Bionic Eyes not worth it? Darkness vs accuracy?

Started by Thundercraft, June 20, 2017, 06:34:32 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Thundercraft

I was just watching this video:
RimWorld Science Alpha 17: Cover and Accuracy — RimWorld Alpha 17 Weapons and Cover SCIENCE!!!

Around 1:48, Bjorn explains how manipulation and eyesight affects shooting accuracy. He explains that there is a hard limit on how much good eyesight can benefit shooting accuracy. Apparently, not even two of the best bionic eyes in the world can push shooting accuracy beyond 100%. :(

Consider that the closer a colonist's shooting skill gets to 20, the closer their base accuracy gets to 100%. So, if I'm understanding correctly: At some point, a colonist's shooting skill becomes high enough that bionic eyes no longer provide any benefit.

Really? Does that sound right to you? If we had telescopic bionic eyes comparable to that of Ghost in the Shell, Shadowrunner, Cyberpunk 2020, etc, I would think that they would always enhance eyesight above baseline humans - unless, perhaps, you got the cheap, substandard stuff. If cyber eyes do enhance eyesight, then shouldn't it be a given that having such would increase shooting accuracy, even if the person in question was already a world-class sniper?

I don't see how having a shooting skill of 18 or 20 or whatever should be a hard limit - a wall beyond which bionic eyes can't help you. That's very counter-intuitive, anyway, if not illogical.

On the subject of brightness and darkness as it affects accuracy:

While it used to be easier to hit targets in a brightly lit area and it used to be more difficult to hit targets enveloped in darkness, this is no longer the case as of A16. But... why? What purpose did this change serve?

Obviously, it was much more realistic when brightness level affected accuracy. Was it a game balance issue? If so, couldn't this affect have been nerfed somewhat instead of removed entirely? Again, this is counter-intuitive and illogical.

Further, having to deal with light levels added a more depth to game strategy. Sure, players often illuminated the area inside their kill-boxes and outside their walls. But this took a degree of thinking, planning and effort. It's not entirely free, either, if the lights require electricity.

Please, consider re-introducing the illumination impact on shooting accuracy.

Also, please give players a reason to have bionic eyes on their uber-skilled shooters. Bionic eyes are expensive. And surgery success is not always guaranteed. There's a certain risk involved. Why go through the expense and risks for no benefit?

BlackSmokeDMax

#1
The reason is game balance, players were creating situations where the raiders were always bathed in light and the defender player units were in darkness. Making it too easy.

The reason to use bionic eyes is simple... pawns that have lost an eye. So, not necessarily for an upgrade from a perfectly good eye, but to replace a damaged/scarred or non existent eye.

jamaicancastle

At a point, the gun is as accurate as it's going to get. If you mis-see or misjudge where you're pointing it, that's one source of inaccuracy, but another source of inaccuracy is that bullets just plain don't always go where the gun points, for a variety of reasons (their mass vs. air resistance and crosswind, manufacturing defects, etc.). Having great eyes isn't going to magically affect the external ballistics of your weapon.

Not to mention, we can imagine any gun in the game designed for shooting at long distances has an appropriate sight or scope mounted. Having a zoom function in your eye would be more convenient than a telescopic scope, but I don't think it would be meaningfully more effective.

milon

Don't forget about skill degradation. You might have a skill 20 shooter now, but after a week or two of inactivity the skill will be lower. Bionics would help that. They have a use without being overpowered.

Limdood

also, the superior sight can make up for a crappy gun, reduced manipulation (scars, missing fingers), or cover.  That's significant.

erdrik

I agree with the consensus that bionic eyes can only help so much. Better eye's don't make a bullet fly straighter.

In regards to darkness, I haven't noticed any buff to night shooting but thats mostly because I don't usually shoot in darkness. Or don't pay attention when I do. :P
If it was changed, Id rather see darkness go back to having a bigger impact, and just add a new type of helmet and bionic eye:
Night Vision Helmet
Night Vision Bionic Eye

Neither would "enhance" vision like the vanilla Bionic eye(meaning: no accuracy bonus). Rather they would just remove the effects of Darkness.

Limdood

darkness effect was removed for balance.

It was INSANELY easy to simply roof your base and a couple tiles out so your pawns always fought in cover and in darkness.  The enemy pawns were in the open, and with the tiniest bit of extra effort, you could install lights in the base entrances so even at night you'd be crazily advantaged in combat.

If you add night vision gear and bring back the darkness effect, then you bring back the unbalance.  Everyone wouldn't have night vision gear, and the people that do would only make the unbalance worse, due to an influx of (likely very valuable) high tech gear.

Jorlem

Quote from: Limdood on June 20, 2017, 02:00:31 PM
darkness effect was removed for balance.

It was INSANELY easy to simply roof your base and a couple tiles out so your pawns always fought in cover and in darkness.  The enemy pawns were in the open, and with the tiniest bit of extra effort, you could install lights in the base entrances so even at night you'd be crazily advantaged in combat.

If you add night vision gear and bring back the darkness effect, then you bring back the unbalance.  Everyone wouldn't have night vision gear, and the people that do would only make the unbalance worse, due to an influx of (likely very valuable) high tech gear.
.
I don't really see the issue with that, to be honest.  If that logic is to be followed, why not disallow sandbags, as you can use them to your advantage in combat if you plan your base well (surrounding turrets with them, for example)?  Or strategically placed walls?  Or using a dumping stockpile filled with stone chunks to impede an attacker's ability to quickly get close to your defenders or turrets?

The only way there can actually be the sort of balance this seems to imply is desired would be to remove the ability to build anything that could potentially be used for defense, and force the player to meet raiders in a completely empty field and fight there.  And then remove the player's ability to give directions to the pawns, as the player's skill would unbalance things in their favor.

Instead, why not leave that mechanic in, and give the AI the ability to shoot or otherwise destroy the lamps, or increase the reload time on weapons when doing so in the dark? And give some AI bases the same sort of lighting arrangement, when the player goes to raid them.  That is, improve the balance by adding realism, and turning intelligent planning back on the players, instead of by stripping out parts of the game and the player's ability to strategize.

erdrik

Quote from: Limdood on June 20, 2017, 02:00:31 PM
...It was INSANELY easy to simply roof your base and a couple tiles out so your pawns always fought in cover and in darkness.  The enemy pawns were in the open, and with the tiniest bit of extra effort, you could install lights in the base entrances so even at night you'd be crazily advantaged in combat.

If you add night vision gear and bring back the darkness effect, then you bring back the unbalance.  Everyone wouldn't have night vision gear, and the people that do would only make the unbalance worse, due to an influx of (likely very valuable) high tech gear.
Raiders can have them too.
It would counter the fire from darkness strategy, and make Raids more about target priority.

In comparison to things like shield belts and power armor, I don't think they'd be rare enough to prevent pirate raiders from having them. Tho the Tribals might be disadvantaged, but they make up for that with swarms and lots of melee.

Limdood

Quote from: erdrik on June 20, 2017, 03:23:41 PM
Quote from: Limdood on June 20, 2017, 02:00:31 PM
...It was INSANELY easy to simply roof your base and a couple tiles out so your pawns always fought in cover and in darkness.  The enemy pawns were in the open, and with the tiniest bit of extra effort, you could install lights in the base entrances so even at night you'd be crazily advantaged in combat.

If you add night vision gear and bring back the darkness effect, then you bring back the unbalance.  Everyone wouldn't have night vision gear, and the people that do would only make the unbalance worse, due to an influx of (likely very valuable) high tech gear.
Raiders can have them too.
It would counter the fire from darkness strategy, and make Raids more about target priority.

In comparison to things like shield belts and power armor, I don't think they'd be rare enough to prevent pirate raiders from having them. Tho the Tribals might be disadvantaged, but they make up for that with swarms and lots of melee.
Thats my point....that raiders would have them.  It doesn't counter the strategy, it merely adds a super pricy workaround that SOME pirates might SOMETIMES have (all pirates don't have smokepops, or shield belts, or power armor, or go juice all the time).  AND that workaround only brings things back to "even"....whereas the player merely put up some free roofing that took one pawn all of 15 in-game minutes to construct.

Are you happy when a raider brings you some power armor?  shield belts?  luciferium or go juice?  Now imagine if half of them dropped night vision gear that i absolutely could NOT see selling for less than 600 silver a pop.

If no one has them, then things just go back to the unbalanced darkness/cover vs. lit and in the open that it was.  If everyone has them, then you're delivering THOUSANDS of silver of free resources to the colony every raid just to make things....how they already are now.  If SOME people have them (as would almost certainly be the case with pirates/tribals), then you get BOTH problems.

DariusWolfe

Quote from: BlackSmokeDMax on June 20, 2017, 07:35:44 AM
The reason is game balance, players were creating situations where the raiders were always bathed in light and the defender player units were in darkness. Making it too easy.

This is a really bad reason. Removing the effect of light on accuracy strains credulity, and punishes players who prepare. Any sort of siege situation, where you are defending a prepared point, will involve making your enemy easier to hit and making yourself harder to hit. Removing one of the key aspects of this is just a poor choice. I hope that this was a temporary fix, until Tynan has a chance to revamp the combat system, but even in the interim, it'd be better to reward the prepared player than to remove a functional and sensible mechanic like this.

A potential fix that I can think of would be to have raiders attack more often during the day, when prepared lighting isn't as useful (though this offsets the benefit of attacking colonists who'd rather be sleeping), have them prioritize lights that might make them more visible (logic might be potentially complex on this one..) have 'flare' type grenades that they could use to light up the colonists (which of course we'd also have access to; This idea mostly doesn't work without something like PeteTimesSix's sidearms mod, as a flare would negate combat ability otherwise.) or flashlight attachments for weapons (though this would again require a more complex weapon system where attachments are a thing...)

But removing light's effectiveness on anything simply makes the game poorer, IMO. Light needs to matter a lot more than it does; Surgery, research, most other complex tasks should suffer if there's insufficient light; Not just shooting.

erdrik

Quote from: Limdood on June 20, 2017, 04:00:20 PM
Are you happy when a raider brings you some power armor?  shield belts?  luciferium or go juice? 
Not really.
I actually don't wear Raider gear.
I don't like the deadman penalty, and eventually I can just make or buy better un-damaged versions myself.
Raiders bring poor quality or damaged gear.

Besides, "They do it now with other gear" is not a good counter argument.
It would be MY argument. Sounds like what you want is to just get rid of raid drops all together.

I still don't see a problem with them.

Thundercraft

#12
Quote from: BlackSmokeDMax on June 20, 2017, 07:35:44 AMThe reason is game balance, players were creating situations where the raiders were always bathed in light and the defender player units were in darkness. Making it too easy.

Logically, the one does not necessarily equate the other. The fact that players could use it to their advantage does not necessarily mean that the game became too easy. Rather, that would be a matter of severity. There's a tipping point at which the game becomes too easy (which, btw, varies from person to person).

Besides: Even if that was an exploit that made the game too easy, it was up to the player to intentionally take advantage of it. If doing so hurt their game experience, they could opt to just not do it. Otherwise, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Quote from: BlackSmokeDMax on June 20, 2017, 07:35:44 AMThe reason to use bionic eyes is simple... pawns that have lost an eye. So, not necessarily for an upgrade from a perfectly good eye, but to replace a damaged/scarred or non existent eye.

Just because Bionic Eyes have one purpose does not necessarily mean they can not have another. Obviously, in a future where bionic eyes are possible, the primary purpose would be to help those missing an eye or with a serious eye condition. But, transhumanists point out that as cybernetic enhancements become feasible, humans will inevitably opt to artificially 'enhance' themselves, whether for sports or other purposes. At least, I'm sure military branches the world over would be interested, to say nothing of spies, soldiers for hire and gangsters.

The very fact that Bionic Eyes do actually increase a vision stat on colonists is proof that Tynan was thinking along those lines. My argument is to take this to its logical conclusion.

Actually, all bionics support this assertion. You can't honestly tell me that no player has ever installed a bionic arm or leg (or a Scyther blade) on a colonist merely for the combat bonus(es), rather than merely because they're missing an arm or a leg.

Quote from: jamaicancastle on June 20, 2017, 08:24:19 AMAt a point, the gun is as accurate as it's going to get. If you mis-see or misjudge where you're pointing it, that's one source of inaccuracy, but another source of inaccuracy is that bullets just plain don't always go where the gun points...

In Bjorn's video I mention above, he explains that there are three separate things which affect gun accuracy: {1} The colonist's skill (with manipulation and eyesight adjustments), {2} the gun itself (including gun type, quality, and wear), and {3} cover.

The way I interpreted what Bjorn was saying was that Bionic Eyes can only affect {1}, the colonist part of the equation. And that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the hard limit of 100% on the colonist's skill bonus, which Bionic Eyes can not exceed.

As you point out, there's only so much accuracy you can get out of {2}, a weapon. But the game calculates the influence of {1} the combination of the colonist's skill and eyesight, but still treats {1} separately from {2} and {3}. I'm just arguing that a colonist's skill should be treated as completely separate from their eyesight handicap or bonus. The two are not directly related.

Quote from: Limdood on June 20, 2017, 09:46:44 AM
also, the superior sight can make up for a crappy gun, reduced manipulation (scars, missing fingers), or cover.  That's significant.

The way Bjorn explained in his video, Bionic Eyes can only help with {1}, the skill portion of the accuracy equation. The only way it could help make up for a crappy gun or cover would be if the shooter had less than 100% skill accuracy - that is, from having a shooting skill that was far from being maxed.

Granted, it does sound like Bionic Eyes could make up for reduced manipulation, even with a shooting skill of 20. But how often does your champion shooter end up with reduced manipulation? It would be a situation rarely taken advantage of.

Likewise, allowing Bionic Eyes to give a small bonus to {1} Skill accuracy slightly beyond 100% even with a skill of 19 or 20 would be a rare and definitely late-game situation that would be too uncommon to be exploited regularly by players.

Also, it really boils down to degrees and severity. You would not argue that allowing something like 105% or 120% accuracy to {1}, the skill portion of accuracy equations, would be game-breaking... would you?

Quote from: jamaicancastle on June 20, 2017, 08:24:19 AMHaving great eyes isn't going to magically affect the external ballistics of your weapon.

True enough. But having above average vision would help, just like having poor eyesight can hurt accuracy, regardless of the type or quality of gun you are using.

Quote from: jamaicancastle on June 20, 2017, 08:24:19 AMNot to mention, we can imagine any gun in the game designed for shooting at long distances has an appropriate sight or scope mounted.

The only true long-range weapon is the Sniper rifle. The next best range is the Doomsday rocket, followed by the Bolt-action rifle. I'll concede that the Sniper rifle and Doomsday have a scope. I suppose it's even possible for the Bolt-action. But the rest probably only has a simple sight. And above average eyesight can surely help with simple sights.

Quote from: jamaicancastle on June 20, 2017, 08:24:19 AMHaving a zoom function in your eye would be more convenient than a telescopic scope, but I don't think it would be meaningfully more effective.

We don't really know what kind of technology is involved in these Bionic Eyes... do we? Well, even today we're seeing some remarkable bionic eye technology:
New Bionic Lens Promises Superhuman Vision

Quote, "...promising to give everyone perfect vision three times better than 20/20".

Three times better than 20/20, with just a prosthetic lens? Consider that a moment. Also:

"Unboxing" Google Smart Contact Lens

And as technology marches on, the size of things shrink. Now we have miniature, portable backscatter x-ray machines:
World's first handheld backscatter X-ray machine

After a few centuries more, we'd probably see an x-ray device small enough for bionic eyes.

Remember Batou's new eyes in Ghost in the Shell (2017)? How about not only zoom magnification, but also seeing in the infrared and ultraviolet? How about having a HUD display with stats like distance, velocity, and wind direction and speed.

Heck, with a computer you could even have a prediction algorithm to predict where the target will be by the time the bullet reaches it. We already see target prediction in computer games. And this is old school stuff. Target prediction for bombers was already a thing back in WWII, using gears instead of microchips or transistors.

Limdood

QuoteBut how often does your champion shooter end up with reduced manipulation?
all the damned time.

since A17 and the random prioritization of targets, most of my pawns come out of hard battles with a bullet wound or two...and lost fingers is INSANELY common.  Also don't forget this game LOVES to generate debilitating scars.

If you're using a killbox to keep your pawns safe, this wouldn't apply to you, but then i guess you wouldn't need a champion shooter then would you?

TheMeInTeam

Quote from: Limdood on June 21, 2017, 10:40:23 AM
QuoteBut how often does your champion shooter end up with reduced manipulation?
all the damned time.

since A17 and the random prioritization of targets, most of my pawns come out of hard battles with a bullet wound or two...and lost fingers is INSANELY common.  Also don't forget this game LOVES to generate debilitating scars.

If you're using a killbox to keep your pawns safe, this wouldn't apply to you, but then i guess you wouldn't need a champion shooter then would you?

Killbox setup still needs 1-2 great shooters to pull sieges and harass sappers until getting mortars for sieges...and the only way to killbox sappers involves steering with turrets, so those can't be used in the killbox then (there are very effective setups w/o turrets, but it takes more research/resources to set up).

The constant loss of fingers and crap is really annoying since there is very little you can do about it except just avoiding taking damage other than melee damage vs enemies using fists.  The mechanic's prevalence is devoid of realism, so there must be some gameplay reasoning for it...but unless the intention is to encourage players to use killbox setups or to just lower baseline pawn utility I'm not grasping what that reasoning might be.