I love the retical bloom effect Firefall had. I love clips and reloading, although it always struck me as odd for energy weapons to use clips. Maybe keep that mechanic but have lore where they overheat and a canister of coolant has been expended and must be ejected/replaced.
"Recoil", magazine sizes and other such mechanics give some more diversity and force players to make certain choices when making/using guns. Keep them in, but let people who hate such mechanics develop equipment, weapons or skills to minimize what they dislike.
No it was not the first FPS and yes they knew how to program that. Scroll wheels and even three-button mice weren't even a thing. Adding another key for reloading was overcomplicating the game is why.
Why clips and auto-reloading is a mystery. There were some design decisions (like looking up/down) which had technical complexities which were unsolved, especially on a 16Mhz computer. I recall the dev looking at his old code (before open sourcing it) saying that he has no idea why he did certain things in certain ways.. that there was just some crap in there he'd do differently now. =p
"Recoil", magazine sizes and other such mechanics give some more diversity and force players to make certain choices when making/using guns. Keep them in, but let people who hate such mechanics develop equipment, weapons or skills to minimize what they dislike.
No it was not the first FPS and yes they knew how to program that. Scroll wheels and even three-button mice weren't even a thing. Adding another key for reloading was overcomplicating the game is why.
Why clips and auto-reloading is a mystery. There were some design decisions (like looking up/down) which had technical complexities which were unsolved, especially on a 16Mhz computer. I recall the dev looking at his old code (before open sourcing it) saying that he has no idea why he did certain things in certain ways.. that there was just some crap in there he'd do differently now. =p
Hi, I'm curious about a few things. When we talk about recoil, there are several things as designers that we do:
1) Barrel climb. This is a steady rise of the barrel after each round. The barrel come back to neutral on slower firing weapons, and "climbs" on full auto weapons. CS:GO has this.
2) Spread & Jitter. This is how the "cone of fire" where you bullets may land randomly in that cone, the random aspect being the "jitter" and can be fully random or weighted towards the center, for example. The more you fire continuously, the more Spread & Jitter grows. Sometimes, this is done whey you jump or bunny-hop, to discourage this type of movement.
3) Screen Shake: This is where we shake the screen for a few frames and a few pixels up/down/left/right and tilt. We do all this without moving your actual aim point. This is often to convey the power and feeling of firing a weapon, without changing your aim.
*Some* or all of these are necessary to convey the feeling of more powerful weapons or to make the act of firing a weapon feel good and satisfying. As CliffyB likes to say, a good weapon feels good just firing at a blank wall.
My own inclination is to not have CS:GO style recoil on everything (in fact, on nothing or highly moderated for some weapons). But in some cases it will be there. Spread and Jitter will likely be far less prevalent than in FF. Screen shake, just a little, is still necessary IMHO for slower firing powerful weapons, or they just don't feel good to shoot or feel powerful.
One thing you will def see much less of: Bullet sponges. In FF, enemies took too many bullets in Beta to kill, which gets boring. I'd rather have you dispatch more creatures than sit there taking 1.5 clips of an assault gun to kill an Arahana. In cases were we do have higher HP monsters, you will see progressive damage so its more saisfying and you see progress even if they take a lot of bullets.
1) Barrel climb. This is a steady rise of the barrel after each round. The barrel come back to neutral on slower firing weapons, and "climbs" on full auto weapons. CS:GO has this.
2) Spread & Jitter. This is how the "cone of fire" where you bullets may land randomly in that cone, the random aspect being the "jitter" and can be fully random or weighted towards the center, for example. The more you fire continuously, the more Spread & Jitter grows. Sometimes, this is done whey you jump or bunny-hop, to discourage this type of movement.
3) Screen Shake: This is where we shake the screen for a few frames and a few pixels up/down/left/right and tilt. We do all this without moving your actual aim point. This is often to convey the power and feeling of firing a weapon, without changing your aim.
*Some* or all of these are necessary to convey the feeling of more powerful weapons or to make the act of firing a weapon feel good and satisfying. As CliffyB likes to say, a good weapon feels good just firing at a blank wall.
My own inclination is to not have CS:GO style recoil on everything (in fact, on nothing or highly moderated for some weapons). But in some cases it will be there. Spread and Jitter will likely be far less prevalent than in FF. Screen shake, just a little, is still necessary IMHO for slower firing powerful weapons, or they just don't feel good to shoot or feel powerful.
One thing you will def see much less of: Bullet sponges. In FF, enemies took too many bullets in Beta to kill, which gets boring. I'd rather have you dispatch more creatures than sit there taking 1.5 clips of an assault gun to kill an Arahana. In cases were we do have higher HP monsters, you will see progressive damage so its more saisfying and you see progress even if they take a lot of bullets.
In the current iteration of Firefall you have unnecessary level of screen shake.
I understand that a little is good... but the one that got on Firefall now... makes me sick. That's one the reasons I haven't played that iteration at all.
The other two is cool. The third one is fine too, it just needs to be fine tuned properly.
When c0wb0y was working on the combat he greatly increased the damage on all the critical or headshots for both players and AI. Different frames had higher multipliers on headshot than other frames but all of them were much higher than it was on Firefall after launch. Which meant if players aimed at anything other than the headshots, then enemies were bullet-sponges and will eat the player up. And if players aimed solely for those headshots, they ripped their AI enemies apart. This really made the fights more interesting.
I understand that a little is good... but the one that got on Firefall now... makes me sick. That's one the reasons I haven't played that iteration at all.
The other two is cool. The third one is fine too, it just needs to be fine tuned properly.
When c0wb0y was working on the combat he greatly increased the damage on all the critical or headshots for both players and AI. Different frames had higher multipliers on headshot than other frames but all of them were much higher than it was on Firefall after launch. Which meant if players aimed at anything other than the headshots, then enemies were bullet-sponges and will eat the player up. And if players aimed solely for those headshots, they ripped their AI enemies apart. This really made the fights more interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_rise
"The primary reason for muzzle rise is that for nearly all firearms, the centerline of the barrel is above the center of contact between the shooter and the firearms' grips and stock."
"Muzzle rise can be reduced by:
So basically since we are using a frame...our weapons do not actually need to have a hand grip below the weapon...we could actually used a sort of integrated weapon into a mechanical arm and thus do away with muzzle climb entirely as Mark desires. This doesn't remove the need for the "spread and jitter", and I would also avoid using "screen shake" for any sort of rapid fire weapon (a one shot weapon like a rocket launcher would be fine)
"The primary reason for muzzle rise is that for nearly all firearms, the centerline of the barrel is above the center of contact between the shooter and the firearms' grips and stock."
"Muzzle rise can be reduced by:
- reducing the vertical distance between the barrel and the contact points"
So basically since we are using a frame...our weapons do not actually need to have a hand grip below the weapon...we could actually used a sort of integrated weapon into a mechanical arm and thus do away with muzzle climb entirely as Mark desires. This doesn't remove the need for the "spread and jitter", and I would also avoid using "screen shake" for any sort of rapid fire weapon (a one shot weapon like a rocket launcher would be fine)
what are we referring to here? actual Recoil? people tend to not know what Recoil actually is.
because when people say Recoil in terms of Weapons, they usually mean Kick. these are to completely different forces.
having Recoil is not unreasonable whatsoever, even in space magic it is a reason for Players to ever let go of the trigger. this doesn't mean it must be an incredible amount of Spread increase however. the fundamental trend of increasing spread over time and a delay before shrinking gives every type of Weapon a reason to not just literally shoot forever with complete disregard for anything.
Kick, is mostly just an annoyance. a little bit feels interesting as no matter the target it ensures that your point of aim moves slightly off that weakpoint, but more than that without good reason is just annoying for the sake of being annoying.
the important part here is the scale. they tend to be very exaggerated over what one experiences using any real Firearms.
if you simply don't highly exaggerate it, you have subtle things to think about in Combat, without it just being there to be annoying.
in similar regards to this, Camera Shake is what's truly annoying. it just makes it harder to see things for basically no reason.
like pretty much anything else visually in games - a little bit is cool. a lotta bit is stupid.
but it goes both ways. specifically not having something just because or visa versa - makes things less cool. choosing what makes it feel the best on a per case basis, is always the right choice.
which is the case even for Recoil and Kick - having none makes it a lot harder to make a Weapon feel powerful or effective. just like a crappy firing sound does the same thing.
fundamentally false. the action of shooting a gun in a Video Game due to the nature of how you interact, takes almost no Skill whatsoever. pointing at a thing is extremely easy.
Spread is not a removal of Skill, is is a hard Range limiter that ensures a Weapon performs in the tasks it exists for, and does not end up doing everything at once.
in a Gun game, if something can do everything at once, it is simply superior to everything. so if you have no Spread, no Recoil, no Kick, and it's intended to be Horizontal, almost everybody will just go with the Assault Rifle thing. why? because it has the most flexibility. it replaces a Sniper Rifle, it does fine at Close Range, it is excellent at Medium Range, there's no reason why you'd want anything else. it literally does every possible role you could ever want (except AoE knockback i guess).
if people want a balanced game, they can't rely on the bullshit that people have harped about on the internet as 'Skill' for decades. almost all of it, isn't.
see also: actually Skill based Shooter mechanics.
i'm not trying to be mean here, i'm not trying to say everyone sucks, or whatever reactions people have. these are just facts. pointing at a dude and clicking is not Skill. not on it's own. it can't be. there is too little involved with it to consider it something to be proud of.
people can prefer whatever whatever they like. that's okay. but attempting to falsely presented as what it isn't, is not.
i see i'm not the first to explain some of this. but i read threads from start to finish and type when necessary.
*shrugs*
- - - - -
off topic things:
SU-25's direct fire Weapon doesn't fare a whole lot better either. it doesn't truly matter what aircraft you're using really, because all of your relevant Weapons are Missiles or Bombs either way
someone that knows history! thank you.
because when people say Recoil in terms of Weapons, they usually mean Kick. these are to completely different forces.
having Recoil is not unreasonable whatsoever, even in space magic it is a reason for Players to ever let go of the trigger. this doesn't mean it must be an incredible amount of Spread increase however. the fundamental trend of increasing spread over time and a delay before shrinking gives every type of Weapon a reason to not just literally shoot forever with complete disregard for anything.
Kick, is mostly just an annoyance. a little bit feels interesting as no matter the target it ensures that your point of aim moves slightly off that weakpoint, but more than that without good reason is just annoying for the sake of being annoying.
the important part here is the scale. they tend to be very exaggerated over what one experiences using any real Firearms.
if you simply don't highly exaggerate it, you have subtle things to think about in Combat, without it just being there to be annoying.
in similar regards to this, Camera Shake is what's truly annoying. it just makes it harder to see things for basically no reason.
like pretty much anything else visually in games - a little bit is cool. a lotta bit is stupid.
but it goes both ways. specifically not having something just because or visa versa - makes things less cool. choosing what makes it feel the best on a per case basis, is always the right choice.
which is the case even for Recoil and Kick - having none makes it a lot harder to make a Weapon feel powerful or effective. just like a crappy firing sound does the same thing.
fundamentally false. the action of shooting a gun in a Video Game due to the nature of how you interact, takes almost no Skill whatsoever. pointing at a thing is extremely easy.
Spread is not a removal of Skill, is is a hard Range limiter that ensures a Weapon performs in the tasks it exists for, and does not end up doing everything at once.
in a Gun game, if something can do everything at once, it is simply superior to everything. so if you have no Spread, no Recoil, no Kick, and it's intended to be Horizontal, almost everybody will just go with the Assault Rifle thing. why? because it has the most flexibility. it replaces a Sniper Rifle, it does fine at Close Range, it is excellent at Medium Range, there's no reason why you'd want anything else. it literally does every possible role you could ever want (except AoE knockback i guess).
if people want a balanced game, they can't rely on the bullshit that people have harped about on the internet as 'Skill' for decades. almost all of it, isn't.
see also: actually Skill based Shooter mechanics.
i'm not trying to be mean here, i'm not trying to say everyone sucks, or whatever reactions people have. these are just facts. pointing at a dude and clicking is not Skill. not on it's own. it can't be. there is too little involved with it to consider it something to be proud of.
people can prefer whatever whatever they like. that's okay. but attempting to falsely presented as what it isn't, is not.
i see i'm not the first to explain some of this. but i read threads from start to finish and type when necessary.
*shrugs*
- - - - -
off topic things:
SU-25's direct fire Weapon doesn't fare a whole lot better either. it doesn't truly matter what aircraft you're using really, because all of your relevant Weapons are Missiles or Bombs either way
someone that knows history! thank you.
Likes:
spiralofhope
Randomized spread is most certainly the removal of skill, as it reduces the reliance on actual player accuracy to accomplish their goals. Projectile-based shooting, as well as shooting a series of different weapons for different roles (the former occurring in many shooters, modern Battlefield included and the latter being an important part of AFPS) not only accomplish many of the same tasks (when tuned properly) but also rely on the user's own skill rather than awarding hits when the user's cursor wasn't where it should be (would have said "was off-target", but CS-style recoil is a thing). This whole "point at the target and shoot" thing is only an issue with limitless range hitscan and projectiles with too high a velocity. Travel time should be a factor, or a hard range limitation (see Quake's Lighting Gun/Thunderbolt) should come into play
it is not. those that complain that it is simply refuse to learn how to shoot with Weapons that don't handle every situation at once.
Weapons without Spread are extremely casual Weapons. because you use everything for every purpose. THAT, is removal of skill.
but people don't like the sound of that.
you aren't hostile towards Counter Strike, when it fundamentally uses Spread on all of the Weapons.
people just tend to not know what they're talking about when they talk about Shooter mechanics.
i'm not going to apologize for tearing the bandaid off when i speak.
Weapons without Spread are extremely casual Weapons. because you use everything for every purpose. THAT, is removal of skill.
but people don't like the sound of that.
you aren't hostile towards Counter Strike, when it fundamentally uses Spread on all of the Weapons.
people just tend to not know what they're talking about when they talk about Shooter mechanics.
i'm not going to apologize for tearing the bandaid off when i speak.
Likes:
Zeful
The only issue that I have with CS is that it randomizes the individual shots on the patterns when it really ought not to. The spread in CS works in a predictable and compensate-able manner. Most games just do a randomized cone of fire, which is what I take issue with, and which is absolutely a mechanic that lowers the skill ceiling. Additionally, there are ways to make guns more difficult to fire without adding spread (randomized or otherwise) that also add more skill. Tribes managed to do this quite gracefully, I'd argue, and Xonotic and CPM experimented with encouraging weapon combinations in their own way, which also raises the skill ceiling quite a bit
You sound like someone who hasn't ventured far outside of modern AAA shooters, if I'm being perfectly blunt here
You sound like someone who hasn't ventured far outside of modern AAA shooters, if I'm being perfectly blunt here
Barrel climb to some degree is okay. In The Division we have stability and accuracy stats (and wretched bullet sponges). These can be mitigated with gear add ons (muzzle brakes, etc). Maybe beginning weapons (inferior) would have more stability and accuracy issues (kinetic only) and would get better as they advanced.
Thank you for eliminating bullet sponges. That is a very poor mechanic...very poor. Of course eliminating that mechanic will make us more vulnerable as well. Like the real world.
Thank you for eliminating bullet sponges. That is a very poor mechanic...very poor. Of course eliminating that mechanic will make us more vulnerable as well. Like the real world.
absolutely, and that's no good. my see also explains in full detail the types of things i was referencing, that are what games should be.
yes, there's lots of ways. these systems isn't just about making it hard to shoot. it's a dual purpose to enforce roles to Weapons rather than letting them do everything, because a Weapon that can do everything is extremely anti-skill.
it makes it engaging and challenging to shoot, but that's not the only reason it exists.
having to understand ballistics to hit your targets is just a given if you ask me - Ray Trace 'projectiles' is nonsense. it's good for performance but meh.
yes, there's lots of ways. these systems isn't just about making it hard to shoot. it's a dual purpose to enforce roles to Weapons rather than letting them do everything, because a Weapon that can do everything is extremely anti-skill.
it makes it engaging and challenging to shoot, but that's not the only reason it exists.
having to understand ballistics to hit your targets is just a given if you ask me - Ray Trace 'projectiles' is nonsense. it's good for performance but meh.
Likes:
Zeful
This is only true when it is the only consideration at play (i.e. stationary shooting galleries like The Brookhaven Experiment), if there is an action the player can take to render that randomness moot be it shot patterning, movement, or in fact anything then the argument falls flat, because it is not "reduce[ing] the reliance on actual player accuracy to accomplish their goals", it is adding other forms of accuracy to a gunfight. Sure the weapon might be objectively more random in comparison to similar weapons in other games in a shooting gallery environment, but if the gameplay isn't duckhunt, than that assessment isn't strictly valid.
Because make no bones about it, making sure you hit the 3 or 5 or whatever rounds to kill you need to kill every time is a form of accuracy, as is making sure you stay in the optimal range for the spread of the weapon you have. They just aren't the same accuracy as aim is. And if you don't believe me, Watch some people play Kaizo Mario at a high level, and tell me with a straight face that there's no accuracy involved there.
Because make no bones about it, making sure you hit the 3 or 5 or whatever rounds to kill you need to kill every time is a form of accuracy, as is making sure you stay in the optimal range for the spread of the weapon you have. They just aren't the same accuracy as aim is. And if you don't believe me, Watch some people play Kaizo Mario at a high level, and tell me with a straight face that there's no accuracy involved there.
Likes:
taiiat
Slowing down movement for more accuracy creates a situation where both targets are easier to hit in a PVP scenario. In an PVE scenario, you're still reducing the movement of the target on your screen when you stop moving or slow down, and if the game takes said stopping/slowing down into account then your enemies are basically guaranteed to be less active than otherwise (because fights have to be fair for slow/still targets). With patterning, again, you're either dealing with a consistent pattern or shots can miss outside of the player's input. In what way does a % chance to miss a shot I've compensated for correctly add more skill? I could be off-target and hit that shot, or I could be on target and miss it entirely. It's the difference between playing chess normally and picking up a card to see if you capture the piece or not
If you dont control where those 3-5 rounds go, it isn't. Additionally the video you linked isn't, for instance, randomizing jump height, which is the equivalent of randomized COF shooting
If you dont control where those 3-5 rounds go, it isn't. Additionally the video you linked isn't, for instance, randomizing jump height, which is the equivalent of randomized COF shooting
Randomized COF shooting exists as a balancing metric to help establish an effective weapon range as well as add flexibility to some weapons. Further it reduces reliance on strict damage fall-off mechanics.
It also allows for some weapon types to exist. If Assault Rifles did not have spread then Battle Rifles would be pointless, because the only difference between them is that Battle Rifles have a farther out damage fall off distance.
If Shotguns did not have spread they would need extremely strict damage fall-off mechanics to even allow most weapons to exist. Its hard to compete with the burst potential of a shotgun. Especially ones as accurate of a sniper rifle. *fondly remembers Borderlands 1 sniper shotguns*
It also allows for some weapon types to exist. If Assault Rifles did not have spread then Battle Rifles would be pointless, because the only difference between them is that Battle Rifles have a farther out damage fall off distance.
If Shotguns did not have spread they would need extremely strict damage fall-off mechanics to even allow most weapons to exist. Its hard to compete with the burst potential of a shotgun. Especially ones as accurate of a sniper rifle. *fondly remembers Borderlands 1 sniper shotguns*
You can establish those ranges better through bullet drop and/or travel time. You could also just have a strict max range.
You're talking about the specific implementation of weapons in a particular game, without looking at the larger picture. The real question is "Why are these two guns separated only by degree of randomization and fall-off?"
TF2 (with the option toggled), Q3A etc have non-randomized shotgun spread and it works just fine
You're talking about the specific implementation of weapons in a particular game, without looking at the larger picture. The real question is "Why are these two guns separated only by degree of randomization and fall-off?"
TF2 (with the option toggled), Q3A etc have non-randomized shotgun spread and it works just fine
You are ascribing things to my statement I have not said. I have made no assumptions on how things like movement or shot patterning work within a game, I am merely asserting that if these- or similar- avenues exist to mitigate any deliberate inaccuracy in a weapon's function, then one cannot argue that skill is being removed.
To be more concrete, imagine a shotgun, it shoots 15 pellets in a random distribution within a 30 degree cone, body-shot kills take 30 pellets and headshot kills take 18 pellets. Can this weapon be made to kill reliably with only 2 trigger pulls for both headshot and body-shot kills? The answer is yes; if the player moves in such a manner that the circle projected by the cone is smaller than the target player's model, the weapon is functionally no different than a rifle that does the same damage per shot in two bullets, but only in that spacial relationship. The same kind of logic applies to shot patterning and accuracy, just with different behaviors, which is the point of the exercise.
No it's not. Shitty randomization of your cone of fire in a shooter is comparable to randomizing your jump height in a platformer. However in the first 8-10 minutes there were situations where the result of the player's input was determined not by his actions but by the computer, and not even necessarily because of an action he took (getting crushed by the wall is entirely determined by the game since you don't always get to make the 1-frame jump the level requires, for instance). And yet the game isn't treated as something that's unfair, because it isn't. That's why lives exist after all.
To be more concrete, imagine a shotgun, it shoots 15 pellets in a random distribution within a 30 degree cone, body-shot kills take 30 pellets and headshot kills take 18 pellets. Can this weapon be made to kill reliably with only 2 trigger pulls for both headshot and body-shot kills? The answer is yes; if the player moves in such a manner that the circle projected by the cone is smaller than the target player's model, the weapon is functionally no different than a rifle that does the same damage per shot in two bullets, but only in that spacial relationship. The same kind of logic applies to shot patterning and accuracy, just with different behaviors, which is the point of the exercise.
No it's not. Shitty randomization of your cone of fire in a shooter is comparable to randomizing your jump height in a platformer. However in the first 8-10 minutes there were situations where the result of the player's input was determined not by his actions but by the computer, and not even necessarily because of an action he took (getting crushed by the wall is entirely determined by the game since you don't always get to make the 1-frame jump the level requires, for instance). And yet the game isn't treated as something that's unfair, because it isn't. That's why lives exist after all.