Talk:Overwatch (EU2012) - Revision history

Miteusz: /* Aim penalty modifier for dashing */ new section

2016-08-12T14:41:33Z

Aim penalty modifier for dashing: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:41, 12 August 2016
Line 22:		Line 22:

	: It's mainly a dump of information. In time the main overwatch article should incorporate all the valid points and the quote itself removed. I think something like the Ref open/close templates used for the quotes taken directly from the in-game Ufopaedia may be a good way to present quotes like this if they are required. Or if not those templates in particular, then something similar. -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 07:49, 13 November 2012 (EST)		: It's mainly a dump of information. In time the main overwatch article should incorporate all the valid points and the quote itself removed. I think something like the Ref open/close templates used for the quotes taken directly from the in-game Ufopaedia may be a good way to present quotes like this if they are required. Or if not those templates in particular, then something similar. -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 07:49, 13 November 2012 (EST)

			== Aim penalty modifier for dashing ==

			Isn't chance to hit on overwatch reduced by 0.7 factor for overwatch and additional, cumulative 0.7 for dashing, so total 0.7 * 0.7 = 0.49 for dashing, instead of 0.5? --[[User:Miteusz\|Miteusz]] ([[User talk:Miteusz\|talk]]) 10:41, 12 August 2016 (EDT)

NKF: /* Debatable Advice */

2012-11-13T12:49:55Z

Debatable Advice

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:49, 13 November 2012
Line 20:		Line 20:
	* Signing work is bad because it's an impediment to free editing (besides, after half of it has been edited, who gets the credit then?). Attribution is normally given by the edit history. Since this is a copy/paste of someone else's work the edit history doesn't give it, and it's on a private forum so I have no idea whether he requires attribution or not, so pretty much have to delete the whole lot if I want to delete the signature (which I do).		* Signing work is bad because it's an impediment to free editing (besides, after half of it has been edited, who gets the credit then?). Attribution is normally given by the edit history. Since this is a copy/paste of someone else's work the edit history doesn't give it, and it's on a private forum so I have no idea whether he requires attribution or not, so pretty much have to delete the whole lot if I want to delete the signature (which I do).
	[[User:Binkyuk\|Binkyuk]] 06:55, 13 November 2012 (EST)		[[User:Binkyuk\|Binkyuk]] 06:55, 13 November 2012 (EST)

			: It's mainly a dump of information. In time the main overwatch article should incorporate all the valid points and the quote itself removed. I think something like the Ref open/close templates used for the quotes taken directly from the in-game Ufopaedia may be a good way to present quotes like this if they are required. Or if not those templates in particular, then something similar. -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 07:49, 13 November 2012 (EST)

Binkyuk at 11:55, 13 November 2012

2012-11-13T11:55:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:55, 13 November 2012
Line 15:		Line 15:

	==Debatable Advice==		==Debatable Advice==
	~~Not impressed by this "guide". The claim that~~ the Classic AI ~~will~~ fire more ~~often~~ if it can't move is ~~nonsense. The~~ Normal AI will sometimes ~~suboptimally~~ move twice ~~when it could take a shot~~ because its designed to make mistakes~~, but the Classic AI doesn't~~. ~~The only time~~ I've seen it ~~not take~~ a ~~shot or overwatch if~~ it ~~can is when~~ it's ~~moving back~~ to ~~disengage~~. [[User:Binkyuk\|Binkyuk]] 06:39, 13 November 2012 (EST)		Removed the last half because
			* Classic AI does not fire more if it can't move. This is behaviour seen on the Normal AI because it will sometimes move twice instead of firing, because its designed to sometimes make mistakes. I've never seen Classic AI move when it could sensibly fire.
			* Most of the good advice has been added to the first half now anyway.
			* Signing work is bad because it's an impediment to free editing (besides, after half of it has been edited, who gets the credit then?). Attribution is normally given by the edit history. Since this is a copy/paste of someone else's work the edit history doesn't give it, and it's on a private forum so I have no idea whether he requires attribution or not, so pretty much have to delete the whole lot if I want to delete the signature (which I do).
			[[User:Binkyuk\|Binkyuk]] 06:55, 13 November 2012 (EST)

Binkyuk at 11:39, 13 November 2012

2012-11-13T11:39:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:39, 13 November 2012
Line 15:		Line 15:

	==Debatable Advice==		==Debatable Advice==
	Not impressed by this "guide". The claim that the Classic AI will fire more often if it can't move is nonsense. The Normal AI will sometimes suboptimally move twice when it could take a shot because its designed to make mistakes, but the Classic AI doesn't. The only time I've seen it not take a shot or overwatch if it can is when it's moving back to disengage.		Not impressed by this "guide". The claim that the Classic AI will fire more often if it can't move is nonsense. The Normal AI will sometimes suboptimally move twice when it could take a shot because its designed to make mistakes, but the Classic AI doesn't. The only time I've seen it not take a shot or overwatch if it can is when it's moving back to disengage. [[User:Binkyuk\|Binkyuk]] 06:39, 13 November 2012 (EST)

Binkyuk at 11:39, 13 November 2012

2012-11-13T11:39:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:39, 13 November 2012
Line 13:		Line 13:

	Higher difficulties breed the best tips. Aliens on normal are easier is all. In fact, if you apply Classic tactics to normal you will do better than people who play on Classic, nothing wrong there really.--[[User:SuicidalSectoid\|SuicidalSectoid]] 15:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)		Higher difficulties breed the best tips. Aliens on normal are easier is all. In fact, if you apply Classic tactics to normal you will do better than people who play on Classic, nothing wrong there really.--[[User:SuicidalSectoid\|SuicidalSectoid]] 15:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)

			==Debatable Advice==
			Not impressed by this "guide". The claim that the Classic AI will fire more often if it can't move is nonsense. The Normal AI will sometimes suboptimally move twice when it could take a shot because its designed to make mistakes, but the Classic AI doesn't. The only time I've seen it not take a shot or overwatch if it can is when it's moving back to disengage.

SuicidalSectoid: It doesn't matter!

2012-11-12T20:20:48Z

It doesn't matter!

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:20, 12 November 2012
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Not all XCOM players always play on classic difficulty! You can't always asume things like that.		Not all XCOM players always play on classic difficulty! You can't always asume things like that.
	--[[User:Alexbuzzbee\|Alexbuzzbee]] 14:14, 12 November 2012 (EST)		--[[User:Alexbuzzbee\|Alexbuzzbee]] 14:14, 12 November 2012 (EST)

			Higher difficulties breed the best tips. Aliens on normal are easier is all. In fact, if you apply Classic tactics to normal you will do better than people who play on Classic, nothing wrong there really.--[[User:SuicidalSectoid\|SuicidalSectoid]] 15:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)

Alexbuzzbee at 19:14, 12 November 2012

2012-11-12T19:14:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:14, 12 November 2012
Line 7:		Line 7:
	:On gear that gives defense, the wording is always a small amount is 10 and similar to low cover is 20 (not direct quotes), and on the gear that gives aim, 10 seems to be a significant increase. I am under the assumption that the aim penalty is no more then 15. [[User:Mavoc\|Mavoc]] 14:45, 15 October 2012 (EDT)		:On gear that gives defense, the wording is always a small amount is 10 and similar to low cover is 20 (not direct quotes), and on the gear that gives aim, 10 seems to be a significant increase. I am under the assumption that the aim penalty is no more then 15. [[User:Mavoc\|Mavoc]] 14:45, 15 October 2012 (EDT)

	== We don't all ~~pay~~ classic ==		== We don't all play classic ==

	Not all XCOM players always play on classic difficulty! You can't always asume things like that.		Not all XCOM players always play on classic difficulty! You can't always asume things like that.
	--[[User:Alexbuzzbee\|Alexbuzzbee]] 14:14, 12 November 2012 (EST)		--[[User:Alexbuzzbee\|Alexbuzzbee]] 14:14, 12 November 2012 (EST)

Alexbuzzbee: /* We don't all pay classic */ new section

2012-11-12T19:14:40Z

We don't all pay classic: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:14, 12 November 2012
Line 6:		Line 6:

	:On gear that gives defense, the wording is always a small amount is 10 and similar to low cover is 20 (not direct quotes), and on the gear that gives aim, 10 seems to be a significant increase. I am under the assumption that the aim penalty is no more then 15. [[User:Mavoc\|Mavoc]] 14:45, 15 October 2012 (EDT)		:On gear that gives defense, the wording is always a small amount is 10 and similar to low cover is 20 (not direct quotes), and on the gear that gives aim, 10 seems to be a significant increase. I am under the assumption that the aim penalty is no more then 15. [[User:Mavoc\|Mavoc]] 14:45, 15 October 2012 (EDT)

			== We don't all pay classic ==

			Not all XCOM players always play on classic difficulty! You can't always asume things like that.
			--[[User:Alexbuzzbee\|Alexbuzzbee]] 14:14, 12 November 2012 (EST)

Mavoc at 18:45, 15 October 2012

2012-10-15T18:45:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:45, 15 October 2012
Line 4:		Line 4:

	:It's not mentioned in-game. I've been trying to spade it out, but it's tricky because first, the hit percentage is not shown, second, the RNG reset on loading a savegame also influences the AI's decision, and finally, dashing provides a defensive bonus. My best-contrived scenario has a 115 aim Sniper without Opportunist having a 75% stated hit chance on a Muton in light cover normally, and hitting 7 out of 12 times with Overwatch as it was forced out via a Support's Flush. So it LOOKS like the penalty is the same for light cover (which certainly isn't the same for heavy cover, where the sniper only had a 62% hit chance.) --[[User:Freeone3000\|Freeone3000]] 04:20, 12 October 2012 (EDT)		:It's not mentioned in-game. I've been trying to spade it out, but it's tricky because first, the hit percentage is not shown, second, the RNG reset on loading a savegame also influences the AI's decision, and finally, dashing provides a defensive bonus. My best-contrived scenario has a 115 aim Sniper without Opportunist having a 75% stated hit chance on a Muton in light cover normally, and hitting 7 out of 12 times with Overwatch as it was forced out via a Support's Flush. So it LOOKS like the penalty is the same for light cover (which certainly isn't the same for heavy cover, where the sniper only had a 62% hit chance.) --[[User:Freeone3000\|Freeone3000]] 04:20, 12 October 2012 (EDT)

			:On gear that gives defense, the wording is always a small amount is 10 and similar to low cover is 20 (not direct quotes), and on the gear that gives aim, 10 seems to be a significant increase. I am under the assumption that the aim penalty is no more then 15. [[User:Mavoc\|Mavoc]] 14:45, 15 October 2012 (EDT)

Freeone3000: Added signature.

2012-10-12T08:20:09Z

Added signature.

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:20, 12 October 2012
Line 3:		Line 3:
	:Something in my brain says that I saw something saying it was 10 or 15, but I cannot confirm that at this time. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft\|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:44, 9 October 2012 (EDT)		:Something in my brain says that I saw something saying it was 10 or 15, but I cannot confirm that at this time. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft\|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:44, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

	:It's not mentioned in-game. I've been trying to spade it out, but it's tricky because first, the hit percentage is not shown, second, the RNG reset on loading a savegame also influences the AI's decision, and finally, dashing provides a defensive bonus. My best-contrived scenario has a 115 aim Sniper without Opportunist having a 75% stated hit chance on a Muton in light cover normally, and hitting 7 out of 12 times with Overwatch as it was forced out via a Support's Flush. So it LOOKS like the penalty is the same for light cover (which certainly isn't the same for heavy cover, where the sniper only had a 62% hit chance.)		:It's not mentioned in-game. I've been trying to spade it out, but it's tricky because first, the hit percentage is not shown, second, the RNG reset on loading a savegame also influences the AI's decision, and finally, dashing provides a defensive bonus. My best-contrived scenario has a 115 aim Sniper without Opportunist having a 75% stated hit chance on a Muton in light cover normally, and hitting 7 out of 12 times with Overwatch as it was forced out via a Support's Flush. So it LOOKS like the penalty is the same for light cover (which certainly isn't the same for heavy cover, where the sniper only had a 62% hit chance.) --[[User:Freeone3000\|Freeone3000]] 04:20, 12 October 2012 (EDT)