Miss change on far-range attacks

[Peter34]

As it is, it seems as if ranged attacks always hit, 100% of the time, even at maximum range, for both player characters, Turrets and Spitter aliens.

I propose this gets changed to as follows:
When shooting at max range, there's a 90% chance of a miss.
When shotting at 1 less than max range, there's a 75% chance of a miss.
When shooting at 2 less than max range, there's a 25% chance of a miss.
When shooting at 3 less than max range, there's a 10% chance of a miss.
when shooting at 4 less than max range, you can't miss.

Note that this almost certainly necessitates a change of Spitter AI, as they currently seem to stop at max range, ever time, and sit and shoot from there. Now they need some at least a "tendency" to sometimes move a bit closer, although even getting within 2 less than their max range is still quite good as that means they hit 75% of the time.

Note also that if my requested Turret Range Visualization is implemented, then this also need to be taken into account, so that nistead of showing a binary area where "within this circle radius, the Turret can hit, and outside of it it can't hit", there should be a colour coding, using green for 10% and 0% miss chance, yellow for 25% to 90% miss chance, and nothing for outside of max range.

Finally, the game interface presently uses a fairly primitive way to comminucate to the player whether or not a potential target is withint or outside the range of the player character's currently selected weapon. That too, needs to be changed into a green/yellow or green/yellow/orange system., but as with the above case, I don't think it's necessary to show the finest distinctions. To some extent, the player just needs to now that "being at max range is kinda bad".


With basically all ranged attacks having a range that's of the same order of magnitude, a more detailed percent-of-max-range system isn't needed. A linear add/subtract approach is good enough, but will of course not work if

[bobingabout]

everything hits 100% of the time. the alternative is to make it like the shotgun, where they colide and cause damage to the first thing they hit (which in the case of laser turrets would mean that you can't put them behind walls)

[Koub]

I must admit I prefer it as it works now. My feeling is that what's important is the factory automation side of the game, not the fighting part. I even think there should be a way to further automate the slaughter part even more that it is now with the defense (with enough laser turrets, energy, walls, repair packs, and robots, nothing can invade you), but the attack part still needs some work.

Concerning the turret range visualization, there has been many requests so far, and I hope it will be added some day, and that it will be the same for every weapon, but only when in coimbat mode or when targetting an enemy : don't want to spend all my time surrounded by a green circle .

[ssilk]

I'm a bit disappointed, Peter34, you made now several suggestions, I thought you know now, not to mix suggestions (not always possible, but in this case no problem). That is the same with the other suggestion you made...
And you see now yourself why: It is difficult to discuss it.

So please take this not as critique to you, take it as chance to improve your suggestions!

Think: This is implemented by a team of currently 5 or 6 developers. They are no anonym stupid programming drones, they are very clever. Try to turn this around: When you would be one of them, and you need to implement it, how would you like to have suggestions? A sentence like "When shotting at 1 less than max range, there's a 75% chance of a miss."??

Of course not!

If that would be the case, you would not be here in this forum and make suggestions! There wouldn't be a Factorio at all!
As a good developer you would NEVER EVER implement this blindly, without thinking if that makes sense! Without testing, how that feels. Without thinking about balancing with the rest.
So leave that details out. It is completely useless to think about it, or - maybe - as a "rule of thumb", but not more. Instead tell us, WHAT you want to PLAY.

You want to play with weapons, what have a chance of missing (or have a limited reliability), depending on distance.

That's it. That's the "WHAT" of your suggestion.

The forum needs here is a clear vision, that can be discussed. One thing that needs to be implemented to have a new kind of game. If you mix things together or say for example "it needs between X and Y killowatt per second", you limit the suggestion in a way, that cannot be discussed anymore.

And what you also need to say is WHY? Why do you want to play with a chance of missing shoots?
You see: This is completely missing in your suggestion. But it points directly to the problem, with this suggestion, because then this can also not be discussed.

And at last there are of course some aceptance-criterias: If you leave the "HOW" open (remember, instead that you just explain the "WHAT" and "WHY"), then you let everything open for the developers. You need to limit their possible decisions in a way, that you would like to have them. Here you can add for example "This should be also true for the enemies" for example. Or "If it misses, I want to see some graphic response or a noise"...

If it would make sense, I would make a suggestion-formular out that like this:

Code: Select all

As a Factorio-player, I want to have/create/make/play/do
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
(tell the forum users what you want to play/how you want to play
what you want to feel, when playing and NOT what you want to be implemented!)
because
....................................................................................
....................................................................................
....................................................................................
(tell the forum users why you want it to be implemented, why you think this is a good idea, why you thing it increases the game-value)

Akzeptance-criterias:
(tell us, under which circumstances you would accept any solution)
- ..................................................................................
- ..................................................................................
- ..................................................................................

You can now also tell us, how you came to the ideas, which other suggestion you think should be linked and so on.

This is of course nonsense. I never would put suggestions in a schema like that, but I try to explain how it should be in a ideal world. Perhaps that makes you create better suggestions.