Firing Accuracy Testing - Revision history

Jnarical: Add statistical data for 2025 experiment, 3D representation for % chance to hit

2025-05-11T23:12:08Z

Add statistical data for 2025 experiment, 3D representation for % chance to hit

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:12, 11 May 2025
Line 85:		Line 85:
	Weapon Accuracy 50%		Weapon Accuracy 50%
	Final FA ''' 45%'''		Final FA ''' 45%'''










	Here are the results for FFA 45%:		Here are the results for FFA 45%:
	<u>Observed Percent Hits</U> Observed Calced %Miss Model Versus		<u>Observed Percent Hits</U> Observed Calced %Miss Model Versus 2025
	<u>Dist</u> <u>Min</u> <u>Ave ± SDs</u> <u>Max</u> <u>Ss</u> <u>Shots</u> <u>Tot N</u> <u>Spread</u> <u>Spread</u> <u>=Hit</u> <u>% Hit</u> <u>Observed</u>		<u>Dist</u> <u>Min</u> <u>Ave ± SDs</u> <u>Max</u> <u>Ss</u> <u>Shots</u> <u>Tot N</u> <u>Spread</u> <u>Spread</u> <u>=Hit</u> <u>% Hit</u> <u>Observed</u> <u>Data</u>
	1 98.8% 99.6% ± 0.6% 100.0% 4 250 1000 0.0		1 98.8% 99.6% ± 0.6% 100.0% 4 250 1000 0.0 96.90%
	2 74.8% 80.2% ± 3.3% 86.0% 8 250 2000 0.9 1.0 68% 80.5% +0.3%		2 74.8% 80.2% ± 3.3% 86.0% 8 250 2000 0.9 1.0 68% 80.5% +0.3% 81.23%
	3 62.4% 68.0% ± 3.3% 72.8% 8 250 2000 1.3 1.5 45% 66.7% -1.3%		3 62.4% 68.0% ± 3.3% 72.8% 8 250 2000 1.3 1.5 45% 66.7% -1.3% 71.31%
	5 53.2% 58.6% ± 2.4% 61.2% 8 250 2000 3.0 2.5 27% 55.6% -3.0%		5 53.2% 58.6% ± 2.4% 61.2% 8 250 2000 3.0 2.5 27% 55.6% -3.0% 61.72%
	10 48.8% 51.3% ± 1.9% 53.8% 9 240 2160 5.0 5.0 14% 47.3% -4.0%		10 48.8% 51.3% ± 1.9% 53.8% 9 240 2160 5.0 5.0 14% 47.3% -4.0% 51.62%
	20 38.0% 44.2% ± 4.2% 48.8% 8 250 2000 11.0 10.0 7% 43.1% -1.1%		20 38.0% 44.2% ± 4.2% 48.8% 8 250 2000 11.0 10.0 7% 43.1% -1.1% 45.86%
	40 36.4% 41.5% ± 3.4% 46.8% 8 250 2000 17.0 20.0 3% 41.1% -0.4%		40 36.4% 41.5% ± 3.4% 46.8% 8 250 2000 17.0 20.0 3% 41.1% -0.4% 42.16%
	[[image:FAT-FFA45.png\|right\|thumb\|200px\|Graph of FAT Test 1]]Where		[[image:FAT-FFA45.png\|right\|thumb\|200px\|Graph of FAT Test 1]]Where
	*'''Dist''' is distance from soldier to Muton; 1 means, soldier is directly adjacent to target (Soldier is 0, Muton is 1 away).		*'''Dist''' is distance from soldier to Muton; 1 means, soldier is directly adjacent to target (Soldier is 0, Muton is 1 away).
Line 193:		Line 202:

	Currently (11/26/06), ideas on FA testing are being discussed in BombBloke's StratCore [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=5805 thread] on his great automation tools. Please drop by and jump in!		Currently (11/26/06), ideas on FA testing are being discussed in BombBloke's StratCore [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=5805 thread] on his great automation tools. Please drop by and jump in!


			= Test 2025: Automated hit percentage statistical measurement =

			In 2025 user JNarical created a [https://github.com/narical/OpenXcom-Accuracy-Simulator set of tools] to tinker with accuracy formula. As it turned out, original accuracy formula is extremely non-uniform, e.g. ~30% of shots (along West-East map direction) were significally more accurate then 70% along South-North direction, with twice as less spread. In OXCE, new accuracy mode option was introduced, which leveled out accuracy for all directions, making it uniform: "horizontal" / East-West shots became less accurate, and "vertical" / South-North shots became more accurate, with average chance to hit preserved the same as original.

			With "Uniform shooting spread" option enabled, JNarical performed statistical measurement for % hit chances, for Accuracy (FFA) in range 0..120%, distance in range 1..40 tiles, with 20.000 shot simulations for each case - 96.8 millions in total. The results (available [https://github.com/narical/OpenXcom-Accuracy-Simulator/blob/main/xcom_hit_chances.json here]) were processed with Savitzky-Golay filter, to fix statistical artefacts.

			Table in "Test 1" chapter was updated with new data, for comparison purposes - and here's a chart for it:
			[[image:Chance to hit chart 2025.png\|Graph of 2025 test vs 2006]]


			= Test 2025: 3D representation for % hit chance =

			[[image:Chance-to-hit-3D-2.png\|600px\|thumb\|left\|% hit chance 3D view - #1]]
			[[image:Chance-to-hit-3D-1.png\|600px\|thumb\|center\|% hit chance 3D view - #2]]

	[[Category:Enemy Unknown/UFO Defense]]		[[Category:Enemy Unknown/UFO Defense]]

Hobbes: categorizing

2013-07-23T02:57:12Z

categorizing

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:57, 23 July 2013
Line 193:		Line 193:

	Currently (11/26/06), ideas on FA testing are being discussed in BombBloke's StratCore [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=5805 thread] on his great automation tools. Please drop by and jump in!		Currently (11/26/06), ideas on FA testing are being discussed in BombBloke's StratCore [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=5805 thread] on his great automation tools. Please drop by and jump in!

			[[Category:Enemy Unknown/UFO Defense]]

MikeTheRed: Posted the rest of my old data; moving on to BB's fire logger...

2006-11-26T17:00:12Z

Posted the rest of my old data; moving on to BB's fire logger...

Show changes

MikeTheRed: /* Test 3: Interchangeability of weapon and soldier Firing Accuracy */

2006-11-18T09:32:39Z

Test 3: Interchangeability of weapon and soldier Firing Accuracy

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:32, 18 November 2006
Line 143:		Line 143:
	= Test 3: Interchangeability of weapon and soldier Firing Accuracy =		= Test 3: Interchangeability of weapon and soldier Firing Accuracy =

	As a simple test		As a simple test, a soldier at distance 3 had, on the one hand, weapon accuracy (WA) 250 and firing accuracy of 40 (FA; FFA 100%). And on the other hand was one with WA of 40 and FA of 250, just the reverse (but also FFA 100%).

	''~~see above~~''		<u>Observed Percent Hits</U>
			<u>WA/FA</u> <u>Min</u> <u>Ave ± SDs</u> <u>Max</u> <u>Ss</u> <u>Shots</u> <u>Tot N</u>

			250/40 98.8% 99.55% ± 0.33% 100% 8 250 2000
			40/250 99.2% 99.55% ± 0.26% 100% 8 250 2000

			100/100 99.6% 99.87% ± 0.23% 100% 3 250 750 ''High-biased comparison data from Distance 3 ceiling test''

			As can be seen, there is virtually no difference. That's not a typo; both groups had exactly 1991/2000 (99.55%) hits. We usually suspect anything entirely equal as being bad info, but every now and then, it actually happens.

			There may conceivably be things going on with other factors like [[Fatal Wounds]] that might cause FFA to not be FFA, as it were. But I very highly doubt it, based solely on a general knowledge of how simple X-COM is. Anyway, WA and FA seem entirely interchangeable relative to final FA - only FFA matters.

			== Digression: Why use 100% at Distance 3 when there are almost no misses? ==

			The expected variance of a binomial (yes/no, a.k.a. hit/miss) factor is Np(1-p), where p is percent likelihood (percent hit, for our purposes). If you were to graph it, p(1-p) is at its "worst" at .5 - right in the middle, 50% expectation - where p(1-p) = .5 * .5 = .25. In other words,

			At the very edges of almost all hits or misses, it approaches 0.00 and finally reaches 0.00 when it is indeed all hits, or all misses.

			''Be back Tuesday or so, need to run - [[User:MikeTheRed\|MikeTheRed]] 01:32, 18 November 2006 (PST)''

	= Notes =		= Notes =

	Currently (11/17/06), ideas on FA testing are being discussed in BombBloke's StratCore [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=5805 thread] on his great automation tools. Please drop by and jump in!		Currently (11/17/06), ideas on FA testing are being discussed in BombBloke's StratCore [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=5805 thread] on his great automation tools. Please drop by and jump in!

MikeTheRed: /* Test 1: Benchmark */

2006-11-18T05:13:13Z

Test 1: Benchmark

@@ Line 119: / Line 119: @@
 So. FFA is a generalized number. Never intended to show specific FA versus a target. As work progresses, I/we hope to pin down what the programmers considered a/the commonly-encountered game situation.
 = Notes =
 Currently (11/17/06), ideas on FA testing are being discussed in BombBloke's StratCore [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=5805 thread] on his great automation tools. Please drop by and jump in!

MikeTheRed: /* Test 1: Benchmark */ - more to come

2006-11-18T04:21:23Z

Test 1: Benchmark: - more to come

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:21, 18 November 2006
Line 108:		Line 108:
	*'''Versus Observed''' is '''Model Percent Hit''' minus '''Observed Average Percent Hits'''.		*'''Versus Observed''' is '''Model Percent Hit''' minus '''Observed Average Percent Hits'''.

	''~~catching breath~~ a ~~second~~... ~~more~~ on the ~~way -~~ [[~~User:MikeTheRed\|MikeTheRed~~]] ~~19:30~~, ~~17 November 2006~~ (~~PST~~)''		As can be seen, this '''Final Firing Accuracy of 45%''' is in fact only 45% ''at a distance of approx. 20''.

			== Digression re: Final Firing Accuracy as quoted in the game ==

			It's clear that the FFA seen in the game (the pop-up when preparing to fire a weapon) is some sort of general statistic. It can't ''possibly'' apply to actual situations. Consider that you might be faced by five aliens. The dudes are at greatly differing distances, with some half-blocked, others not. Or maybe even, there isn't a single target to be hit. What are you quoted? The same old FFA, regardless of anything going on. Or not going on.

			Final Firing Accuracy has always been found to follow the [[Accuracy formula]] - a formula which includes ''zero target information''.

			Although FFA is devoid of target information, of course it had to have in-game relevancy. And distance is an important part. What's the most relevant distance in a game? Very near? Very far? At the moment, I lean toward FFA being the likeihood of hitting an average-sized alien at distance 20 on an open field (outdoors, no blockage).

			So. FFA is a generalized number. Never intended to show specific FA versus a target. As work progresses, I/we hope to pin down what the programmers considered a/the commonly-encountered game situation.

	= Notes =		= Notes =

	Currently (11/17/06), ideas on FA testing are being discussed in BombBloke's StratCore [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=5805 thread] on his great automation tools. Please drop by and jump in!		Currently (11/17/06), ideas on FA testing are being discussed in BombBloke's StratCore [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=5805 thread] on his great automation tools. Please drop by and jump in!

MikeTheRed at 03:30, 18 November 2006

2006-11-18T03:30:15Z

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Notes & Nomenclature:
 *'''FFA''' is Final Firing Accuracy - the quoted percent seen when about to fire a weapon. Otherwise, there is soldier FA and weapon FA, plus other factors as seen in [[Accuracy formula]] and [[Firing Accuracy]]. For this work, only soldier and weapon accuracy have been hacked/tested, unless otherwise noted.
-*All testing used Autofire, unless otherwise noted.
+*Unless otherwise noted, all testing used:
@@ Line 20: / Line 26: @@
   Laser Pistol    28    40    68
-Relevant [[HackerTools|bytes]] (also see BombBloke's [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/index.php?dlid=470 Map Editor]). "Max" means a large number; "z" ([[Media:DOS_Chars_In_MsEdit.pdf|122]]) is the largest single-keystroke value:
+If you want to [[HackerTools|hack]] files yourself, here are bytes of interest. But also see BombBloke's [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/index.php?dlid=470 Map Editor], which makes a lot of this cake.
   [[UNITREF.DAT]], record length 124:
@@ Line 76: / Line 84: @@
   Soldier Accuracy 90%
   Weapon Accuracy  50%
-  Final FA         45%
+  Final FA        ''' 45%'''
-''Currently, new developments are showing up in BombBloke's StratCore [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=5805 thread] on his great automation tools. For my results ATM, see post 11. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 22:44, 16 November 2006 (PST)''
+Currently (11/17/06), ideas on FA testing are being discussed in BombBloke's StratCore [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=5805 thread] on his great automation tools. Please drop by and jump in!

MikeTheRed at 06:44, 17 November 2006

2006-11-17T06:44:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:44, 17 November 2006
Line 78:		Line 78:
	Final FA 45%		Final FA 45%

	''~~Bleh~~, it's ~~getting late~~. ~~More to come~~ - [[User:MikeTheRed\|MikeTheRed]] 02:05, 12 November 2006 (PST)''		''Currently, new developments are showing up in BombBloke's StratCore [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=5805 thread] on his great automation tools. For my results ATM, see post 11. - [[User:MikeTheRed\|MikeTheRed]] 22:44, 16 November 2006 (PST)''

MikeTheRed at 10:05, 12 November 2006

2006-11-12T10:05:40Z

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
   Laser Pistol    28    40    68
-Here are some relevant bytes to [[HackerTools|hack]] (also see BombBloke's [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/index.php?dlid=470 Map Editor]). "Max" means a large number; "z" ([[Media:DOS_Chars_In_MsEdit.pdf|122]]) is the largest single-keystroke value:
+Relevant [[HackerTools|bytes]] (also see BombBloke's [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/index.php?dlid=470 Map Editor]). "Max" means a large number; "z" ([[Media:DOS_Chars_In_MsEdit.pdf|122]]) is the largest single-keystroke value:
-  [[UNITREF.DAT]]
+  [[UNITREF.DAT]], record length 124:
   <u>Offset</u>   <u>Description</u>
@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
      Base health
      Strength - If you want to carry a lot, eat yer spinach.
 = Test 1: Benchmark =
-I chose a middling FFA, based on relevant stats:
+I chose a middling FFA:
-''Bleh, it's getting late. Much more to come - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 01:02, 12 November 2006 (PST)''
+''Bleh, it's getting late. More to come - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 02:05, 12 November 2006 (PST)''

MikeTheRed: New page but it's getting late

2006-11-12T09:02:40Z

New page but it's getting late

New page

This page is a scratch page re: testing how [[Firing Accuracy]] works. Results will be summarized back to relevant pages when done. Page initiated by [[User:MikeTheRed]], but anyone is welcome to jump in. This is an informal page.

Notes & Nomenclature:
*'''FFA''' is Final Firing Accuracy - the quoted percent seen when about to fire a weapon. Otherwise, there is soldier FA and weapon FA, plus other factors as seen in [[Accuracy formula]] and [[Firing Accuracy]]. For this work, only soldier and weapon accuracy have been hacked/tested, unless otherwise noted.
*All testing used Autofire, unless otherwise noted.

= Background =

There's been a lot of conjecture about Firing Accuracy on the wiki and in X-COM [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=4271 forums]. I couldn't recall much actual testing, so here we go.

*Soldiers can have FA from [[Raw recruit statistical likelihood|40 to 125]].
*Common weapons have the following FA:

Weapon Auto Snap Aimed
Heavy Plasma 50 75 110
Std. Rifle 35 60 110
Laser Rifle 46 65 100
Std. Pistol -- 60 78
Laser Pistol 28 40 68

Here are some relevant bytes to [[HackerTools|hack]] (also see BombBloke's [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/index.php?dlid=470 Map Editor]). "Max" means a large number; "z" ([[Media:DOS_Chars_In_MsEdit.pdf|122]]) is the largest single-keystroke value:

[[UNITREF.DAT]]

Offset Description
23 '''Firing Accuracy.''' Decreased by injury, so heal all your soldiers.
12 Current TUs - 250 for soldiers, 0 for aliens
25 Base TUs - 99 for soldiers, 0 for aliens
35 Energy Recharge - Max all
15 Current Energy - Max all
27 Base Energy - Max all
45 Energy Usage - Max all
18-22 Current Armour, F/L/R/B/U - Max all so nobody gets hurt.
29-33 Base Armor - Max for all
63-68 Fatal Wounds - Heal everybody
81 FA (hits) counter - Make sure it's zero
57 Psi strength - Aliens to 0, soldiers maxxed
37 Psi skill - Same thing
13 Current health - Set to Base Health. (You are injured if Current Health < Base Health.)
26 Base health
17 Strength - If you want to carry a lot, eat yer spinach.

= Test 1: Benchmark =

I chose a middling FFA, based on relevant stats:

''Bleh, it's getting late. Much more to come - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 01:02, 12 November 2006 (PST)''