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.

Posts: 243

Date of registration
: Dec 2nd 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Nepped On

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

31

Tuesday, May 16th 2017, 10:03pm

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.
I feel like there's a better way to accomplish designating weapon ranges other than making them being unable to hit the broad side of a barn beyond 20-30m while ADSing. I'm not against the idea of spread as a whole, neither do I expect Selby 1906 performance out of a 1907 or Auto8 .25, but less exaggerated spread mechanics in favor of other balancing options (make Recoil Decrease Per Second worse, reducing minimum damage, etc) sounds a lot more attractive to me

Posts: 1,667

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

32

Tuesday, May 16th 2017, 10:25pm

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.
I feel like there's a better way to accomplish designating weapon ranges other than making them being unable to hit the broad side of a barn beyond 20-30m while ADSing. I'm not against the idea of spread as a whole, neither do I expect Selby 1906 performance out of a 1907 or Auto8 .25, but less exaggerated spread mechanics in favor of other balancing options (make Recoil Decrease Per Second worse, reducing minimum damage, etc) sounds a lot more attractive to me


I agree.

I also think they missed a big opportunity to define hadyness of weapons based on player angular velocity/acceleration rather than spread mechanics. For eg, your weapon reaches some base spread as long as you aren't swinging your mouse around like crazy or strafing like a dork. The moving vs stationary and ADS vs hip binning of spreads favours stuff like the side to side strafing meta and crouchslide that dominate a lot of the "gaming" of BF1 engagements.

Heavy and long weapons could simply take more time to "settle" after they've been flung around, but then also be more stable firing platforms.

Posts: 70

Date of registration
: Dec 20th 2016

Platform: PC

Location: Malta

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message

33

Tuesday, May 16th 2017, 11:08pm

I already consider vertical recoil to be a balancing factor, though certainly not as significant as H. Recoil which is uncontrollable. Spread is quite controllable though, just takes some mindful practice, e.g rapid singleshots on MP18 Trench nullifies spread completely.

There are a handful of weapons in which vertical recoil is quite pronounced, namely the BAR Telescopic, Chauchat LW. Less severe include the Huot which is surprisingly difficult to keep on target past about 70m without single shots. Despite being a pretty competent player, I do find difficulty with some of these recoil figures, which does not seem to be the case with many in this community :P.

That being said, I have no issue with such a system as I am quite happy to test out new mechanics. Perhaps something related to the rate of fire of weapon? Hypothetically a Huot would have a vertical recoil of 0.28 - 0.32 whilst a BAR with its higher ROF would have a 0.4 to 0.5, in order to produce an unstable profile. I do think a randomized vertical recoil could be learnt, though my only reference is Killing Floor 2's assault rifles, where certain shots during the duration of a burst produce much higher kick than the previous one.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Dantheminigunfox" (May 16th 2017, 11:13pm)


NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(9,172)

Posts: 6,885

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 18

  • Send private message

34

Tuesday, May 16th 2017, 11:19pm

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."


As someone who once went airsofting and instead of aiming just watched where the BBs flew, yes.

At the time I assumed it'd be the same as using a garden hose and adjusting after the initial jump.

The feedback from watching where your current point of impact lets you correct.



Sure a garden hose is different from a rifle, but it's not like I cared about it nor did that mean it was ineffective.

Fact of the matter is that is what I intuitively thought could happen and it turns out that it did work.

You can lump negative spread in alongside RDEC as the game automatically performing some compensation for you.



If you really want an authentic explanation, BU has pointed out walking your fire multiple times.

Spread in Battlefield is greatly exaggerated and doesn't have the tactile feedback you'd have IRL for correcting.

You can simply pretend your soldier is receiving the tactile feedback you lack and correcting the aim for you.



Not to mention intuition is built upon your own personal experience.

If all you ever see are shooters that use positive spread increase, then yeah, negative would be hard to grasp.

Just goes to show how homogenized and ancient shooters are.
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: 1,667

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

35

Tuesday, May 16th 2017, 11:45pm

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."


As someone who once went airsofting and instead of aiming just watched where the BBs flew, yes.

At the time I assumed it'd be the same as using a garden hose and adjusting after the initial jump.

The feedback from watching where your current point of impact lets you correct.



Sure a garden hose is different from a rifle, but it's not like I cared about it nor did that mean it was ineffective.

Fact of the matter is that is what I intuitively thought could happen and it turns out that it did work.

You can lump negative spread in alongside RDEC as the game automatically performing some compensation for you.



If you really want an authentic explanation, BU has pointed out walking your fire multiple times.

Spread in Battlefield is greatly exaggerated and doesn't have the tactile feedback you'd have IRL for correcting.

You can simply pretend your soldier is receiving the tactile feedback you lack and correcting the aim for you.



Not to mention intuition is built upon your own personal experience.

If all you ever see are shooters that use positive spread increase, then yeah, negative would be hard to grasp.

Just goes to show how homogenized and ancient shooters are.


No. Spread decrease is not like walking your fire/adjusting the lay of your fire based on where the bullets appear to go, because the weapon becomes more "precise" as you continue to fire. So the best place to aim is still the center of your cone of fire. You're not getting feedback to adjust for anything but leading for average of bullet velocity, all that it's telling you is that you have to wait until the weapon winds up.

The applicable analogy would be that if you're using a spray nozzle, the cone of spray magically gets smaller the longer you point the hose.

They are homogenized because they are all trying to make a game version of shooting guns, firing weapons is not interpretive dance.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "tankmayvin" (May 16th 2017, 11:58pm)


NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(9,172)

Posts: 6,885

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 18

  • Send private message

36

Wednesday, May 17th 2017, 12:54am

the cone of spray magically gets smaller the longer you point the hose.


The cone of fire is more representative of your character's handling though. Changing stances isn't going to affect the weapon's accuracy. It affects yours.
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™.

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(1,795)

Posts: 2,486

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

37

Wednesday, May 17th 2017, 1:26am

Now I never shot an airsoft gun, but I do expect them to perform rather unlike firearms in terms of accuracy and recoil.

Also adjusting aim by tracers and impacts is indeed something that is done, but this does not make you more accurate, you are hitting a very broad area then. One would use this to suppress a certain area. If you aim down sights and fire full-auto you will often not see the points of impact either. This also does not resolve the issue of getting inaccurate through tiring arms and stuff, which is mimicked by spread increase in this game.

The hose metaphor does sound reasonable, but you disregard that your average hose is not very accurate to begin with, since it has a very curved trajectory and a point of impact that also depends on water pressure. Your standard firearm works in a more straightforward way, you point and hit.
However your metaphor works for indirect fire gadgets, maybe negative spread should be applied to mortars.

Anyhow, tankmayvin made a couple of very good points. Nothing to add in that regard.

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(9,172)

Posts: 6,885

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 18

  • Send private message

38

Wednesday, May 17th 2017, 2:57am

And here we see how flimsy "intuition" is. Built purely on your own experience and expectations, differing between people.
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: 1,667

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

39

Wednesday, May 17th 2017, 3:57am

Now I never shot an airsoft gun, but I do expect them to perform rather unlike firearms in terms of accuracy and recoil.

Also adjusting aim by tracers and impacts is indeed something that is done, but this does not make you more accurate, you are hitting a very broad area then. One would use this to suppress a certain area. If you aim down sights and fire full-auto you will often not see the points of impact either. This also does not resolve the issue of getting inaccurate through tiring arms and stuff, which is mimicked by spread increase in this game.

The hose metaphor does sound reasonable, but you disregard that your average hose is not very accurate to begin with, since it has a very curved trajectory and a point of impact that also depends on water pressure. Your standard firearm works in a more straightforward way, you point and hit.
However your metaphor works for indirect fire gadgets, maybe negative spread should be applied to mortars.

Anyhow, tankmayvin made a couple of very good points. Nothing to add in that regard.


Recoil on airsoft guns is totally simulated by some sort of motorized recoil piece, or gas release from a pressure vessel. It's basically totally negligible on most rifle designs. Much, much, much lower than weapons fire .22 rimfire at high cyclic rates (1000+ rpm), which can achieve really tight groupings when mag dumped.

Airsoft shot is very, very light and quite low velocity even by air rifle standards and isn't meaningfully stabilized at the muzzle and so it disperses like crazy and it never gets better.

Posts: 1,667

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

40

Wednesday, May 17th 2017, 4:07am

And here we see how flimsy "intuition" is. Built purely on your own experience and expectations, differing between people.


Actually it's not at all. It's really very simple: there are the people who have actually fired guns, and the people that haven't. You're of the latter category and reaching to include your irrelevant experience as being equivalent to actual experience.

DICE somewhat painstakingly modelled the rifles, their reload cycles their sounds and their firing properties (ROF, calibers, etc, except for cases where it couldn't be made to work like the Chau), but then decides they should behave like some sci-fi laser gun. Which is it, why draw the arbitrary line an aesthics and then introduce a literally sci-fi shooting mechanic.

The Winchester 1907 fired the .351 Winchester that had great ballistic performance out to about 100 m, but in BF1 I can't hit shit with them past 20 meters because "spread". At write clearly in the description of the weapon "don't bother trying to use this thing past 20m", be honest about what you've done with the game, etc.