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

51

Wednesday, May 17th 2017, 11:11pm

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.


Because that is the entire premise behind their argument about intuition?
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: 918

Date of registration
: Dec 14th 2014

Platform: PS3

Location: The Heart of Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 6

  • Send private message

52

Thursday, May 18th 2017, 12:01am

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.


Because that is the entire premise behind their argument about intuition?


While I like your support in the ridiculousness of the argument of actually shooting guns, I would rather prefer critique over my argument of reducing the amount of spread in exchange for increased vertical recoil deviation due to it being much more visible and immediate feedback to the player instead of the tracers.

In the end:

Recoil + Weapon Spread = Effective Spread

The Effective Spread can stay the same if the Weapon spread is reduced but spread induced by Recoil increased.

So far I see no downsides, but I am not a game designer and dont have all the farsight to all consequences.

e.g. How is this going to effect FSM ? Will this make magdumping even more effective? Should the overall ammo count be increased to mitigate this?
still playin' Motorstorm

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(9,456)

Posts: 6,946

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

53

Thursday, May 18th 2017, 12:09am

Correct, random recoil and random spread work together to dictate hitrate.

It is indeed a matter of presentation.

The reason some of us argue against more recoil and less spread is because the camera would shake way too much if suitable replacement values were used.
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.

(2,088)

Posts: 2,574

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

54

Thursday, May 18th 2017, 12:21am

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.


Because that is the entire premise behind their argument about intuition?


We are all stating opinions here. You also do not need to have shot a gun to know how it feels. By the way, does it never occur to people that people play this franchise because of the lax authenticity it depicts? Well I do, I like how bullets velocity, drag and gravity. I like that thereis spread and recoil intertwining to mimic shooting. I stay by the fact that you do not get more accurate the more bullets you fire, and negative spread is an unauthentic mechanic. First shot spread multiplier is similar.

Posts: 1,078

Date of registration
: Jun 24th 2012

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Winner's podium

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

55

Thursday, May 18th 2017, 9:15am

You also do not need to have shot a gun to know how it feels.

Pretty sure you would have needed to shot a gun to know how it feels.
You have just read a Post by The World Champion and now feel smarter for doing so.
-------
Cham·pi·on
noun \ˈcham-pē-ən\

1 : Warrior, Fighter
2 : a militant advocate or defender <a champion of civil rights>
3 : one that does battle for another's rights or honor <God will raise me up a champion — Sir Walter Scott>
4 : a winner of first prize or first place in competition; also : one who shows marked superiority <The champion of the World>

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

56

Thursday, May 18th 2017, 10:53am

You also do not need to have shot a gun to know how it feels.

Pretty sure you would have needed to shot a gun to know how it feels.


Oh well, semantics. I meant, for the sake of a shorter post, that everybody and their mother has a good idea of what happens when you shoot a weapon from your shoulder because are exposed to it extensively from media, personal experience and even common sense etc.. I mean as a kid you probably held a stick like a gun at your shoulder and you would still move your "barrel" upwards when you make these cute "powpow"-sounds. That is because we saw that in films, read about it in books, heard stories about it.

If we then become more educated and see why it behaves like this, because of the lever principle. Something pushes against your shoulder, you move upwards and correct. If you then add common sense on top you will likely see that it is just natural that when you feel this pressure 900 times per minute, while you are holding 3.5kg to your face it is easy to understand that shot 1 will be more accurate than shot 5,6,900.

We are incredibly exposed to firearms through the ages, even here in Germany, many people do recreational shooting here, many go hunting, many have been to the Army, and in media guns are everywhere. So yeah people do know what expect from firing a gun.

I am sure you were just ironically overstating my point, because you do like to lighten up the mood with your posts.

Posts: 1,847

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

57

Thursday, May 18th 2017, 12:48pm

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.


Because that is the entire premise behind their argument about intuition?


Excuse me?

You're the one who is constantly saying that games should never be balanced around average/bottom half players; you're now effectively arguing here that mechanics shouldn't be based around "high knowledge" players because everyone has subjective experience.

Except that that is flat out wrong: it's much simpler than that. There are people who know what they are talking about with regards to reality, there are people who THINK they know what they are talking about but don't, and then there are people who know they don't know what they are talking about. Quite simple really.

You further make it sound like this "intuition" thing is something that I/we came up with out of thin air, when actually it was an objective of the developers. They WANTED an intuitive experience.

Quoting Patrick Bach:

Quoted

‘Let’s reinvent Battlefield from the ground-up, go back to the basics of it’. Make sure it’s an intuitive, visceral, epic experience – rock, paper, scissors and all the classic Battlefield elements. But then really look into what are the elements that are most fun, and focus on those.


Oh look, there is that intuitive thing.

Now let me repeat myself. No person who is even modestly informed about guns, let alone anyone who has ever shot one would intuitively assume that a gun would get better at hitting a target the more shots you bang out of it. Anyone who doesn't have an opinion or doesnt know is one of those low knowledge/skill scummers whose input doesn't matter, per your metric.

Having guns negatively spread, or spread out so bad that rifles/carbines cannot hit man size targets is not intuitive, it fails the developers design objectives. The enforced rock, paper, scissors of guns (another design objective clearly) is also not fun. There is nothing fun about semi-auto fire out of a rifle landing everywhere but on target because you tried to shoot at something beyond 10m. That's a solid D grade on design objectives.

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(9,456)

Posts: 6,946

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

58

Thursday, May 18th 2017, 1:11pm

@tankmayvin

Yes, uninformed opinions should be completely dismissed.

Fortunately for Battlefield 1, it is a video game and not a simulator.

And no, a gun wouldn't get more accurate but its operator might. Which can perfectly be used as justification for negative spread.

Your soldier doesn't have a good feel for where the bullets will land but will adjust as he fires. Doesn't sound too farfetched.

For a list of other unintuitive mechanics that are good for gameplay and can have a topsy-turvy explanation grounded in reality, look no further than Sniper Rifles (and how I've tried justifying it with overpenetration).

Start off weak, gain damage, then lose damage again. The intuition players built on their experience from playing shooter games is every weapon is strong up close and weak far away.



Which is another issue I've hinted at: do we want an intuitive shooting experience for people who handle firearms regularly or an intuitive shooting experience for players?

Just look at a thread from a while back where someone complained about how gravity was not globally 9.81 m/s^2 and it messed with his intuition.

Did it really matter? No because the most basic intuition is that gravity pulls stuff down. As long as that is held true, then it's perfectly fine to tweak the value for the health of gameplay.

That doesn't mean we can't satisfy both parties but making sure that the players aren't uncomfortable, especially if they don't really care about the realism aspect, should come first.

In the case of Sniper Rifles, the intuition should be that they are long range weapons but players have been raised to expect ghetto shotguns.



As for spread being excessively wide we have covered this before.

If we go for steep damage drop-off we create peashooters that have double digit BTKs which are hard to track.

This route also ruins "gun fantasy" but in a completely different way. You're not shooting bullets, you're shooting marshmallows.

That's why the devs choose to use spread and recoil over just damage drop-off.


In general BF1 weapons are actually more accurate than their BF4 counterparts. The reason we use random spread and recoil is to reduce weapon's effectiveness at range without having to resort to massive damage dropoff.

Having a weapon drop from something like 5 hits to kill down to 20 doesn't feel good. It makes the weapon feel like an inconsistent peashooter and it's nearly impossible to count your hitmarkers and know how many more hits you need.

Instead we have weapons that drop from a 5 hit kill to a 6 hit kill and make you either miss lots of shots, or reduce your fire rate to keep them accurate. The overall effect on your damage is similar, but misses due to recoil and spread feel much more natural than having bullet sponges for enemies.




If we go the random recoil route, we get screenshake simulator and raise the possibility of inducing motion sickness for what spread could easily do.

That is not fun either.



Unity3D: Random vRecoil Demo - YouTube
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: 3,247

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

59

Thursday, May 18th 2017, 1:55pm

spread so bad that rifles/carbines cannot hit man size targets is not intuitive, it fails the developers design objectives. The enforced rock, paper, scissors of guns (another design objective clearly) is also not fun. There is nothing fun about semi-auto fire out of a rifle landing everywhere but on target because you tried to shoot at something beyond 10m. That's a solid D grade on design objectives.

I hope to whatever divine powers out there that you are grossly exaggerating because no semi-auto gun in Battlefield is even close to that representation of inaccuracy. If you are actually being serious, then I can see why you like tanking so much; zero spread projectiles. With blast damage.

The least accurate base spread of the SLRs is 0.21° with the worst spread increase being 0.2 (which can easily be avoided through allowing spread to reset if too far away, or just use a Factory variant). You can input those values into a hitrater trig formula and see that it's plenty adequate to hit man sized targets.
To Aim Assist or not to Aim Assist, that is the question.

Nope. Aim Assist or bust; here's why:

Default Aim Assist Data

Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
    AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
    AccelerationDamping 4.0
    AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
    SquaredAcceleration 0.0
    MaxAcceleration::Vec2
        x 2.0
        y 2.0
    YawSpeedStrength 1.0
    PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
    AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
        x 1.0
        y 1.2
    AttractSoftZone 0.75
    AttractUserInputMultiplier 0.45
    AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom 0.5
    AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
    AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.85
    AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
    AttractStartInputThreshold 0.1
    AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
    AttractYawStrength 1.0
    AttractPitchStrength 0.34
    MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
    MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
    ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
    SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
    SnapZoomTime 0.2
    SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.2
    SnapZoomPostTime 0.2
    SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
    SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
    SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput 0.2
    SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
    SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
    SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 1.2
    SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
    CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0

No Slowdown Data

Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
    AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
    AccelerationDamping 4.0
    AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
    SquaredAcceleration 0.0
    MaxAcceleration::Vec2
        x 2.0
        y 2.0
    YawSpeedStrength 1.0
    PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
    AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
        x 1.0
        y 1.2
    AttractSoftZone 0.0
    AttractUserInputMultiplier 1.0
    AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom -1.0
    AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
    AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.0
    AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
    AttractStartInputThreshold 0.0
    AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
    AttractYawStrength 0.0
    AttractPitchStrength 0.0
    MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
    MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
    ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
    SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
    SnapZoomTime 0.2
    SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.0
    SnapZoomPostTime 0.0
    SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
    SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
    SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput -1.0
    SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
    SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
    SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 0.5
    SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
    CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0
    DisableForcedTargetRecalcDistance 7.0


No Auto Rotation Data

Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
 AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
    AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
    AccelerationDamping 4.0
    AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
    SquaredAcceleration 0.0
    MaxAcceleration::Vec2
        x 2.0
        y 2.0
    YawSpeedStrength 1.0
    PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
    AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
        x 1.0
        y 1.2
    AttractSoftZone 0.75
    AttractUserInputMultiplier 0.45
    AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom 0.5
    AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
    AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.85
    AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
    AttractStartInputThreshold 0.1
    AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
    AttractYawStrength 1.0
    AttractPitchStrength 0.34
    MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
    MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
    ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
    SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
    SnapZoomTime 0.2
    SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.0
    SnapZoomPostTime 0.0
    SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
    SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
    SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput -1.0
    SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
    SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
    SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 0.5
    SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
    CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0
    DisableForcedTargetRecalcDistance 7.0

Prepare your laughbox

the Sebstalder is quiet good since it can 3hit kill at any distanc ,but In my opinion i actually thikn the sweeper is better, its got a really really fast firerate that can beat alll those Noobmaticos, Helregall adn shitguns in close quarters , and its also really accurate out to like l;ong range,. overall great allround gun, jsut my 2$ tho

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "JSLICE20" (May 18th 2017, 3:25pm)


Posts: 1,847

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

60

Thursday, May 18th 2017, 2:01pm

@NoctyrneSAGA

Except that negative spread is unique to LMGs, and shooters correct via moving their aimpoint, which isn't how spread works at all.

I think we can simply accept that negative spread, "sweet spots", and short range weapon spread, are all "cheese" mechanics aimed at rigidly enforcing some sort of balance paradigm: LMGs aren't handy weapons, BAs aren't short range weapons, and short range weapons are, well very short ranged.

Overpenetration isn't really a reality an ok explanation either, because that's not how terminal ballistics works. In fact, it's best to just give up trying to explain any of these things in the context of reality. They are pure game contrivances.

I agree, using a Newtonian-base ballistic model bur changing overalll parameters (speed, drag, gravitational constant) don't mess with intuition because everything works vaguely the way it is supposed to. Negative spread and the sweet spot just don't though. So I don't really think they are intuitive by any metric of intuitive.

Massive damage drop off and crazy spread aren't the only other way to make short range weapons less effective at range. It's also contentious (at least to me) that rigidly enforcing guns to specific ranges, outside of which they are really quite bad, is ultimately good for having fun. It's certainly good for balance. I don't think random recoil is great either, but part of the issue with the way BF works with aimpoints, fovs, etc is that it doesn't let the gun itself bounce around decoupled from the player.