Ranged combat in RPGs - accuracy affected by distance, pros and cons

[Infinitron]

My first EFFORTPOAST in a while. This is an element of RPGs that isn't discussed often and which I've been meaning to make a thread since I started playing Wasteland 2.

Wasteland 2 is unusual in that your distance from an enemy doesn't affect your chance to hit him. Well it does, but not as a continuous function - there's a threshold for being too close or too far away. But the point is that there's usually no benefit for moving a few steps closer to an enemy.

That seems very unusual compared to Shadowrun and classics like X-COM, but then you realize - wait, that's actually how ranged combat in the Infinity Engine works. So maybe it's not that weird. And that got me thinking formally about the pros and cons of accuracy affecting distance in ranged combat.

The advantages of distance affecting accuracy are obvious:

• It makes creating a character with a particularly high attack skill or weapon skill a more valuable build choice. The advantage of improving your weapon skill is that it allows you to fire accurate shots at enemies from a farther, safer distance. But if distance has no effect, there's significantly less need for a min-maxed-from-the-start "accuracy build" character. You just need to gradually improve your attack skill over the course of the game to keep pace as you encounter harder-to-hit enemies.
• It enables an enjoyable risk-reward dynamic where the player creeps closer to enemies to get a more accurate shoot, at the cost of making himself more vulnerable to their shots as well.

The advantages of distance not affecting accuracy are more interesting to consider, and are greater than you might think:

• Often at a certain point in the game, the aforementioned risk-reward dynamic can degenerate into a repetitive tactic. Once your character's survivability is high enough that there's not so much risk anymore in running forward, every battle can turn into an exercise in making a beeline towards the enemies and instakilling them with your super-mega assault rifle at close range with extremely high accuracy. In other words, making distance affect your accuracy can be a disadvantage that makes the game harder, but at a certain point it also becomes an advantage that makes the game easier.
• If distance not affecting accuracy does make your character stronger, it can also make your enemies stronger. Groups of enemies with long range weapons become formidable opponents able to hit you at full accuracy, not wimps that you can safely hide from while you take care of other things "because their accuracy is low at that distance".
• Removing the compulsion to always move closer to the enemy for an accurate shot can allow the game to place the emphasis of the combat system on other mechanics. Specifically, on terrain and on weapon itemization:
  • Since you're not always pushing to move closer, the importance of where you've decided to park your character on the battlefield can become much higher, instead of cover being just a temporary place to hide between turns.
  • Because you're not always looking to go for a point-blank shot at high accuracy, the basic characteristics of your weapon can become much more important. What range does it have? Is it a shotgun with an area of effect spread?
  These things won't necessarily matter, but removing distance as a factor that affects accuracy gives them more space to potentially matter.

In summary, it seems like having distance affect accuracy places the emphasis of the combat system on your character's attributes. How accurate he is, how tough he is (so he can better survive moving closer for a better shot). Removing distance as a factor shifts the emphasis from your character to the weapon, to the battlefield and to encounter design. What weapon do you have? How does the battlefield look like? What enemies are there?

 

[Roguey]

In Wasteland 2 I put all my starting points into a weapon skill and enjoyed having pretty good accuracy after reading horror stories from other lesser players who spread themselves too thin by putting points into a weapon and a supplementary skill (sometimes more than one, the poor, naive souls). So I disagree with how it affects character building.

 

[Infinitron]

In Wasteland 2 I put all my starting points into a weapon skill and enjoyed having pretty good accuracy after reading horror stories from other lesser players who spread themselves too thin by putting points into a weapon and a supplementary skill (sometimes more than one, the poor, naive souls). So I disagree with how it affects character building.

Sure, it's definitely useful to make a sufficient initial investment in accuracy just to reach a minimum level of competency, but that's different than investing in your attack skill so you can attack at long range.

It's really a more fundamental difference than most people realize I think. In any game where distance is a factor in weapon accuracy, any investment in your accuracy-increasing skill is equivalent to building your character as a sniper.

 

[The Red Knight]

If you let the character use action points (or turns) to aim then there's no need to rush forward. You may also prefer staying hidden behind a cover nonetheless and missing a few more shots rather than exposing yourself for some accuracy % if the enemies are lethal enough (or are more numerous, have superior training or equipment, there are no HP sponges, etc.). Having burst, fast-firing or AoE weapons in the arsenal also lets you counter the low hit chance for individual shots as long as you're not starved for ammunition.

Having weapons have the same accuracy (or a 100% hit chance) but varying range in my experience often ends with the side with longer reach moving around to stay outside of the enemy's range so they waste action points/turns trying to get close, as there's little benefit in letting the enemy get closer to you so they can shoot back (with variable accuracy the stationary side can also benefit from the enemy moving towards them, even if it may still be undesired for all the other reasons). Or you have to gang up on one enemy at a time because they all have high chances of hitting you and your primary worry is removing the number of weapons aimed at you.

Some rush cheesing can also be prevented with interruptions in both cases (though it can result in an opposite situation where one side ends up in a perfect camping spot to abuse interruptions for cheap kills), and with variable accuracy you could add a rule where moving around too much lowers the hit chance for the remainder of the turn.

Both approaches can be fun, but I think the main benefit of fixed accuracy is having less things to balance, leading to potentially less overpowered/underpowered skills/weapons/etc., and more effective AI (due to it not having to worry about the risk/reward ratio of dynamic accuracy).

 

[Haplo]

I really liked how in Fallout weapon skill was important, of course. But you really wanted a high Perception stat also to be a good shot, as that helped a lot with the hefty distance and lighting modifiers.
I think it's maybe the same in Underrail, not fully sure.

I hate how in Wasteland 2 your stats don't matter, except for Initiative, APs, skills points and HPs. You could dump Perception on a sniper character.

 

[Aothan]

Damage falloff can help balance classes, item types and tactics

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

First.

 

[Luckmann]

Both.

 

[ilitarist]

If we're talking about immersion than most RPGs operate in relatively close quarters for distance to be a big deal. I mean we all know that even a simple assault rifle can hit stuff hundreds of meters away.

Therefore it mostly makes sense for distance to work if you are trying to make a critical hit or shoot in the eyes. I think it more or less how it worked in Fallout 1-2: you needed very basic skill to get 95% for a realistic distance and you wanted better skill for headshots.

I like XCOM system and think it's great. I don't think any direct effect of distance on your hit chance is bad. From OP I understand Wasteland 2 has too far/too close modifiers on weapon (same as in XCOM) and it's fine.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

• Often at a certain point in the game, the aforementioned risk-reward dynamic can degenerate into a repetitive tactic. Once your character's survivability is high enough that there's not so much risk anymore in running forward, every battle can turn into an exercise in making a beeline towards the enemies and instakilling them with your super-mega assault rifle at close range with extremely high accuracy. In other words, making distance affect your accuracy can be a disadvantage that makes the game harder, but at a certain point it also becomes an advantage that makes the game easier.

• If distance not affecting accuracy does make your character stronger, it can also make your enemies stronger. Groups of enemies with long range weapons become formidable opponents able to hit you at full accuracy, not wimps that you can safely hide from while you take care of other things "because their accuracy is low at that distance".

These advantages as you call them seem to discount encounter and enemy design on part of the developer.

In summary, it seems like having distance affect accuracy places the emphasis of the combat system on your character's attributes.

Places it on both, rather.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[AwesomeButton]

I dropped by because I'm playing Underrail currently (a second playthrough, this time of the final game, after I came near to finishing the alpha), and it has a similar rule for ranged weapons. You have a sweet spots where ranged weapons have an optimal range. I'm not sure if deviating from it affects damage or accuracy though, I have not checked. I haven't played Wasteland 2.

 

[Haplo]

Nah, in Underrail you only have normal range and extended range - with accuracy dropoff. Plus hefty penalties for enemies in melee range for sniper rifles (and light penalties for assault rifles too, I guess). Enemies get skill to counter your accuracy - Evasion. Without high skill, in darkness and/or against evasive enemies you want to be shooting from very close to maximize hit chances.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Well, I have an assault rifle with the following stat: "Range: 14 (Optimal: 10)"

What does this mean if not that the optimal range is less than the maximum range?

 

[HeatEXTEND]

What does this mean if not that the optimal range is less than the maximum range?

Pretty sure that's what it means. Also range not affecting accuracy is dumb.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Haplo]

Well, I have an assault rifle with the following stat: "Range: 14 (Optimal: 10)"

What does this mean if not that the optimal range is less than the maximum range?

That means that 14 range is maximum, but if you shoot beyond 10, you will have additional range accuracy penalties. Comparing to Wasteland 2, there is no minimum range (except melee engagement penalties on sniper rifles and crossbows) and accuracy does drop off within the "Optimal" range (and enemy evasion and lighting). You'll get the best accuracy by sticking that assault rifle to the enemy's head "dodge this" Matrix style.

 

[AwesomeButton]

I see, so "optimal" basically means "you don't get a penalty".