wrong, but I believe who and when fifes does impacts the decision making.
So after vanishing the limitation is it now like everybody at their first trigger but sequentially? (what happens if one of them eliminates the target?)
They will stop firing/attacking. The limitation was initially to prevent all characters firing at once and wasting attacks on a KO enemy.
Perhaps may work with delaying actions or if being asked that y/n, otherwise other options would give better prospects, for example, the CTH order or distance from the target (both similar, CTH favors more real chance, while distance is again easier to use when you can guess the enemy's position)...
Not keen on the idea of asking the player at each step. Will really slow things down. Picking highest CTH first sounds good though. I'm probably going to move on and try to get AOO and initiative order working first.
I suppose also boils down to additional calculations and programming though.
Yeah, getting pressed for time. Strongly considered skipping this update and moving straight to prepping for steam.
There are some options, but what triggers a reaction - simply each step on a tile?
In old x-com there is difference between move then shoot and shoot then move. The former puts you into worse position at the shooting time as you already spent some TUs, thus having lower reaction score. Another example is UFO:AI with their reaction fire contest, see ufopedia.
So similar AP comparison mechanic:
Let's reserve some AP amount for overwatch (can simply remember the mode cost). Next it's an enemy's turn.
-- Till his AP spent is lower than our reserved -> he acts still faster.
-- Once his AP spent is higher than our AP reserved -> reaction fire!
Note1: Obviously, makes snap earlier to proc, but if an enemy is coming to us - using normal mode will proc when he is more closer (-> differs in CTH).
Note2: No need to evaluate costly conditions like cth or distance until the acting unit spends more AP than is the lowest AP reserved on the opposite side.
Back to the question when a reaction procs. Triggering closer to the beginning of enemy's turn may look good, but in case already inside the threshold (be it CTH or distance) that also pose the question why I wouldn't rather fire during the proper turn before as the conditions aren't so much different (eg. he steps just one tile, not necessarily in my direction)...
Obviously you've thought such situations over, even thinking to give us an y/n option. However, couldn't be choosing the weapon+mode and threshold on its own enough for declaring how we wish to trigger? The AP comparison above and sequencing watchers by CTH are examples how to do that. Yeah, asking rather to be constrained than y/n on each step.
PS: Not sure but based on what you said, the Overwatch button might work as the reservation. You can reserve weapon+mode & AP any time, so you don't accidentally spend AP or have the wrong weapon readied. Problem: it would require (un)locking the weapon on one of the hands when (un)reserved.
Yeah, it is triggered when the character reaches a new tile. The AP trigger mechanism is interesting - wasn't aware of that system - it definitely adds more depth. You seem to have an encyclopedic knowledge of TB games! I'm going to run with the current setup for now, but will keep this in mind for tweaks. As you pointed out on dex, having LOS to most enemies and no FOW reduces the usefulness of overwatch, so will put the version out, and get feedback on whether it's a good area to work on some more.
-
I'm leaning toward CTH being the triggering factor, with 4 settings: 0-25%, 26-50%, 50-75%, 76-100%.
Do you mean that if someone is set to 0-25% then they wouldn't attack someone if the chance was 88%?
Or do you mean that the settings would be 0+ (shoot at the first target in range that moves), 25+ (only shoot at targets that have a greater than 24% chance), 50+ (shoot if greater than 49 CTH) and 75+ (shoot at any target with a 75 or higher hit chance)?
-
Forgot to mention - the argument - it's in the burst mode.
Was thinking how both sides interact. So let's say the acting side knows or suspects the opposition is in overwatch.
Even then how well I actually can guesstimate where/when its triggering?
1) CTH: Not sure how easy is to know the current enemy's skill & weapon & threshold (they lvl up, the gang AI does upgrades etc) and compare with current positions and defenses of your allies, to evaluate their CTH. The same for the enemy side - unless they cheat, how they evaluate the threat? It does correlate with distance, but can change from target to target and between situations a lot.
If I suspect to be under the reaction-procing, it pins down in acting (fully in case the first act always triggers, or partially for AP speed comparisons and such). As there is no defense - options are either eliminate all overwatchers or take a risk and move? Would be more paranoid with the blurriness of the CTH edge. What I'm sure is that moving away gives them lower CTH (what if more overwatchers around?). Would like also a guess whether triggers at all.
2) Distance: we see what weapon the enemy readied so have a fairly good idea on the reaction radius as this works for everybody the same (I assume Nomad's presents also +/- correlate with weapon types). The same with enemies, it will feel fair for them having this info now because we have it too.
Deeply inside the threshold there is no difference between using CTH or distance -> fairly sure to be pinned, but the closer the edge the more it differs what I know and thus can do about it...
Overwatch doesn't need to be good only when fires and hits though. I use fire grenades more for their hazard feature - lower willingness of enemies to go in. You can even put the same invis. hazard on tiles under overwatch, perhaps with lower repellency. An enemy near the edge may decide to step outside and go around, so no reaction -> but then I've been successful in keeping him out. It has an effect without the trigger.
It's likely that players will quickly get a feel for a good range, appropriate to the weapon and skill
and to the target's evasion & armor and to the target's cover angle and to the player's crouching and on both sides to status debuffs & leader & perk modifiers combinations... I would run a script for that, a big fun, thanks! :)
it mostly swaps one unknown for another (unknown (when overwatch triggers) -> unknown (chance of attack being successful).
Isn't that whole swapping thing more near the edge of the threshold situation? If choosing +/- comparable thresholds, then yes in statistically significant repetitions of enemies near the edge we could see that difference. But in one case I would be less inclined to enter the overwatch.
Good fight! (your stance is sound, merely supplying the opposition hoping is helps somehow)
-
Do you mean that if someone is set to 0-25% then they wouldn't attack someone if the chance was 88%?
Or do you mean that the settings would be 0+ (shoot at the first target in range that moves), 25+ (only shoot at targets that have a greater than 24% chance), 50+ (shoot if greater than 49 CTH) and 75+ (shoot at any target with a 75 or higher hit chance)?
Yeah, I didn't describe that very well, it's the latter. 0-25 will fire if there is LOS and the others will activate if the minimum threshold is met.
-
If you're doing that, then you really only need the lower number (just an opinion).
0+, 25+, 50+, 75+
Edit:
What I mean by that is that otherwise it's:
0-100%, 25-100%, 50-100%, 75-100%
-
@ Ushas: In the event there's enemy overwatch (unclear at the moment) it will probably trigger easily. The reason being that I think it will be difficult to make the AI use OW effectively, without the player being able to game the AI. If the AI just holds fire on overwatch, it will make it less impactful. Didn't mean to pull the rug out from under your feet with the enemy overwatch part of your reasoning - this was something I only started to realise last night :)
Likewise, I think your reasoning is good, and appreciate you and Nomad taking the time to offer different perspectives.
@ Nomad: Yeah you're right, only minimum to trigger would be required.
-
I would argue that the enemy has superior numbers and don't need Overwatch.
Or... I would argue that their use be determined by the selected difficulty level. =)
-
Strongly considered skipping this update and moving straight to prepping for steam.
Will be there any other update before going EA?
The AP trigger mechanism is interesting - wasn't aware of that system - it definitely adds more depth.
Timing is powerful tool, fun to gamble with. Not the best, but comes to mind as simple to use, no other stat checks. Loosely relates to what ArchAngel mentioned on when to act.
As you pointed out on dex, having LOS to most enemies and no FOW reduces the usefulness of overwatch
By its definition - maybe, but can merely fulfill slightly different purpose here. As you said it has already some situational benefits. Apart that, in both AOO and Overwatch we undergo some risks, the former gives attacks for free, would it make sense for the latter if targets can't benefit from evasion? Or what if successful overwatch hit distracts the target (Distracted: -50% AP for 1 turn)? If works right away the unit's turn was practically disturbed.
In the event there's enemy overwatch (unclear at the moment) it will probably trigger easily. The reason being that I think it will be difficult to make the AI use OW effectively, without the player being able to game the AI. If the AI just holds fire on overwatch, it will make it less impactful.
Oh, but we always game it, resistance is gallant but futile.
I dunno. There is potential in side effects. Not all spells are damaging, some makes you unable to act, other run in fear.
Looking at large, the sides aren't equal, different strengths, different weaknesses. So still the same mechanic can include stuff impacting players more. Our units are more precious, so yeah easy to trigger helps, anything making the target's life miserable (eg. see above), etc.
We are very, like really very, susceptible to surprise. Even when easy to game, at least the first several times seems challenging just from the adaptation pov. You have variety in factions/ranks/traits going on, which is great.
On the AI in general I'm curious about tricks on the illusion of AI adaptation. Not sure how could go, probably just stupid, but perhaps some variables may vary in time, eg. that repellency of overwatch danger zones, etc. So at the beginning of the battle they fall for traps and are easy to game, lulling us into comfort, but later they gradually change behavior, favoring different approaches, more cautious, looking as if the consequence.
You can also observe and collect info on the player's play. Then use it against him within the battle or across the campaign. This can work as misleading too (not to be used often, of course). For example, a timely placed new bark. So even when the AI doesn't change at all, we would think it did somehow, even random outcomes attributing to that.
I would argue that their use be determined by the selected difficulty level.
Having the rate of selected tactics or even the use itself adjusted by difficulty sounds interesting!
Sigh, more work on balancing, isn't it?
Didn't mean to pull the rug out from under your feet with the enemy overwatch part of your reasoning - this was something I only started to realise last night :)
Don't worry, one's strategy does not fall apart by circumstances. In fact, already recuperated forces. Stay tuned!
-
@ Nomad : Am holding fire on enemy Overwatch for now. Difficult to call, but Implementation time might be better spent elsewhere. Will keep your difficulty suggestion in mind though
@ Ushas: At least 1 more update, maybe 2-3. They are likely to be shorter updates though. Need to rework char system, reduce enemies, add polish, stomp bugs. If V19 passes your and Nomad's scrutiny, it might be the first Steam version. It needs to be in good shape when it hits Steam though, so it is one of those "when it's ready" situations.
-
Waiting before putting it on Steam is wise if you have that luxury.
You only get one first impression, so make a good one.
I think that once we get to the point where we can actually get info on the underbosses, bosses and facilities without it crashing, then it will be at a good place. If I'm not mistaken, past that point it's really just adding gear and features. The base game is pretty much there.
So, like you say, if the next couple of releases can clear up some of the bugs, then it should be looking pretty good.
-
Agreed. Knowing next to nothing about the steam, but based on what heard, having a well playable start could be an advantage. Later may afford break things a little bit here or there. I guess more backers will jump on. So some reviews.
Shorter updates seem reasonable, if it's not much hassle to put a build out. Those in-between turns features themselves sound as a big addition.
As said above, we haven't reached the 2nd part yet, so naturally worried about the boss-hunting too. Will do my best to help hammer the freezing bugs.
-
Waiting before putting it on Steam is wise if you have that luxury.
You only get one first impression, so make a good one.
I think that once we get to the point where we can actually get info on the underbosses, bosses and facilities without it crashing, then it will be at a good place. If I'm not mistaken, past that point it's really just adding gear and features. The base game is pretty much there.
So, like you say, if the next couple of releases can clear up some of the bugs, then it should be looking pretty good.
Have no direct experience of Steam EA, but the developers I've spoken to gave me that advice, to hold of on EA until the game is in as good shape as possible. They also said for single player EA games, a long time in EA is counter productive. Releasing too late in the year isn't good either, very hard to get coverage, and could really do with getting Vigilantes on Steam, so there's multiple opposing factors at play.
Yeah, need to work on interrogations, so it's more stable, and to allow honing in on one lieutenant or facility. There are loads of little things that need to be tackled, for the most part these will be smaller tweaks. Will start compiling a list of these.
Agreed. Knowing next to nothing about the steam, but based on what heard, having a well playable start could be an advantage. Later may afford break things a little bit here or there. I guess more backers will jump on. So some reviews.
Shorter updates seem reasonable, if it's not much hassle to put a build out. Those in-between turns features themselves sound as a big addition.
As said above, we haven't reached the 2nd part yet, so naturally worried about the boss-hunting too. Will do my best to help hammer the freezing bugs.
From what I gather, bad EA launch will seriously hurt the game. Building itself, maybe 1/2 day, but several days testing are also needed. This isn't wasted time though, as it helps with stability. Yeah, changes like AOO, OW, Delay are high risk with bugs. If hadn't tackled them in this update, probably would been too cautious to add them. Depending on progress with V19, intel gathering could be tackled then. Freezing input bug is the biggest bug concern at the minute. Hopefully we can track that down soon.
-
Ah, I see how prepping for EA can easily last for several versions. Then it's good that you're already prioritizing for that.
-
There seems to be no interest to discuss overwatch anymore, but my train seems to have very long braking distance.
So CTH thresholds - how those actually translate into distances?
Say the following are at play: 5+ (aka the whole map), 25+, 50+, 75+
Let's have overwatchers:
OV1: weapon - Abramovich, mode - Snap, no Leader buff, stands in open
OV2: weapon - Abramovich, mode - Normal, Leader buff (4), he's readied in cover
Then two identical targets, but one hides in cover:
TA1: Evasion 8, steps on a tile in open
TA2: Evasion 8, steps on a tile with directional cover (60)
The question is how far overwatch triggers. Below are some estimates, but I don't have the exact formula, so could be wrong. Based on testing during v16 perhaps not by much.
Overwatcher 1 (Snap, in open) --> Target 1 (in open):| | CTH 05+ | CTH 25+ | CTH 50+ | CTH 75+ |
| Skill 30 | LOS | 6 tiles | X | X |
| Skill 60 | LOS | 11 tiles | 6 tiles | 1 tiles |
| Skill 90 | LOS | 15 tiles | 9 tiles | 6 tiles |
| Skill 120 | LOS | 19 tiles | 11 tiles | 8 tiles |
Overwatcher 2 (Normal, in cover) --> Target 1 (in open):| | CTH 05+ | CTH 25+ | CTH 50+ | CTH 75+ |
| Skill 30 | LOS | 11 tiles | 4 | X |
| Skill 60 | LOS | 17 tiles | 9 tiles | 6 tiles |
| Skill 90 | LOS | 24 tiles | 12 tiles | 9 tiles |
| Skill 120 | LOS | 30 tiles | 15 tiles | 11 tiles |
Overwatcher 1 (Snap, in open) --> Target 2 (direc. cover):| | CTH 05+ | CTH 25+ | CTH 50+ | CTH 75+ |
| Skill 30 | LOS | X | X | X |
| Skill 60 | LOS | 9 tiles | X | X |
| Skill 90 | LOS | 13 tiles | 6 tiles | X |
| Skill 120 | LOS | 17 tiles | 9 tiles | 4 tiles |
Overwatcher 2 (Normal, in cover) --> Target 2 (direc. cover):| | CTH 05+ | CTH 25+ | CTH 50+ | CTH 75+ |
| Skill 30 | LOS | 9 tiles | X | X |
| Skill 60 | LOS | 15 tiles | 3 tiles | X |
| Skill 90 | LOS | 22 tiles | 8 tiles | 2 tiles |
| Skill 120 | LOS | 28 tiles | 11 tiles | 7 tiles |
The use of thresholds depends on skill lvl and on circumstances (weapon, target). Obvious defense against triggering itself is to step on a tile with cover (does crouching count? I suppose directional part yes). Highly skilled shooters are needed here. Hm, that's Interesting. But not going to be swayed!
Although some things are fairly apparent, it's unclear to me if intended. Synthesis:
1) Threshold availability: With low skill it can boil to the lowest 1-2 options, one always being LOS, whilst 25+ fast rises to 10+ tiles. At skill 50 it can still happen 50+ threshold being unusable.
2) Distance usability: As skill increases options open up. However, corresponding distances increase too. If we want react only on targets at close it will become more and more impossible to set with higher skill, unless upping thresholds.
3) Targeting at close: Even with a fair selection it's difficult to manage when targeting close enemies, if they can step on a tile with cover. Say OV1 has skill 80. He will need to use CTH 50+ to be sure for targets moving within 4 tiles. But that also means if there is any other enemy stepping on a tile in open within 8 tiles, and he acts before the close ones, then it will trigger for him. Choosing CTH 75+ and risking not triggering at all -> you've wasted AP.
4) Weapon influence: Weapons have CTH modifiers. With Patriot+ distances will be bigger, more so for a prec. rifle. Rifles have this peculiarity with minimum effective range, so it can happen that the trigger area is an annulus with the min trigger radius > 1. Not bad itself, but it varies. For example, if OV2 he has skill 70 and uses CTH 75+ & Normandy & Aimed, then it triggers for TA2 only at exact distance 4 tiles, no more no less. That's some tricky business:) If has skill 90, at the most closest CTH 75+ it means reaction fire against all targets TA in open within 14 tiles.
Not saying some tactical maneuvering isn't possible, but this is fairly complex to do when triggering so much depends on the attacker & weapon & mode & target & queue constellation. In the end, I won't bother to spend energy needed for a good estimate to take advantage of options. Probably will only use highly skilled characters within the LOS or threshold encompassing targets within ~10 tiles and won't care who hits who. Funny, this means more busy work than in case if it was simply set at 10, because have to constantly re-evaluate picked CTH thresholds.
Meanwhile...
Reaction radius thresholds...
...will be much easier to use by tacticians as well as those who want minimal management.
/End Turn
PS: Prepared for any witchery.
-
May as well be summarized as: More choices are good, but not always...
Already depending on many variables, one CTH threshold is a fairly build dependent (viability varies), albeit changes with the battles situation. When more thresholds to choose from are available it appears to shift the focus more heavily towards tactical - players think they always should be able to figure it out, except... it's more complicated (see above). Like a puzzle. But then it needs to be supported as such (UI feedback etc.), not only making and troubleshooting buttons. I'm practically saying that one CTH threshold is not only easier to do but may even end up preferable.
The thing is, the situation around reaction radius is less tied down. It can be made (in)dependent on other variables as much as you want, on the range from simple to complex, tactical to strategical, etc. I assume distance is known (required for CTH). Then various possibilities, for example (very loosely sorted by complexity to implement):
a) Simply static distance X tiles -> fully about tactical positioning.
b) Weapon [type] dependent but still static distance -> so positioning + weapon choices of units.
c) Stat dependent, eg. Intuition = radius -> positioning depends on stats of individual units, an ounce of strategy.
d) State of the attacker (cover, wounded...) dependent -> fully tactical as (a), but more dynamic.
e) Based on the skill & mode & state of the attacker -> like the CTH threshold, but the target's side not included.
f) Near/Med/Far buttons -> fully tactical, goes well with positioning, usability correlates with CTH (skill, weapon...).
...
There are many options to choose from or combine, none inherently inferior. In fact, (a) might be the most effective when you take into account the whole dynamic battle situation, and then the strategic choice could be a perk permanently changing this range. And so on with others.
The drawback is that, once inside the area, a defender has no means to protect himself from the trigger, but at least can try lower CTH. Some of the options make it harder for him to guess the trigger area. Ugh, starting to argue with myself.