Range vs Accuracy: Let's improve it.

Ideas and suggestions for how to improve the Warzone 2100 base game only. Ideas for mods go in Mapping/Modding instead. Read sticky posts first!
User avatar
Stratadrake
Trained
Trained
Posts: 197
Joined: 07 Sep 2008, 09:43
Location: Pacific NW
Contact:

Re: Range vs Accuracy: Let's improve it.

Post by Stratadrake »

I was thinking about this the other day and realized that we could probably eliminate the diceroll system on the collision detection end completely.

First, the game calculates a projectile trajectory that should land inside the target's hitbox. Then a diceroll is used to determine whether the projectile is a hit or miss. If it's a miss, then the trajectory is altered to land outside the target hitbox (taking target size into account), causing a miss. With a stationary target, this provides exactly the same end result as an exclusively diceroll system (e.g. original 1.x). Projectiles do still need to individually record their diceroll however, especially homing projectiles as the very nature of their flight path implies that they'll impact the target's hitbox, and we don't want that causing a hit if it's not meant to.

In other words, a diceroll determines whether the projectile is initially hit or miss, but it's physical collision detection that ultimately determines when and where a hit is scored.

I can draw up a visual aid, but it will take some time.
Last edited by Stratadrake on 31 Jul 2012, 19:34, edited 1 time in total.
Strata @dA, @FAC
User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1828
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Range vs Accuracy: Let's improve it.

Post by Iluvalar »

That's exactly how the patch work afaict. Unless you specify what is changed ?

except, the projectile trajectory is calculated just after the dice roll. But that doesn't affect anything except saving calculation time. And that the trajectory take into account the speed of the target. So it should hit if desired even fast movers.

Hmm, there is no diceroll at collision time on any real or proposed model so far.
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.
User avatar
Stratadrake
Trained
Trained
Posts: 197
Joined: 07 Sep 2008, 09:43
Location: Pacific NW
Contact:

Re: Range vs Accuracy: Let's improve it.

Post by Stratadrake »

Visual aid. Did I get this right?
Attachments
Visual description of the accuracy bug.
Visual description of the accuracy bug.
Strata @dA, @FAC
Per
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Posts: 3780
Joined: 03 Aug 2006, 19:39

Re: Range vs Accuracy: Let's improve it.

Post by Per »

And why do we want a dice roll in the first place?

(Since this is a strategy game, and not a simulation, answers concerning realism will be ignored.)
User avatar
JJjopando
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 26
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 17:20
Location: Akron, OH

Re: Range vs Accuracy: Let's improve it.

Post by JJjopando »

Per wrote:And why do we want a dice roll in the first place?

(Since this is a strategy game, and not a simulation, answers concerning realism will be ignored.)
What do you want? an UNREALISTIC strategy game? Maybe we should remove gravity. Just because it is a strategy game does not mean weapons should be perfect every time. In the real world guns miss. In the game, it adds layer of strategy because getting closer lets you land more hits (but you take more hits). So your guns are more accurate and damaging
Proud former soldier of the 39th Infantry
BATTLE OF THE PLAIN OF REEDS - WE WILL NOT FORGET
User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1828
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Range vs Accuracy: Let's improve it.

Post by Iluvalar »

Per wrote:And why do we want a dice roll in the first place?

(Since this is a strategy game, and not a simulation, answers concerning realism will be ignored.)
We don't want accuracy. We only want a third parameter to go with the DMG and ROF. It's crucial to have a decent array of control on the game.

Nice representation and that's why I fixed:
Image explanation (bug fix patch):
bug: Never "miss" in 90° behind again.
bug: Never "miss" inside the hitbox.
improve: Miss more often close
Attachments
Accuracy fix
Accuracy fix
accuracyfix.png (8.92 KiB) Viewed 4459 times
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.
Per
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Posts: 3780
Joined: 03 Aug 2006, 19:39

Re: Range vs Accuracy: Let's improve it.

Post by Per »

Iluvalar wrote:We don't want accuracy. We only want a third parameter to go with the DMG and ROF.
I'm all for that! Can it be something other than accuracy, though?

Other games often have various armour piercing abilities. I think that might make more sense. Another attribute that is not changed through research is range. Not saying it is wise to let it be upgraded. Just pointing out the possibility. Yet another is splash radius... and I am sure I haven't thought of half the possibilities yet.
iap
Trained
Trained
Posts: 244
Joined: 26 Sep 2009, 16:08

Re: Range vs Accuracy: Let's improve it.

Post by iap »

In any case some kind of aiming parameter is needed. There is no substitude to SEEing your misile not hitting or hitting the target, when in range. After all this is a game, not a mathematical simulation...

Ok, Ilunavar, how about adding a trigonometry calculation to reduce BaseSpread according to distance? This is not realistic, but will give the desired results, I think ...
User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1828
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Range vs Accuracy: Let's improve it.

Post by Iluvalar »

Per wrote:
Iluvalar wrote:We don't want accuracy. We only want a third parameter to go with the DMG and ROF.
I'm all for that! Can it be something other than accuracy, though?

Other games often have various armour piercing abilities. I think that might make more sense. Another attribute that is not changed through research is range. Not saying it is wise to let it be upgraded. Just pointing out the possibility. Yet another is splash radius... and I am sure I haven't thought of half the possibilities yet.
This game HAVE an armour piercing, Based on damage and armour. That's exactly why we can't leave the DMG and ROF alone.

The range and the splash radius have no direct multiplicative effect with the DMG/ROF duo. It's not viable solution.



iap, not sure what you mean, in my patch I made the variable worstShot (distance of the landing miss from the border of the target) multiplied by the distance. Is that what you meant ? It make the misses act exactly like there was an angle of fire.
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.
Reg312
Regular
Regular
Posts: 681
Joined: 25 Mar 2011, 18:36

Re: Range vs Accuracy: Let's improve it.

Post by Reg312 »

1=
current accuracy system is totally bugged, so i cant imagine how Iluvalar's patch can be worse
if balance issues will appear, then it will be fixed easier

i think we need common methods and program tools for balance testing
for example script which creates 2 armies and forced them to fight over and over
many people concerning balance, even whose dont play multiplayer
Per wrote:(Since this is a strategy game, and not a simulation, answers concerning realism will be ignored.)
lets community to decide what to ignore
this game have many features which concern realism

2=
i notice Artillery is ignored in this thread
Accuracy have higher strategic value for artillery


Warzone have many thing hidden for most players
1) Armor/Hitpoints - many players dont know diff
2) Splash damage, incendiary damage - most players dont know how it works

Accuracy is not hidden because players can see trajectories of projectiles

@Per
Accuracy should not be considered as Randomness
1) Some weapons can be more effective with lower accuracy
(flamers, heavy cannons, artillery)
2) Unaccurate weapons can work better against large masses on enemy units

hm, i see accuracy system conflicts with new prophetic targeting...
iap
Trained
Trained
Posts: 244
Joined: 26 Sep 2009, 16:08

Re: Range vs Accuracy: Let's improve it.

Post by iap »

Iluvalar, what I meant was to make the spread angle more accurate whhen the target is more distant. This means that correct calculations can make the spread be the same for near and far units. The difference from your patch is that it bypass the dice roll without making calculations more complicated, and without the need to be carefull not to shoot behind if the dice said miss, or to always hit big targets...
User avatar
JJjopando
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 26
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 17:20
Location: Akron, OH

Re: Range vs Accuracy: Let's improve it.

Post by JJjopando »

Per wrote:
Iluvalar wrote:We don't want accuracy. We only want a third parameter to go with the DMG and ROF.
I'm all for that! Can it be something other than accuracy, though?

Other games often have various armour piercing abilities. I think that might make more sense. Another attribute that is not changed through research is range. Not saying it is wise to let it be upgraded. Just pointing out the possibility. Yet another is splash radius... and I am sure I haven't thought of half the possibilities yet.
Do you play Warzone 2100?
Proud former soldier of the 39th Infantry
BATTLE OF THE PLAIN OF REEDS - WE WILL NOT FORGET
User avatar
Stratadrake
Trained
Trained
Posts: 197
Joined: 07 Sep 2008, 09:43
Location: Pacific NW
Contact:

Re: Range vs Accuracy: Let's improve it.

Post by Stratadrake »

Sounds like we have a debate over what the concept of "accuracy" actually is.

If it's simply a probability of a given shot being a hit or miss (which is precisely what we had in original 1.x) then the game engine needs to do its best to ensure that hits hit and misses miss. If the actual hit/miss is determined by hitbox collision then the game MUST ensure that misses are NOT fired at such trajectories that they will touch the expected hitbox. This means, like Illuvalar says, that a miss MUST land outside the hitbox, and cannot land BEHIND the hitbox, because both of those situations will cause a false hit, resulting in artificially boosted weapon accuracy.

If it's simply a "scatter" that determines how far away the shot lands from the intended target, then it's not a chance-to-hit at all because the actual chance-to-hit will vary based on variables like range and target size and cannot be predicted in advance.

I certainly wouldn't mind units having some kind of specified size modifier that is incorporated into accuracy formula (like a 0.75x accuracy modifier against cyborgs, since they really are smaller targets than tanks), but that is a separate matter.
Last edited by Stratadrake on 01 Aug 2012, 18:37, edited 1 time in total.
Strata @dA, @FAC
User avatar
JJjopando
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 26
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 17:20
Location: Akron, OH

Re: Range vs Accuracy: Let's improve it.

Post by JJjopando »

Stratadrake wrote:Sounds like we have a debate over what the concept of "accuracy" actually is.
...
If it's simply a "scatter" that determines how far away the shot lands from the intended target, then it's not a chance-to-hit at all because the actual chance-to-hit will vary based on variables like range and target size and cannot be predicted in advance.
What is wrong with a scatter distribution? Simply specify a sigma for each weapon, and this determines how accurate it is.
High sigma = inaccurate.

Perhaps visualize the horizontal axes as angular offset from the "right" track, and G as the probability of a given trajectory.
Image
Last edited by JJjopando on 01 Aug 2012, 18:29, edited 2 times in total.
Proud former soldier of the 39th Infantry
BATTLE OF THE PLAIN OF REEDS - WE WILL NOT FORGET
iap
Trained
Trained
Posts: 244
Joined: 26 Sep 2009, 16:08

Re: Range vs Accuracy: Let's improve it.

Post by iap »

Of course it's not a chance to hit, because chance to hit must have a dice roll!
However, maybe it can give more varied or nicer looking game dynamics, it might even solve the prophet droid bug.
Chance to hit is something of D&D games or TBS...
Post Reply