Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

  • "BleedingUranium" started this thread

Posts: 3,392

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

21

Tuesday, May 16th 2017, 5:57am

I don't really want random v-recoil either. Spread works well enough to a certain degree, yet there's still hilariously bad examples of the gun not providing enough feedback to the player that his spread is going insane. Case in point, the CQB SLRs being fired at near maximum RPM at a target 30m, with the person training the sights directly on a target, but only the first shot hits. I don't think random v-recoil is the answer, I feel like it would just turn into one more random and obnoxious deviation the person has to account for.

I'm also glad I wasn't the only one who thought the reverse spread model is counter intuitive for LMGs. Why didn't we simply go back to the BF3/Hardline treatment, which was inverse recoil model through high (Hardline had INSANE) first shot recoil? What about the other factors that made them different enough from ARs like significantly worse hipfire? Did DICE and the others not think that was enough to separate them from SMGs, and to prevent them from being ARs?


That's very, very true, especially of the CQB SLRs; the M1907 feels absolutely awful and awkward to use. A major reason for using recoil over spread would be that proper feedback, so something like the M1907 would actually feel as inaccurate as it is when spammed at 30m+.

Random V-Recoil wouldn't be strictly nessessary if recoil had some of the same mechanics spread currently has. Recoil Increase/Decrease Per Shot, increased Moving Recoil, or the MGs' reverse spread model but with recoil instead, maybe reduced recoil for crouch and prone. That actually ties into your point about Hardline's MGs with very high FSMs, just that instead of one big jump and then normal recoil, your first shot would recoil most, second less, third even less, until whatever shot is supposed to give you min-Recoil. Exactly like reverse spread. Other guns would in turn have positive Recoil Increase Per Shot, so have fun magdumping your Automatico.
Who has fun, wins.

Posts: 104

Date of registration
: Oct 28th 2016

Platform: PS4

Location: California

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

22

Tuesday, May 16th 2017, 9:54am

It goes against all reasonable expectation that the more I shoot at something the magically more accurate my weapon becomes. It's literally something straight out of Borderlands.

IMO it's a piss poor mechanic to convey the concept that LMGs are heavier and more cumbersome than rifles and the like.
Shooting in video games has NEVER felt authentic at all. Neither does getting shot in video games. It's a pointless design objective because the majority games are fun precisely because they aren't a direct simulation of reality.
I find this to be an odd contradiction. We only expect inaccuracy from firing fully-automatic firearms because that is what occurs according to IRL human testing, logic and experience. However, this is a video game, which only uses realism as a method to attract players interested in fulfilling firearm-shooting, militaristic, historical fantasies.

Do you want guns to "feel" as they do in real life, at least to a quantifiable degree? Or are you in favor of forgoing logic and common sense according to reality to ensure that video games, which are almost never fully or intentionally designed to replicate real life, are good? Fulfilling the latter objective is what game designers must do.

Spread mechanics are not difficult to understand, but they are also not intuitive. Really, recoil vs spread is not a gameplay/mechanic discussion, it's an art/player-feedback sort of discussion, and in that context the gameplay people should simply be doing whatever the player-perspective people say is best. This is a good example of how BF1 is fantastically designed from a mechanical perspective, but that doesn't always translate to being good from the player-side perspective. And ultimately every game has to be good from the players' perspective.
According to whom? Who feels that spread mechanics are unintuitive, and in what way? Is it based on your own personal feelings? Is it actually based on the community's perspective, or is it based on your conception of the community's perspective? None of us here are appropriate representatives of the community's wishes.

The players' perspective/the masses is a metric dictated almost purely by personal opinion. There are people who will feel that BF1 feels good, and there will be people who do not. There may be more people who like BF1's gameplay mechanics, and perhaps more that don't. All will have various rationales for their decision, whether actually valid or not.

DICE cannot design this game with a focus on player perspective or the masses for this reason; it's not quantifiable because of the amalgamation of various opinions and viewpoints about the game that exist.

Instead, we defer to and trust the devs to create a game that appeals to specific individuals, groups and fantasies. We trust that their design is their intention and only criticize if we comprehend their artistic and gameplay directions.

If players don't like BF1, they play a different game that is more appealing to their interests. Those that do like it and invested in the game will stick around. Who gives a shit what the masses think and how many are playing, anyway?

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,088)

Posts: 2,574

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

23

Tuesday, May 16th 2017, 10:25am

Well DICE should care about what the masses think of their game, it is them who keep playing it. You are right though, only listening to someone else is not the right choice either. Delivering a good game does not need to please many people, as a small company you are likely better off only creating the game you want it to become, like Battlegrounds did, and they thrive on that.
However, as a part of a franchise, we play this because it is a Battlefield title, and therefore want the game to be both progressive and conservative. Optimally you would expect the franchise to drop stuff that has not worked and introduce new cool features from there, and polish the stuff that worked before.

And there is something wrong with BF1, that is just in the air. Nobody can exactly put their finger on it, but the game feels wrong for many people out there. For me it is definitely the shooting mechanics and the poor map design, that just do not come together well. However there is still more to that. I would not drop everything, and I do not think transferring BF4 to BF1 maps would make a better game. Players do seem to be perplexed and do not know who the game is made for, what the design direction is and what else there is in store for the game.

Now we can not just move on to another game, we bought the game for the franchise, we expected a certain game with certain features and it did not work out so well. The threshold for dropping out of that is incredibly high. I would have happily moved on, if they had overhauled the franchise and made something else out of it, then I would have seen a progress and it had been communicated.
However with BF1 I got the feeling that they tried to appeal to everybody and nobody at the same time, but pleased no-one. BF1 could have been competitive and drop all the public play, with their highly specialized weaponry and accuracy-focused mechanics, but they did not deliver on stuff like dedicated servers, ladders, tournaments and kept everybody still playing public with 64 players.
They could have pleased the huge core of BF-franchise players, yet only gave a game that is inaccessible, unsocial, needlessly cluttered and bloated, if you want to put it drastically.

In my book, DICE made a game that sold well, but does not play well, when compared to predecessors. And compared to BF4 which allegedly released also in a state of un-fun, I can not see the direction. I do not really see the commitment to make it better (for me) either. What is the greater prospect of the game, where does DICE want it to be taken? This is, beside the gameplay, one thing that the players find themselves asking, it is just up in the air.

Posts: 566

Date of registration
: Aug 27th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

24

Tuesday, May 16th 2017, 12:15pm

Random V-rec would be as useful as visual recoil.
Hackintosh user, european player, suppressor lover.
Latest creation

  • "BleedingUranium" started this thread

Posts: 3,392

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

25

Tuesday, May 16th 2017, 7:05pm

Random V-rec would be as useful as visual recoil.


That's such an incredibly absurd statement I'm not even sure how to respond to it. That is 100% false.
Who has fun, wins.

Posts: 1,841

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

26

Tuesday, May 16th 2017, 8:23pm

It goes against all reasonable expectation that the more I shoot at something the magically more accurate my weapon becomes. It's literally something straight out of Borderlands.

IMO it's a piss poor mechanic to convey the concept that LMGs are heavier and more cumbersome than rifles and the like.
Shooting in video games has NEVER felt authentic at all. Neither does getting shot in video games. It's a pointless design objective because the majority games are fun precisely because they aren't a direct simulation of reality.
I find this to be an odd contradiction. We only expect inaccuracy from firing fully-automatic firearms because that is what occurs according to IRL human testing, logic and experience. However, this is a video game, which only uses realism as a method to attract players interested in fulfilling firearm-shooting, militaristic, historical fantasies.

Do you want guns to "feel" as they do in real life, at least to a quantifiable degree? Or are you in favor of forgoing logic and common sense according to reality to ensure that video games, which are almost never fully or intentionally designed to replicate real life, are good? Fulfilling the latter objective is what game designers must do.


The two things are not incompatible at all.

Regardless of how much or little a game simulates reality it still relies on both a tolerance in suspension of disbelief, and it relies on both effective feedback to the player as well as a somewhat intuitive set of rules.

Without exception, truly (universally) successful games are ones that are easy to learn but difficult to master: IOW they provide really good feedback and work intuitively but have a lot of depth in terms of playing options/permutations and skill ceiling.

A classic example of a mechanic that is kinda shitty but persists because of its simplicity of implementation in a way that lubricates gameplay: loot drops in RPG/RPG hybrids, especially from random crates/breakable containers in the world. This mechanic is almost always immersion breaking, counterintuitive and generally, well "gamey". This is widely decried as unimaginative and non-sensical and generally just "bad". It is generally considered so regardless of how fantastical the game world is.

That is to say, that regardless of how fantastical a game world is, there are still some mechanics that people are not willing to suspend their belief about. Or rather that certain mechanics/design choices jar the player during the play experience.

You don't want mechanics like absurd crate breaking drops and the like in your game, they merely persist because they are a reliable and low cost way to deliver game items to the player to facilitate interacting with content that is actually good.

To get back to negative spread, I see it as something that balks against player intuition and convention to an unacceptable degree regardless of how much authenticity the game itself is driving for. It is especially jarring in a game like battlefield where all of the other weapons follow a very simple paradigm. If a lot of your bullets are missing, slow the pace of your fire, or start firing bursts. LMGs are thus counter intuitive, and most importantly they all wind up at different rates so you need to "learn" each gun indivdually in a way that doesn't provide feedback like recoil. Recoil provides feedback to the player that they can observe and provide counter input (at least in principle).

IOW, it's a gamey feature, of all the ways they could have conveyed that LMGs aren't "handy" weapons, its probably one of the most gamey. The only other title I know of that messes around with negative spread is Borderlands, and they list it as a particular quirk/flavour of the Hyperion weapons.

That is really the essence of BUs argument. I don't agree that

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(9,456)

Posts: 6,946

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

27

Tuesday, May 16th 2017, 9:23pm

I don't feel negative SIPS is unintuitive.
Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

With this, I'll rid MGO3 of infestation. Sans bad gameplay MGO3 will be torn asunder. And then it shall be free. People will suffer, of course - a phantom pain.

Reddit and Konami will rewrite the records... And I will be demonized in human memory. But... The thirst for good gameplay that I have planted will infest MGO3. No one can stop it now. The Rebalance Mod will unleash that thirst unto the future.


Are you a scrub?

If it flies, it dies™.

Posts: 1,841

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

28

Tuesday, May 16th 2017, 9:46pm

I don't feel negative SIPS is unintuitive.


So when you fire a gun in a game, you expect it to get more accurate the more you sustain firing? Any game, without any context or fantasy flavour text?

Negative SIPS cannot be intuitive by any reasonable definition of intuition:

"using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive."

Posts: 273

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Nepped On

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

29

Tuesday, May 16th 2017, 9:50pm

The only other title I know of that messes around with negative spread is Borderlands, and they list it as a particular quirk/flavour of the Hyperion weapons.

There is also The Division, which treats LMGs the same way.

No matter how much you feel negative SIPS is "intuitive" or "unintuitive", there's definitely a severe lack of mainstream shooters that utilize the mechanic. It's simply not something that is inherently familiar to most shooter players, which is the point tankmayvin is trying to make. BF1 only really utilizes negative SIPS to make the LMGs seem less like ARs, although I don't think it's particularly a good way of accomplishing that task

Posts: 1,841

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

30

Tuesday, May 16th 2017, 9:53pm

I don't really want random v-recoil either. Spread works well enough to a certain degree, yet there's still hilariously bad examples of the gun not providing enough feedback to the player that his spread is going insane. Case in point, the CQB SLRs being fired at near maximum RPM at a target 30m, with the person training the sights directly on a target, but only the first shot hits. I don't think random v-recoil is the answer, I feel like it would just turn into one more random and obnoxious deviation the person has to account for.

I'm also glad I wasn't the only one who thought the reverse spread model is counter intuitive for LMGs. Why didn't we simply go back to the BF3/Hardline treatment, which was inverse recoil model through high (Hardline had INSANE) first shot recoil? What about the other factors that made them different enough from ARs like significantly worse hipfire? Did DICE and the others not think that was enough to separate them from SMGs, and to prevent them from being ARs?


That's very, very true, especially of the CQB SLRs; the M1907 feels absolutely awful and awkward to use. A major reason for using recoil over spread would be that proper feedback, so something like the M1907 would actually feel as inaccurate as it is when spammed at 30m+.

Random V-Recoil wouldn't be strictly nessessary if recoil had some of the same mechanics spread currently has. Recoil Increase/Decrease Per Shot, increased Moving Recoil, or the MGs' reverse spread model but with recoil instead, maybe reduced recoil for crouch and prone. That actually ties into your point about Hardline's MGs with very high FSMs, just that instead of one big jump and then normal recoil, your first shot would recoil most, second less, third even less, until whatever shot is supposed to give you min-Recoil. Exactly like reverse spread. Other guns would in turn have positive Recoil Increase Per Shot, so have fun magdumping your Automatico.


Except that some weapons are simply not accurate "out of the muzzle" no matter how well you aim them. The issue in BF1 is that the amount of spread is exaggerated to dramatic extremes, and from a gameplay perspective there isn't anything you can do about it.

From a balancing perspective this is fine though, spread rigidly enforces the utility of some weapons to sub 20 meters.