Breaking the "more accurate weapons are always better" disfunction

Overall I like this concept. As I understand it:

Current Situation:

Rifles are king at all ranges, the only saving grace of pistols is low weight and volume.

Proposed Change:

Rifles are king at all range, but any penalties caused by dodging or moving enemies make rifles very inaccurate at close range. Pistols are still worthless at long range, but aim extremely quickly at close range - enough to counter the dodge and movement of enemies at close range.

I’m assuming that shotguns and smg’s would be inbetween rifles and pistols in terms of aiming speed, with shotguns excelling in damage and smg’s excelling in clip size. I would assume pneumatic weapons would be both bulky (low aim speed) and less accurate (high dispersion) making them overall less accurate than their gunpowder counterparts.

Meanwhile, enemies would feel more unique: Some would move erratically, and could only be hit with rifles at mid-long range, others would be fast, and could only be hit at range when moving directly towards you, others would be fast and erratic and best handled with a shotgun/smg mid range or a pistol at close range.

No, dodging being more effective is exactly what we want. What you may be misding here is that the difficulty of getting a hit also decreases with distance to the target, so in principle, they balance out. But if you throw in aiming speed you end up with a situation where very accurate but low aim speed weapons are great only above a certain range.[/quote]

Yes sorry I hadn’t clarified there that is more or less what I meant. Better dodging at closer would produce the correct results… sort of, but would be more universal and be an …er inaccurate depiction of what is happening. Monsters don’t get better at dodging at closer ranges, the (long range) sights become less effective at aiming at closer targets, increasing how much effect their dodging has (not the effectiveness of the dodging, but the effect OF dodging)

so… I guess what I am saying… is that it should not be monster side, or even gun side. But an effect of the sights used. A rifle equipped correctly *SHOULD be king (minus niches) even to fairly close range (4-5?)

IF equipped with a proper open reticle sight for close range (EX:Red dot) Where the only detriment to having a rifle vs others is the weight, volume and aiming method/time. Then in this setup it should equal or better items in everything but the CLOSEST of aiming. But in doing so you lose basically all the range advantage you would have if equipped with even the most basic zoom scopes, losing all aim advantage over the pistol and other similar smaller weapons

Rifles are good for a reason, and part of that is versitility in short(ish)-mid range fighting or mid-long range fighting. depending on the weapon and loadout.

Now the same gun, say an AR-15 would be TERRIBLE at even middlish short range if equipped with any kind of decent magnification scope, so much so that you would be better off attempting to hip fire or look down the not-smooth contour of the gun to aim.

Sorry to flip flop like that. But when military storm a close quarters location like a building, they typically do so with compact rifles. It would not be unusual to see Shotguns and pistols in a breach and clear type mission. But it would be primarily rifles. What they would NOT bring inside, are scopes.

If all the aim penalties are dumped onto the monsters/gun it will not properly reflect what is actually happening. Now closer than say… 5-7 tiles against a dodgy opponent… absolutely a rifle, even equipped with an open sight, should begin to show rapid drop in accuracy, relative to gun weight and *balance vs strength.

Summary/ TL;DR: the penalties should get spread around some. Not JUst monsters, or guns. Sights should take the majority of under-min penalties

*bullpup vs standard rifle design vs extended stock for one. … Maybe a gun length stat? Nah.

Yes, that’s an example of a situation where this change would make rifles not work.

Also ammo cost, but yes you have the idea.

Yes, exactly that.

Actually I think shotguns would tend to be slightly better at getting hits in, but with lower damage, and SMGs are strictly between pistols and rifles, except for amazing burst damage at short range.
[/quote]

Something like, “rifle aim speed with SMG accuracy”.

That’s the hope, I’m not sure how the numbers are going to work out, but it’s possibe certain enemis will be virtually immune to attacks from some otherwise good weapons because they can out-dodge that particular weapon at all ranges.
But in general yes, the more dodgy the enemy, the more you’ll need to pay attention to your engagement range and use the appropriate weapon.
In the extreme, say we have swarms of skitterbots in labs, and you never have sightlines longer than 20 squares, rifles would be virtually worthless. On the other hand, a rifle will still be great at sniping turrets since they don’t dodge at all.

It’s not inaccurate at all, it’s a result of dodging and aiming effectively operating in two different coordinate systems. Aim speed is expressed in angular speed, effectively degrees per second, while dodging is linear, in e.g. feet per second. If you map linear speed to angular speed, that mapping changes depending on distance between the target and shooter.

[quote="Litppunk, post:42, topic:14067"]Yes sorry I hadn't clarified there that is more or less what I meant. Better dodging at closer would produce the correct results... sort of, but would be more universal and be an ....er inaccurate depiction of what is happening. Monsters don't get *better* at dodging at closer ranges, the (long range) sights become less effective at aiming at closer targets, increasing how much effect their dodging has (not the effectiveness of the dodging, but the effect OF dodging)[/quote] It's not inaccurate at all, it's a result of dodging and aiming effectively operating in two different coordinate systems. Aim speed is expressed in angular speed, effectively degrees per second, while dodging is linear, in e.g. feet per second. If you map linear speed to angular speed, that mapping changes depending on distance between the target and shooter.
That would be true if the relative size of the target remained constant, but this is not so. Which would even out except that humans are not robots.

Aiming at something farther away the amount of forgiveness for slight variant in angle degree is less forgiving, which means you have to aim that much harder, even though you can get ‘back on target’ faster, it is harder to keep any breathing and other muzzle sway from effecting aim. As far as I can tell this is represented well in the current system, which means that dodge shouldn’t need to be adjusted much for long range. Except maybe in the case of ‘active’ dodging.

At short range, the angle variant is more forgiving, but there is a much greater change for following a target moving the same speed, and in the case of untrained shooter, nerves/jitters/fear and such. So called ‘Zombie survival guides’ go out of their way to recommend civilians give themselves extra cushion distance on the minimum firing range and list this as one of the reasons.

Asides from that until the target comes close enough that you are swinging your weapon in wide arcs that it is the physical weight, and maneuverability of the weapon is becoming a factor in aiming at a target moving side to side, a rifle is going to be the better weapon.

There may be a slight penalty on movement, on the momentum of getting the heavier rifle to target, but it is made up in stability of the weapon platform. What it does not make up for, is if all you can see through your sight is forest 200m away, a chest hair at 10 feet on wall of flesh and then count the antlers on a deer at the edge of the forest as the target leaps sided to side inside the minimum effective scope range.

It is the Sights accuracy not the weapons that is the problem in this case. The same weapon with an open, minimalist sight would not have major aiming penalties until the target was so close that grappling the weapon is more effective than dodging. At which point I don’t think any weapon would be especially effective unless its a shotgun, and/or being used as a bayonet holder and/or impromptu gunpowder brass knuckles

All in all, rifles should get some penalty at close range, and extreme penalty at close range if equipped with any kind of a scope.

What are the ranges we are talking about? And how dodgy? one wall of the hallway to the other in the blink of an eye? At that point rifles, even with non vision blocking sights the penalties would probably amount to 10% (<5%?) or less for a reasonably well trained civilian, but waving a light weight pistol back and forth wouldn’t be better enough to matter. It’s light weight would probably only mean it getting waved to far. more than that, it would come down to discipline and skill with the weapon more than WHICH weapon, to the point it would essentially be a well trained hipfire anyways.

Realistically the close range rifle nerfs should come down to scopes more than platform based, except in the case of larger, bulkier rifles more akin to a marksmen or sniper rifle than an assault rifle.

Game wise it makes sense to just give everything a niche and its the right choice. I’d just like to see compact rifles get a respectable tip of the hat in the penalties at middleish close range where scopes aren’t involved. Get scoped weapons nerfed the hardest and most sharply at close ranges. dodge or no. Probably throw a hard_to_dodge [tag] to reduce dodging effectiveness on automatic fire to give SMG’s and machine guns a better niche.

Its a shame the size of the reality bubble forces sniper like weapons to push the whole scale down, or just drop them off the end. realistically a decent mid range rifle with a 4x zoom or so should be able to shoot to the edge of the bubble without trouble. Which makes any solutions feel kind of compressed.

[quote=“Litppunk, post:44, topic:14067”]

If you map linear speed to angular speed, that mapping changes depending on distance between the target and shooter.

That would be true if the relative size of the target remained constant, but this is not so. Which would even out except that humans are not robots.[/quote]
Size is irrelevant to whether aiming moves the aim point closer to the aim point or further away, if aiming is in deg/sec and dodging is in m/s, a closer target will be able to dodge away faster than the shooter can catch up. This is an abstraction sure, but it’s a pretty reasonable one IMO.

It’s represented in that higher accuracy sights have lower aiming speed, but it has issues as I’ve outlined already.

Which is exactly the point, the rifle is going to be better as long as manuverability isn’t an issue since it’s intrinsically more accurate in absolute terms.

This is where you’re wrong, “stability” of a rifle (I’m assuming you mean the way it’s braced, either against your shoulder or by an external support?) doesn’t contribute to aiming speed, it mostly contributes to avoiding extraneous movement that interferes with accuracy at extreme range. Regardless of sights, a rifle is less manuverable than a smaller weapon.

[quote=“Litppunk, post:44, topic:14067”]What it does not make up for, is if all you can see through your sight is forest 200m away, a chest hair at 10 feet on wall of flesh and then count the antlers on a deer at the edge of the forest as the target leaps sided to side inside the minimum effective scope range.

It is the Sights accuracy not the weapons that is the problem in this case. The same weapon with an open, minimalist sight would not have major aiming penalties until the target was so close that grappling the weapon is more effective than dodging.[/quote]
Sights have an intrinsic tradeoff between accuracy and agility, the very properties that make sights accurate interfere with quick target acquisition and vice versa. Otherwise why would you even have different kinds of sights? You’d just stick the theoretically perfect kind of sights on every gun and call it a day.

you are fun to debate with ^.^

I just have horrible visions of this turning into another clusterfuck, with basic zombies dodging bullets like Neo in The Matrix and NPC’s becoming invincible killing machines.

How about we correlate a weapons volume with its maneuverablity and its minimum range before hip firing tied to sights (Ditto for bonuses at extended range.)

Maneuverability would be a new weapon stat which reduces the penalties for firing a weapon in less than ideal circumstances, such as:
*Reduces penalties for firing at a directly adjacent hostile (Which there should be, assuming they’re groping for/lashing out at you)
*Similarly combats the temporary dodge skill a creature gains right after it leaps/charges (Which again, would be a good addition I think. Cougars and leapers having a 1 turn buff to dodge after landing to represent how hard it would be keeping a bead on them.)
*To a lesser extent being grappled, restrained, prone, etc etc.
*The more maneuverable a weapon the easier it is to use from inside a vehicle/riding a bike. (Niche case but worth considering, pistols and SMGs are the king of drive bys, especially if you’re the one driving.)

[quote=“Logrin, post:48, topic:14067”]How about we correlate a weapons volume with its maneuverablity and its minimum range before hip firing tied to sights (Ditto for bonuses at extended range.)

…[/quote]

Oh yeah, I meant to include this, though I guess it would probably be a redundant suggestion. Can’t be the first time this has been suggested.

The rest of it is inspired though. Love it. Not sure how adjacent de-penalty should balance out with penalty and decreased aim time for range. Should be interesting to see this come together.

Well, my take on dodging that I’m unashamedly ripping from the GURPS handbook is that a zombie or other ‘dumb’ creature isn’t intentionally moving out of the way of your shots as much as simply moving unpredictably.

The swaying, lurching gait of a zombie is bound to make you whiff shots, the same with a charging animal or any other beast. An unpredictably moving target is hard to hit, sometimes even if it’s charging straight at you.

Well, my take on dodging that I'm unashamedly ripping from the GURPS handbook is that a zombie or other 'dumb' creature isn't intentionally moving out of the way of your shots as much as simply moving unpredictably.

The swaying, lurching gait of a zombie is bound to make you whiff shots, the same with a charging animal or any other beast. An unpredictably moving target is hard to hit, sometimes even if it’s charging straight at you.

It should still amount to less than a creature ACTIVELY trying to dodge. So Mi-gos and other intelligent creatures would get a dodge bonus for agility and intelligence (in lore and theory if not practice) I think Kevin already said something along these lines are what he planned to do.

Yea, that matches my reasoning. It might be productive to think of it as, “being hard to hit” to highlight that it’s not reactive and not necessarily intentional.
Anything that moves will have some dodge to differentiate it from targets that don’t move, with a higher score for:
High speed, intelligence, moving erratically and special ability.

I’m rather interested in the concept of dodging as well so I shall chime in again.

My take on this “unpredictable” idea is not that I disagree with it, as much as I worked my way up the ranks of personal marksmanship in real life and I feel a zombie is not going to be difficult to hit. Look at every zombie film that DOESN’T use running zoms. Watch their movement. Even with f**ked up legs, they are pretty easily picked off. Not because actors portray them as easy pickins, no. They are able to move in a shamble/shuffle/walk slow to fast sorta way. Go watch people at your local mall and before they remove you for being creepy, you will see movement is not very unpredictable at all.

Perception should certainly play a large roll in aiming. Aiming at a raging moose? Easy for how large the beast is. Dog/Zombie Dog? Not so easy as it is already. Shot be it pistol or shotgun or modified rifle should almost always hit as long as the direction is within 15 degrees.

I do have a point in this. I keep reading about how critters will be able to dodge and how staying steady will be scaled. I really REALLY hope as Ly mentions this won’t boil down to a matrix “Dodge this” style game.

As for my question; Will mobs/NPCs have a point system in which all their skills and category be tallied against the players to get = hit/miss? Is this the gist of things?

Not sure how close what I’m thinking is to what will be so maybe an example to compare too is in order:

-Mob category (giant bee gets into the “really fast” rank, norma. zombie gets slow rank)
-Flight or Ground based ; I find this an interesting concept. I can hit that fast dog with little to no skill. But trying to hit that flying bastard is a task best left to avg.-skilled
;caveat to flight/ground- shoot wings to ground mob for easier kill and damage legs for the same reason(which is why I placed this higher on the list to trickle down)
-Mobs body size(can lower or increase speed rank?)
-Mobs Weight(can lower or increase speed rank?) ; why is this separate? Because a thin moose will beat the sh!t out of you same as a fat moose, but maybe depending on how detailed you devs wanna get. The difference in damage would be similar to bouncing off a Mini car(uk vehicle, now in the states ^_^) compared to getting hit by, say, a dump truck?
-Skills/specifications: assuming mobs have them and NPCs will continue to have them these are added after the list above? Maybe? I don’t code so… o_0
-Player skills/specs to compare to that of the target and onto…
-SCALING: to compare movement points per tile?

I dunno folks. Am I understanding this thread correctly or adding anything that can be useful? I always appreciate the feedback all the same. =D

from the way kevin’s been talking it looks like the EVENTUAL goal is to be very Dwarf Fortress in the damage system, and what you are describing sounds like that… or Rim World. Though I may be reading into this too much.

I still remember when missing projectiles being able to pass intended target and hit other things became a feature.

Our zombies aren’t shamblers, but they also aren’t runners (oops, some are!). I’ve repeatedly said that average zombies are going to have poor dodging in this system because they aren’t that fast, but it’ll be enough to interfere a bit with players with poor weapon skills that are having trouble hitting anyway.

More or less, though this thread is just about the dodging thing, which is just about player aim speed (which combines several player stats and some weapon properties) vs monster dodge ability.

Each monster has an individual dodge score.

No, flying monsters would need to have a high dodge score, some might have a bad score if they just hover, so flying speed doesn’t necessarally mean good dodging.

Maybe, this would be trated more or less the same as cripling the leg of a walking monster, in either case dodging becomes effectively zero so no need to have special handling for flying monsters.

Body size is already factored into chance to hit, so it isn’t going to be counted again for dodging.

The difference in cross section between a “thin moose” and a “fat moose” is going to be pretty irrelevant to how easy they are to shoot.

… for the purposes of getting shot, dodge score and size are all that really matter.

Yep, that’s where it gets complicated, have some code:

I’m not sure I know what you mean, if you mean it’s adjusted by move speed, no it’s not.

hmmm, could also make night engagements with some kind of visual range enhancement worthwhile, because then you can get in gun range of a zombie and it wouldn’t see you, meaning it would probably be standing still, which even if it is swaying, it would be less ‘lurchy’ and thus easier to hit.

Um… probably ‘relatively’ still. They do wander around a bit, if I am not mistaken, but it should confir some bonus, possibly enough to undo penalty for NVG cumbersome and such maybe even more, and if natural night vision…

Hmm. In calculations it would probably come down to skill level whether it is worthwhile or not. And whichway the difference would fall. Higher skill levels will probably be ?less? effected by such minor inconveniences.

Of course NV of any kind + laser sight should be absurdly good at any range the game actually allows for. or… say what is the theoretical distance of the reality bubble radius? Seems like it shouldn’t be more than ~200-300 yards or so, which leaves laser sights at night at their A-game.

Thanks for the info. My query was less about being lazy and not reading over it consolidating what we have to look forward to which is current from the devs.

Plus I can’t get online a lot and I sometimes need a refresher and it helps when you list everything you can think of =D