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

  • "sid_tai" started this thread

Posts: 181

Date of registration
: Jun 9th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

21

Sunday, July 16th 2017, 10:43am

Microbursting isn't deep though. It's basically a question of how quickly you can output 2 round bursts.

If you want depth to gunplay, changing optimal bursts through range is much better which is what the current model is capable of while eliminating microbursting.


I thought we agreed that under both systems if we are close enough magdump is actually more favorable? Would you not also agree that in the old system there are specific ranges for each burst length, down to one tap?

My opinion of the current implementation is that in the effective range of SMGs due to the low SIPS, high SiPS FSM and low SDEC the optimal thing to do after firing the 2nd bullet is often to continue firing, leading to little to no depth.

Posts: 1,793

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

22

Sunday, July 16th 2017, 3:58pm

@tankmayvin

Negative SIPS does kinda of incentivize using the lmg in a manner similar to real life. Long but controlled bursts walking fire into the enemy. Not a perfect analog but I think it kinda makes senses without adding a ton of recoil or a complicated heat management system into the game.


Exactly this. It's the best system a group of gunplay experts have been able to come up with. It may not be perfect, but I have yet to hear any suggestions that accomplish the same goal in a different way.

I've suggested Recoil Increase Per Shot, which would naturally be negative for MGs, but even that is really just a different flavour of the same concept.


Make a game where supressive firepower actually matters?

LMGs simply don't fit in with typical FPS games. Indeed even in IRL LMGs are rare because most infantrymen are served better by some sort of automatic rifle.

The philosophy that "we need LMGs because LMGs exist" is flawed when you don't have a meaningful way of making them relevant - if negative SIPS is the best thing they can come up with maybe they need to rethink LMGs period. They've always been a bit fucky depending on the title.

Posts: 1,793

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

23

Sunday, July 16th 2017, 4:09pm

Mirco-bursting is awful and excessively videogame-ish. Normal bursting, meaning three-to-six rounds, should absolutely be the optimal burst style. And MGs should definitely be firing long than that.


What on earth are you talking about?

The optimum burst "style" for a weapon with a conventional cycle when you want to be accurate in your fire is......wait for it. A one round burst. AKA semi-auto fire.

Even a three round burst substantially reduces layed accuracy after the first bullet and it mostly designed for CQB or similar when you need a kill and deviation matters less.

The only times you want to dump bullets at cyclic rates are "oh shit moments", CQB, and firing for maneuver/supressing enemy maneuver/fire.

There is nothing gamey about limiting your bursts to basically zero.

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(9,349)

Posts: 6,928

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

24

Sunday, July 16th 2017, 6:18pm

I thought we agreed that under both systems if we are close enough magdump is actually more favorable? Would you not also agree that in the old system there are specific ranges for each burst length, down to one tap?


Not really since the cost of another shot in the burst is fairly linear compared to the new model.

It becomes extremely profitable to just use single shots at minSpread and sacrifice just one frame of firing for it versus accumulating a lot of spread, potentially missing a few shots in your burst, and forcing a reset in order to be accurate for the next burst.

That is to say, microbursting/tapfiring is the optimum burst for the older model. The variation is a lot weaker there.
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: 129

Date of registration
: Oct 8th 2016

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 2

  • Send private message

25

Sunday, July 16th 2017, 7:09pm

@tankmayvin

Negative SIPS does kinda of incentivize using the lmg in a manner similar to real life. Long but controlled bursts walking fire into the enemy. Not a perfect analog but I think it kinda makes senses without adding a ton of recoil or a complicated heat management system into the game.


Exactly this. It's the best system a group of gunplay experts have been able to come up with. It may not be perfect, but I have yet to hear any suggestions that accomplish the same goal in a different way.

I've suggested Recoil Increase Per Shot, which would naturally be negative for MGs, but even that is really just a different flavour of the same concept.


Make a game where supressive firepower actually matters?

LMGs simply don't fit in with typical FPS games. Indeed even in IRL LMGs are rare because most infantrymen are served better by some sort of automatic rifle.

The philosophy that "we need LMGs because LMGs exist" is flawed when you don't have a meaningful way of making them relevant - if negative SIPS is the best thing they can come up with maybe they need to rethink LMGs period. They've always been a bit fucky depending on the title.
That's something that I've been mulling over recently. Did you know that the chauchat took a crew of four people to use properly? The amount of variables to keep track and complicated physical tasks to perform ate up the attentions of a full three of those men, which is something we can't translate into an FPS. It would probably make for a really kick ass VR game.

Posts: 1,793

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

  • Send private message

26

Monday, July 17th 2017, 12:52am

@tankmayvin

Negative SIPS does kinda of incentivize using the lmg in a manner similar to real life. Long but controlled bursts walking fire into the enemy. Not a perfect analog but I think it kinda makes senses without adding a ton of recoil or a complicated heat management system into the game.


Exactly this. It's the best system a group of gunplay experts have been able to come up with. It may not be perfect, but I have yet to hear any suggestions that accomplish the same goal in a different way.

I've suggested Recoil Increase Per Shot, which would naturally be negative for MGs, but even that is really just a different flavour of the same concept.


Make a game where supressive firepower actually matters?

LMGs simply don't fit in with typical FPS games. Indeed even in IRL LMGs are rare because most infantrymen are served better by some sort of automatic rifle.

The philosophy that "we need LMGs because LMGs exist" is flawed when you don't have a meaningful way of making them relevant - if negative SIPS is the best thing they can come up with maybe they need to rethink LMGs period. They've always been a bit fucky depending on the title.
That's something that I've been mulling over recently. Did you know that the chauchat took a crew of four people to use properly? The amount of variables to keep track and complicated physical tasks to perform ate up the attentions of a full three of those men, which is something we can't translate into an FPS. It would probably make for a really kick ass VR game.


Eh? Chauchat was designed (and used practically) with a single operator plus one assistant gunner. I think you're thinking of the various HMGs, which typically required a crew of 3-6. The big vickers were crewed by 3. WW2 MG42s optimally had 6 man crews, but often operated with just 3.

I don't think you can practically translate crew served weapons to FPS games of mass popularity though, but by expension devs should be careful about what they chose to include as a result.

Posts: 129

Date of registration
: Oct 8th 2016

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 2

  • Send private message

27

Monday, July 17th 2017, 2:52am

It's in the Wikipedia page, they started with two but then worked their way up to a four man team with one guy just toting magazines and keeping a lookout.

And I agree with you, though I would extend it to all FPS games outside of niche titles. Mouse and keyboard is just too simplistic an interface, IMO.

  • "sid_tai" started this thread

Posts: 181

Date of registration
: Jun 9th 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

28

Monday, July 17th 2017, 7:06am

I thought we agreed that under both systems if we are close enough magdump is actually more favorable? Would you not also agree that in the old system there are specific ranges for each burst length, down to one tap?


Not really since the cost of another shot in the burst is fairly linear compared to the new model.

It becomes extremely profitable to just use single shots at minSpread and sacrifice just one frame of firing for it versus accumulating a lot of spread, potentially missing a few shots in your burst, and forcing a reset in order to be accurate for the next burst.

That is to say, microbursting/tapfiring is the optimum burst for the older model. The variation is a lot weaker there.

I have done a bit more thinking on both models and what you said about the cost of an extra bullet. I still think the model in BF4 produces a better depth than SIPS FSM + low SIPS. However, I think the microbursting meta could be reduced by having a moderately high SIPS and low SDEC. See, the premise of microbursting is that the spread recovers very quickly, no matter you fire 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 bullets. If we reduce SDEC to BF1 levels while keeping the SIPS in BF4 system, microbursting won't work anymore. You actually have to time your pauses based on the number of bullets you fired, and slower firerates in BF1 facilitates that exactly. For testing purposes I went into BF4 test range as well as TDM and equipped a FAMAS with compensator and angled grip, resulting in a very high SIPS and a low SDEC. And result is that I actually have to time my burst lengths and pauses depending on range. Although FAMAS fires at 1000rpm and start recovering quickly, if you translate it to a sub-600rpm gun it would be very interesting.

Posts: 3,306

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

29

Monday, July 17th 2017, 7:50am

I do agree slow Spread Decrease is dramatically more important to get rid of microbursting than SIPS FSM; if we had to have only one mechanic to work with, S-Dec would be the one to have.
Who has fun, wins.

Posts: 129

Date of registration
: Oct 8th 2016

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 2

  • Send private message

30

Tuesday, July 18th 2017, 4:21am

I disagree, a slow S-Dec would proably result in mag-dumping being the most effective strat, as higher DPS would always be achieved by firing the next shot, regardless of how inaccurate it would be, rather than waiting for the weapon to slowly regain accuracy. It would also hamper the more skilled player in 1v2 engagements, as after killing one enemy and quickly switching targets, they would be forced to fire on them with a still largely inaccurate weapon. The current model allows weapons to be back at minspread after only a brief delay, ready to take on the next one.