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

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(9,456)

Posts: 6,946

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

41

Wednesday, May 17th 2017, 4:21am

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.


Actually, I have experience with real firearms. Just nothing bigger than semiautomatic handguns thanks to state regulations.

I am a terrible shot to say the least. 12inch group at 50 feet.

Did my spread get worse with each shot? No, it was pretty bad all around.

Based on this, my "intuition" tells me clearly that SIPS is a blatant lie.



I also doubt that the majority of players who play Battlefield use firearms enough to have a clear "intuition" about how they work.

If anything, their expectations are formed through other video games and Hollywood films.

That is why the intuition argument is mostly meaningless. It's entirely based on each person's own experience.

What you consider unintuitive I considered to be fairly natural.



And of course, gameplay > reality.
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

42

Wednesday, May 17th 2017, 4:27am

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.


Actually, I have experience with real firearms. Just nothing bigger than semiautomatic handguns thanks to state regulations.

I am a terrible shot to say the least. 12inch group at 50 feet.

Did my spread get worse with each shot? No, it was pretty bad all around.

Based on this, my "intuition" tells me clearly that SIPS is a blatant lie.



I also doubt that the majority of players who play Battlefield use firearms enough to have a clear "intuition" about how they work.

If anything, their expectations are formed through other video games and Hollywood films.

That is why the intuition argument is mostly meaningless. It's entirely based on each person's own experience.

What you consider unintuitive I considered to be fairly natural.



And of course, gameplay > reality.


It's not, not for weapons that fire at high cyclic rate, for eg:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008/gun_missile/DawsonThomas.pdf

You can see on slide 29 that different shots from the same burst result in different barrel deflections and thus dispersion about the aimpoint. Deflection gets worse, not better with time for all gun systems.

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(9,456)

Posts: 6,946

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

43

Wednesday, May 17th 2017, 4:44am

For the weapon itself? Sure.

Simulating the soldier correcting themselves on the other hand...

Walking your fire - Wikipedia
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

44

Wednesday, May 17th 2017, 5:03am

For the weapon itself? Sure.

Simulating the soldier correcting themselves on the other hand...

Walking your fire - Wikipedia


You cannot correct dispersion/spread by input to the gun.

Correction of fire is only applied to machine guns operating against AREA targets in indirect or semi-indirect firing. In those cases you actually want dispersion, and there are gunnery techniques as well as tripod mechanisms to increase spread beyond what gun dynamics provide.

For eg:




  • "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

45

Wednesday, May 17th 2017, 5:53am

Although I have indeed compared MGs' negative SIPS to walking your fire before, it's a justification, but mostly to have something to say to people (rightly) claiming it's not very realistic. Walking your fire has far more to do with your aim point not being on target to start with, and also velocity/drag. That last image there is quite relevant.

I think part of the motivation to use so much spread has come from feeling a need to make engagements and potential use past X range impossible instead of hard. The idea behind this is that if something is still possible, very skilled players can simply overcome said limit. While that's respectable as a concept, it's also overkill, and we have a very well-known example of why: BF4 Sniper Rifles. BF4 Sniper Rifles had literally perfect accuracy, and infinite OHK range. That's... insane, when you look at it like that, they should be incredibly overpowered and in need of nerfing. Any yet they were among the most terrible weapons in the game in practical, useful terms. Why? Mainly, velocity, rate of fire, and size of hitbox. BF1 adds drag to that list.


Velocity and drag are very much underutilized in BF1's weapon sandbox, just as recoil is very much underused. Now, I get why spread got so much more focus in terms of balance and design, and that's because it's easy and simple, from a math/design perspective. It's very straightforward to create formulas and plug in numbers to get the exact desired results, results that are mathematically perfect. Many new spread mechanics were thought up and created for BF1, like First Shot Spread Multiplier, Negative SIPS, and just generally having Spread Decrease as a value that did something. In fact, you could remove all recoil and really even drag from the game, and balance it purely with spread, and it would work, in a strict balance sense. Spread is fantastic for designers, and works perfectly as a concept and on paper.

Unfortunately, it's not nearly as great for players. But moving more towards recoil, velocity, drag, and to a degree damage would make designers' jobs much more complex, as that's far more independent elements interacting at once to create a desired result. Imagine setting the temperature in a building with a single global numerical degree value, vs setting each room independently with an analogue dial and trying to reach the same result. Keep in mind this analogy only works for the complexity facing designers, not which system is preferable.
Who has fun, wins.

Posts: 566

Date of registration
: Aug 27th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

46

Wednesday, May 17th 2017, 8:04am

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.


Visual recoil was an unneccesary extra layer on top of already existing recoil. It was completely random, incontrollable and a misrepresentation of where your bullets were going.
Randomised vertical recoil would result in incontrollable recoil, through which reliable, accurate bursting could not be achieved.

If you're not sure how to respond to something, don't.
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

47

Wednesday, May 17th 2017, 8:10am

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.


Visual recoil was an unneccesary extra layer on top of already existing recoil. It was completely random, incontrollable and a misrepresentation of where your bullets were going.
Randomised vertical recoil would result in incontrollable recoil, through which reliable, accurate bursting could not be achieved.

If you're not sure how to respond to something, don't.


Randomized Vertical Recoil would be no different than current Horizontal Recoil. Visual Recoil has precisely zero in common with those aside from the name we use having "Recoil" in it. It's an animation issue, full stop.
Who has fun, wins.

Posts: 1,841

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

48

Wednesday, May 17th 2017, 9:13pm

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.


Visual recoil was an unneccesary extra layer on top of already existing recoil. It was completely random, incontrollable and a misrepresentation of where your bullets were going.
Randomised vertical recoil would result in incontrollable recoil, through which reliable, accurate bursting could not be achieved.

If you're not sure how to respond to something, don't.


I think you missed the rational behind BU's suggestion. Entirely.

His suggestion is to replace spread as the mechanic for limiting the range of weapons, to more complex/difficult to control recoil being the controlling parameter. Recoil visibly and obviously feeds back to the player where they are inputting control over the game world. Spread is far more nebulous and requires chasing tracers on screen.

I don't like the spread mechanics in BF1, but then I also don't think camera shake is a good substitute for it.

Your statement that it would be "useless", illustrates that you are missing the point however.

If anything, visual rec is much more like spread because it decouples where the player visually ascertained they are aiming from where the bullet will actually land.

Spread is overused in BF1 quite simply. It is used to limit the responsiveness of LMGs at medium range by making them take a small bit of time to be able to meaningfully hit stuff no matter how well you aim. It is used to "turn off" short range weapons by making them incapable of hitting and thus killing anything quickly in combination with a steeply sloped bullet damage mode./

Posts: 1,841

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

49

Wednesday, May 17th 2017, 9:23pm

Although I have indeed compared MGs' negative SIPS to walking your fire before, it's a justification, but mostly to have something to say to people (rightly) claiming it's not very realistic. Walking your fire has far more to do with your aim point not being on target to start with, and also velocity/drag. That last image there is quite relevant.


I don't think there is a useful comparison between actual MG usage and BF1 MG usage since in BF1 you are exlusively engaging point targets using weapon sights 100% of the time. Walking your fire is to adjust the location of a beaten zone onto an area target when the thing you're shooting at is so far that the weapon must be inclined to the point where the operator loses any sort of sight picture with conventional optics. Heavy mg emplacements typically also employ special aiming devices and/or optics to allow aiming at extreme weapon inclinations. The simplest of which is just irons with giant posts that extend like a foot over the muzzle.

In BF1 you're aiming against a single guy and you want your aim point to be leading the target appropriately. Because the tracers spread all over the place (both adding lead and reducing lead, and adding drop and reducing drop), they aren't useful to correct your leading of the target until the weapon as "wound up".

So what you are basically doing is waiting for the weapon to become precise enough that the tracers let you meaningfully adjust fire. Or the spread from SLRs, etc telling you you need to slow the fuck down.

Posts: 918

Date of registration
: Dec 14th 2014

Platform: PS3

Location: The Heart of Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 6

  • Send private message

50

Wednesday, May 17th 2017, 11:04pm

I like the idea.

Me (Casual Player) it is intriguing if my reticle is on target but shots dont hit. However, its also a mechanic which casual me was able to develop a feeling for it.

Intuitive or not entirely depends on the extend how large the effect of the mechanic is.

Did any of you ever took a look at the COD weapon stats there on symthic? It has zero ADS spread and an additional downwards recoil stat. But I dont want that. Battlefield weapon gameplay is fine. Stay with it.

And Why the fuck is stuff like "I shot a gun, I know how it should feel" still stated. I dont shoot guns and never did, but I play a shooter because of winning against an opponent. This is a game and all the weapon should be is being controllable.

To some degree spread is very controllable and also intuitive - you never expect the shot to land exactly where you shoot, but if spread becomes so out of control, I would rather have a visual feedback in terms of recoil AND not a glowing dot aka tracer.

So yeah, if we can decrease the spread to BF4 (or lower) in exchange for an increase of the random effect in vertical recoil, I am completely on board.




STILL Battlefield is very chaotic and not every situation completely under control of the player, once this issue isnt fixed, Battlefield wont be more enjoying. Weapon mechanics are just a minor part of a larger design problem.
still playin' Motorstorm