Too Accurate at Long Distances?

You are here: Stellar Forces > General Discussion > Too Accurate at Long Distances?

• I'm playing a few games now that have more open spaces. My guys seem to be mowed down with one shot at crazy distances halfway or more across the map with far too much ease.
  
  The strategy essentially becomes, put as many guys in as open spaces as you can, and just wait. Because you will hit and kill at least 1 out of 2 times.
  
  In the first game I played today, 2 long range shots, and 2 instant kills (for the record, one was very injured).
  
  Next game, 4 long range shots, 3 hits and two kills.
  
  That just seems crazy.
  
  Then in another game, I take a shot point blank and only do 8 damage. I can understand the need to have random damage, and long range shots, but the damage a shot inflicts should be reduced with range. Not sure what the accuracy is for opp fire either...should probably be in the auto or snap shot range, but it seems to be fantastic. ;)
  Posted by CornMaster 9 years ago [Login to reply]



• I asume its our game your talking about tale of two bases. I agree with opps fire being too acurate in fact it changes the way the game is played as i tend to count on getting most kills using opps fire. so for example on the tale of two bases map ive found through experience of getting cut down in a previous game that the first side to have multiple units covering the entrances to the enemy base is going to win.
  Posted by 1980-20.. 9 years ago [Login to reply]



• You're right. it's something I've been meaning to fix but never got round to (mainly since I can't think of a good solution).
  
  The current algorythm is as follows:- a random number is chosen between 0-100. If this is less than the accuracy (shown on the icons) the shot is perfectly accurate. Otherwise it is adjusted by a random number of degrees from 0 to "100 minus the accuracy". FYI, opportunity fire is taken at the same accuracy as a snapshot.
  
  I guess problem is that when a shot is accurate, it is completely and perfectly accurate, when in reality it should always be out by a few fractions of a degree at least.
  
  Since I read your post I've had a think about possible solutions but I can't think of anything ideal. As always, I'm open to suggestions!
  
  Posted by SteveSmith 9 years ago [Login to reply]



• Maybe instead of changing accuracy, damage should be lower with higher distance, I don't really know how is this calculated, but you can use something like:
  range value
  +10 squares +5
  +15 squares +10
  +20 squares +15
  ...
  final algorythm should be something like
  damage - armourProtection - rangeValue
  
  Just an idea, maybe it is not possible to use this formula.
  
  
  Posted by victor 9 years ago [Login to reply]



• It's certainly possible to do that (quite easy in fact) but I'm not really convinced about damage being reduced over distance. In the real world (?), surely a laser bolt would do the same damage regardless of distance?
  Posted by SteveSmith 9 years ago [Login to reply]



• True, this should not apply to laser weapons nor sniper rifle
  Posted by victor 9 years ago [Login to reply]



• Yes a laser bolt would cause the same amount of damage but the soldiers abilty to choose where his shots hit become reduced, changing the amount of damaged caused would be a simple way of simulating this.So i think it should apply to laser weapons but not sniper rifles.
  Posted by 1980-20.. 9 years ago [Login to reply]



• Fair enough, I can see I'm outvoted here! :) I'll add it to the list: "laser weapons have reduced damage over distance".
  Posted by SteveSmith 9 years ago [Login to reply]



• He He its your game mate dont listen to me :)
  Posted by 1980-20.. 9 years ago [Login to reply]



• Well, I've added it to the voting options, so I'll let the people decide!
  Posted by SteveSmith 9 years ago [Login to reply]



• I never equip laser weapons or sniper because they cause less damage than machine guns, and in case of laser they are less accurate. Maybe if they keep their power with distance this could be an advantage over machine guns, if these ones do have reduced damage in long distances.
  Posted by victor 9 years ago [Login to reply]



• To solve this problem, how about a limit on the range that a unit will fire an opportunity shot at?
  Posted by SteveSmith 9 years ago [Login to reply]



• I'm just about to implpement this. What's your recommendation for how much the damage should be reduced? 1pt every 2 squares? And should the "start" damage be increased to compensate? And should there be a minimum damage?
  Posted by SteveSmith 9 years ago [Login to reply]



• I think that should be ok, what about setting a minimum distance to start reducing?
  Do you think actual damage will not be enough?
  Not really sure about changing those things.
  Posted by victor 9 years ago [Login to reply]



• Setting a minimum distance is a good idea, say 5 squares.
  If I don't increase the weapon's "start" damage, I'll reduce their cost since they won't be as good as they were (at long distances).
  Posted by SteveSmith 9 years ago [Login to reply]



• My solution is to just change the acuracy algorithm altogether (maybe not for the sniper rifle though). Instead, maybe have it so the accuracy value represents the largest angle a shot can be in-accurate by in either left or right (or up or down depending on the direction the unit's facing) and bullets are shot randomly in-between on on those to angles e.g a machine gun has 30 degrees either way and his bullets shoot randomly in that 60 degree cone (although that's probably more along the lines of a chaingun's accuracy if one existed. Do it Steve - I want mah chaingun).
  Posted by Meathir 4 years ago [Login to reply]

This topic has now been closed.

Email Address:

Password:

Forgotten your password?

Register using the Android or PC app