Regarding recoil

[taiiat]

If you dont control where those 3-5 rounds go, it isn't.

but in a good system, you do. that's the entire point. the Spread for a good Player, is functionally there only to limit the effective Range of their Weapon to not infinite. to force one to do more than play a game like a shooting gallery.
you'll say but they shoot back, so you move around those projectiles and still play it like a shooting gallery, just while avoiding some 'rocks' in your way.

You can establish those ranges better through bullet drop and/or travel time. You could also just have a strict max range.

"Why are these two guns separated only by degree of randomization and fall-off?"

(a game) had non-randomized shotgun spread and it works just fine

good Weapon mechanics would already have Velocities, and be affected by Gravity. everything will already be subject to that. you can only make like, maybe 4 unique Weapons per Archetype by modifying Projectile Velocity.
editing gravity is a really bad idea. everything should be affected by local gravity by the same amount. there is no logical comprehension to everything randomly being affected by gravity at a different strength.

because whatever game that is wants to have more than one Weapon per Archetype. otherwise your best case is having 2, maybe 3/4 Weapons per Archetype. and then you're just making clones.

Fixed Spread on a Shotgun is a major Exploit. ex. why did absolutely everybody choose Shotgun and Sniper Rifle in Halo Multiplayer? because the first time around the Shotgun had Fixed Spread and was therefore literally a better Assault Rifle than an Assault Rifle (even though the Assault Rifle in Halo had significant Spread in order to Range limit it to not out performing DMR's and potentially Sniper Rifles). so it was a superior Close Range Weapon, AND Medium Range Weapon.
ranges where Projectiles magically disappear is not engaging, it means that you count the nanometers between you and your target and if it exceeds that number never even consider engaging. when in a Skill based game even in a non ideal situation you may engage outside of your effective Range, for reasons other than winning a firefight.

- - - - -

the 'simple as possible' you're looking for, only works when the intention is to have a very small set of choices for Weapons. where you don't have to worry about differentiation because you have like, one Assault Rifle, one SMG, one Rocket Launcher, one Shotgun, Et Cetera.
but if you want to have a large plethora of Weapon content, you can't have just one Weapon per Archetype because you want more things than that physically supports.


and again, you're fine with Counter Strike, except it has random Spread too. i already explained this, and for some reason it's okay there, in a game purpose built to be an E-Sport, but you have the audacity to suggest that Spread is some demon?
when any good game is doing similar things, where Spread mechanics are used to make shooting more engaging than holding the trigger down?
you've decided a thing is always bad because it can be bad, but you're simultaneously okay with it when it's implemented correctly which is exactly what is being suggested in the first place.

black swans do not matter in a Skill Based session. Killing someone by Randomization outside of effective Range 1/100 times doesn't matter when you lost the other 99/100.
you're off your rocker. if you're not going to listen sobeit, i've explained.

 

[Beemann]

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.

Except if the movement involves not moving or moving slower, skill is lost, and shot patterning works without random spread. The randomization of shots takes skill away from patterned and non-patterned aiming.

Your shotgun example doesn't require randomized spread either, and a scenario where the player's crosshair is on-target will do consistent damage dependent on range using non-randomized models. With a randomized model, they could do 100%, 0% or any value in between given enough distance and a "good enough" randomized value on their shots

No it's not. Shitty randomization of your cone of fire in a shooter is comparable to randomizing your jump height in a platformer.

Did you mean to say is not comparable? If I add a caveat like "If you dont move slowly" or "if you dont wait 3 seconds with the button held down" the randomization is still shitty, and there will be scenarios where someone is saved due to a randomized "good" jump, and times where people lose because of said jump
Additionally, if you ask someone if they find it unfair for a game to randomly kill them, they'll probably say yes. However, the question is how much it bothers them vs how many other factors/how much other content their is in the game. 1 frame jumps are not the basis for Mario, but shooting is the basis of a shooter

but in a good system, you do. that's the entire point. the Spread for a good Player, is functionally there only to limit the effective Range of their Weapon to not infinite. to force one to do more than play a game like a shooting gallery.
you'll say but they shoot back, so you move around those projectiles and still play it like a shooting gallery, just while avoiding some 'rocks' in your way.

Except randomization has no place in a "good system"

good Weapon mechanics would already have Velocities, and be affected by Gravity. everything will already be subject to that. you can only make like, maybe 4 unique Weapons per Archetype by modifying Projectile Velocity.
editing gravity is a really bad idea. everything should be affected by local gravity by the same amount. there is no logical comprehension to everything randomly being affected by gravity at a different strength.

You seem to be exceptionally focused on bullet-based weaponry. There's a lot more out there than shooting different sizes of metal projectile, particularly in a sci-fi game

because whatever game that is wants to have more than one Weapon per Archetype. otherwise your best case is having 2, maybe 3/4 Weapons per Archetype. and then you're just making clones.

See: Tribes, Quake, Xonotic, UT, etc for different methods of handling different weapons, sometimes with the same archetype

Fixed Spread on a Shotgun is a major Exploit. ex. why did absolutely everybody choose Shotgun and Sniper Rifle in Halo Multiplayer? because the first time around the Shotgun had Fixed Spread and was therefore literally a better Assault Rifle than an Assault Rifle (even though the Assault Rifle in Halo had significant Spread in order to Range limit it to not out performing DMR's and potentially Sniper Rifles). so it was a superior Close Range Weapon, AND Medium Range Weapon.
ranges where Projectiles magically disappear is not engaging, it means that you count the nanometers between you and your target and if it exceeds that number never even consider engaging. when in a Skill based game even in a non ideal situation you may engage outside of your effective Range, for reasons other than winning a firefight.

The problem is that you're talking about a slow, very loadout centric game. You're also talking about a specific balance method. TF2, Quake, Warsow etc managed to have shotguns with fixed spread patterns without those guns being anywhere near the most powerful guns in their respective games. You're also comparing spread-based weapons to fixed spread weapons

the 'simple as possible' you're looking for, only works when the intention is to have a very small set of choices for Weapons. where you don't have to worry about differentiation because you have like, one Assault Rifle, one SMG, one Rocket Launcher, one Shotgun, Et Cetera.
but if you want to have a large plethora of Weapon content, you can't have just one Weapon per Archetype because you want more things than that physically supports.

Except that plethora inevitably devolves into a ton of "not worth using" and only a few good weapons anyway, so why not construct say, 30 good weapons and call it a day? I guarantee you can come up with that many if you really try

and again, you're fine with Counter Strike, except it has random Spread too. i already explained this, and for some reason it's okay there, in a game purpose built to be an E-Sport, but you have the audacity to suggest that Spread is some demon?
when any good game is doing similar things, where Spread mechanics are used to make shooting more engaging than holding the trigger down?
you've decided a thing is always bad because it can be bad, but you're simultaneously okay with it when it's implemented correctly which is exactly what is being suggested in the first place.

I never said that I liked every decision made in Counter Strike, and I already pointed out that randomization on individual shots in the pattern is dumb. Additionally, not everything included in an "esport" is automatically good, especially given that many of those things have changed over time (or are pocket awps now an acceptable feature in a competitive game?)
Additionally, it has nothing to do with engagement, and everything to do with the trend towards pseudo-realism without the effort required to produce an actual working gun simulation. Furthermore, what you consider good and what I'd consider good are probably vastly different, so appealing to the quality of unnamed titles isn't really a compelling argument

black swans do not matter in a Skill Based session. Killing someone by Randomization outside of effective Range 1/100 times doesn't matter when you lost the other 99/100.

Except randomization makes a far larger difference than that, and you know that. Furthermore, going back to your "muh esports" statement, does the randomized headshot matter when it's for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars? It's a matter of degrees, and while you may enjoy being cheated by a dice roller, I see no point in it

 

[taiiat]

Except randomization makes a far larger difference than that, and you know that. Furthermore, going back to your "muh esports" statement, does the randomized headshot matter when it's for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars? It's a matter of degrees, and while you may enjoy being cheated by a dice roller, I see no point in it

no. it doesn't. that Black Swan will not be the defining break between winning or losing.

 

[Beemann]

no. it doesn't. that Black Swan will not be the defining break between winning or losing.

A headshot cant be the difference between winning or losing in a match that can be decided by a single frag? Remarkable
Additionally it's not a matter of 1/100, and even with that, what does that 1/100 add? If I take the same shot and 1/100 times it does nothing, what do I, as a player, gain from that experience?

 

[TankHunter678]

A headshot cant be the difference between winning or losing in a match that can be decided by a single frag? Remarkable
Additionally it's not a matter of 1/100, and even with that, what does that 1/100 add? If I take the same shot and 1/100 times it does nothing, what do I, as a player, gain from that experience?

It makes that brief moment as you realize you made a 1/100 shot and it worked all the sweeter.

Like those moments in world of tanks where you thread an artillery shell through a window into the side of a tank and ammo rack them at full health.

I mean the statistical probability of that happening is like 1/100000 but its very elating when it works. Especially when the enemy bursts out swearing calling you skycancer and you just do not give a fuck.

 

[Beemann]

It makes that brief moment as you realize you made a 1/100 shot and it worked all the sweeter.

Like those moments in world of tanks where you thread an artillery shell through a window into the side of a tank and ammo rack them at full health.

I mean the statistical probability of that happening is like 1/100000 but its very elating when it works. Especially when the enemy bursts out swearing calling you skycancer and you just do not give a fuck.

It wasn't your shot though. It was a diceroll
If you compensated for whatever factors there were between you and a dead target, and you hit the shot, then there's something to celebrate, but hitting a 00 on a d100 roll is nothing to get worked up about in terms of your own skill

 

[TankHunter678]

It wasn't your shot though. It was a diceroll
If you compensated for whatever factors there were between you and a dead target, and you hit the shot, then there's something to celebrate, but hitting a 00 on a d100 roll is nothing to get worked up about in terms of your own skill

Pretty sure it was my shot given that I decided to take the risk and pull the trigger.

WoT arty has long reload times, on most in the ballpark of 30 seconds to 1 minute. The shell flight time averages somewhere between 3 and 5 seconds. So for a WoT arty player the ability to hit the target is not as important. The ability to read the map, predict where a moving target is going, how the battle is flowing, what is the real priority target are all hallmarks of a real artillery players skill.

After all there are plenty of hacks that make weapons pin point accurate in WoT. They don't make people good players though.


Also I feel compelled to point something out: You advocate bullet drop and shell velocity. Both of those are real world things. Spread is also a real world thing because you know bullets are affected by environmental conditions such as wind. Its the reason why sniper teams need to pay keen attention to the direction, angle, and speed the wind is blowing so they can adjust their shot in order to even land it in the first place.

To exclude spread is to ignore the laws of physics.

 

[Beemann]

Pretty sure it was my shot given that I decided to take the risk and pull the trigger.

But it was not you who caused the shot to hit the target. Do you feel a sense of accomplishment when you roll a 20 as well?

WoT arty has long reload times, on most in the ballpark of 30 seconds to 1 minute. The shell flight time averages somewhere between 3 and 5 seconds. So for a WoT arty player the ability to hit the target is not as important. The ability to read the map, predict where a moving target is going, how the battle is flowing, what is the real priority target are all hallmarks of a real artillery players skill.

After all there are plenty of hacks that make weapons pin point accurate in WoT. They don't make people good players though.

Leading, target prioritization and prediction are not negated by removing spread

Also I feel compelled to point something out: You advocate bullet drop and shell velocity. Both of those are real world things. Spread is also a real world thing because you know bullets are affected by environmental conditions such as wind. Its the reason why sniper teams need to pay keen attention to the direction, angle, and speed the wind is blowing so they can adjust their shot in order to even land it in the first place.

wind, temperature, distance, etc. are consistent factors that can, in theory, be accounted for. A dice roll is not. If my shot misses because there was a factor I could have compensated for and didn't, that's an entirely different thing from "One time my shot went exactly here, but with the same shot with the same factors, this other time it went over here"
Randomized spread is a lazy attempt at vaguely including those factors, but it completely ignores the fact that skilled shooters should be allowed to take their shots without a game telling them "no, that time it didn't count". If you want a ton of factors, add a ton of factors, but don't do this halfassed nonsense where you make the core aspect of a genre an abstract

 

[Zeful]

Except if the movement involves not moving or moving slower, skill is lost[.]

Prove it. Demonstrate how the decision on when and where to not move or move slowly is not skill (and I don't mean specific games, I'm talking in general). Because I can look at schmups like R-Type or the various Tohou games as an example where skill at moving is more important than aim is, even when accounting for the lack of an entire other dimension and limitations of those games. I could point to games like Sniper Elite or Super Hexagon where deciding where, when, and how you move is the main challenge of the game. In short, this argument is only applicable to Quake and a few other games, and not a truth of all shooters.

Your shotgun example doesn't require randomized spread either, and a scenario where the player's crosshair is on-target will do consistent damage dependent on range using non-randomized models. With a randomized model, they could do 100%, 0% or any value in between given enough distance and a "good enough" randomized value on their shots

It doesn't require random spread, if the goal is only to limit range. But, random spread actually does something else you haven't considered that non-random spread cannot do; zoning and suppression. The numbers I chose were very important, at an 18 pellet headshot, you cannot safely rush my hypothetical shotgun from outside of it's intended range, because the first volley only needs to hit three pellets on your head, something it can do with high likelyhood from farther out, before the next round at a more optimal distance kills you outright. This allows for the weapon to have threat well beyond it's optimal range without making it reliably lethal at those ranges (something that would only be possible with aggressive damage fall off in a non-random shot pattern, creating a hardstop in the weapon's maximum range), since it would take 5 more shells at that range to expect to kill you through pellet headshot damage.

For weapon's with non-random spread, this dichotomy between the different use of ranges is impossible since any spread pattern can be memorized and compensated for, and the only way to fix this requires changing the damage values through fall off, and that can actually do more to screw up combat math for weapons like shotguns, since not only do you have a fixed spread pattern having pellets move further apart, reducing damage, but those pellets also lose damage, as distance increases.

Did you mean to say is not comparable? If I add a caveat like "If you dont move slowly" or "if you dont wait 3 seconds with the button held down" the randomization is still shitty, and there will be scenarios where someone is saved due to a randomized "good" jump, and times where people lose because of said jump

No, because unlike shooters, jumping in platformers is used for everything, not just attacks, thus we must look at the specifics of the jump, what it's for and when it's executed, and with that in mind the scene in the third level I'm referring to actually has no problems since everything still works as expected, the only thing that is random is the timing, and starting and stopping points of specific jumps, and due to the way the entities in the scene all operate, the problem the randomness provides is not guaranteed death, just like the "proper pattern" isn't guaranteed success.

 

[Beemann]

Prove it. Demonstrate how the decision on when and where to not move or move slowly is not skill (and I don't mean specific games, I'm talking in general). Because I can look at schmups like R-Type or the various Tohou games as an example where skill at moving is more important than aim is, even when accounting for the lack of an entire other dimension and limitations of those games. I could point to games like Sniper Elite or Super Hexagon where deciding where, when, and how you move is the main challenge of the game. In short, this argument is only applicable to Quake and a few other games, and not a truth of all shooters.

In a scenario where both targets are moving and potentially shooting at each other (instead of shooting from fixed positions, or with exact patterns like in shmups) and where the view direction is determined by where you're aiming (again, as opposed to the fixed camera of shmups) slower movement = easier hits on target. Super Hexagon is not a shooter, and Sniper Elite is stealth focused. We're talking, rather explicitly, about a shooter that will be open world, and will likely focus on sci-fi armaments not wholly unlike Firefall's. The AI is probably not going to be top notch, given the limitations of such a project, so I doubt you're going to stealth your way through (not to mention the fact that such a thing is no longer an option once you start thumping) so we're dealing with Player A and Combatant B, not sneaking, not rotating, not carefully navigating a maze of bullets with a single pixel hitbox

It doesn't require random spread, if the goal is only to limit range. But, random spread actually does something else you haven't considered that non-random spread cannot do; zoning and suppression. The numbers I chose were very important, at an 18 pellet headshot, you cannot safely rush my hypothetical shotgun from outside of it's intended range, because the first volley only needs to hit three pellets on your head, something it can do with high likelyhood from farther out, before the next round at a more optimal distance kills you outright. This allows for the weapon to have threat well beyond it's optimal range without making it reliably lethal at those ranges (something that would only be possible with aggressive damage fall off in a non-random shot pattern, creating a hardstop in the weapon's maximum range), since it would take 5 more shells at that range to expect to kill you through pellet headshot damage.

That's not an objective improvement, it's a difference based on an extremely specific scenario (low TTK, randomized spread, likely slow movement). It's also not a reliable scenario, and depends heavily on the likelihood of those shots hitting (if it's a 1% chance, and I need this frag, it's an easy choice). It's also not really based on the user's own skill, but rather based on the whim of a random number generator
Meanwhile, with a game that has consistent spread, the shotgunner is not afforded extra defense by RNG fiat, and must play to the actual strengths and weaknesses of his/her weapon

For weapon's with non-random spread, this dichotomy between the different use of ranges is impossible since any spread pattern can be memorized and compensated for, and the only way to fix this requires changing the damage values through fall off, and that can actually do more to screw up combat math for weapons like shotguns, since not only do you have a fixed spread pattern having pellets move further apart, reducing damage, but those pellets also lose damage, as distance increases.

On the flip side, you're not winning a fight because you rolled dice better. You're not going to accidentally win a duel in Quake, but you might accidentally win a fight in CoD. You're not going to run into a situation where a hail mary shot suddenly changes the momentum of a match, and the player on the receiving end could do absolutely nothing to mitigate it

No, because unlike shooters, jumping in platformers is used for everything, not just attacks, thus we must look at the specifics of the jump, what it's for and when it's executed, and with that in mind the scene in the third level I'm referring to actually has no problems since everything still works as expected, the only thing that is random is the timing, and starting and stopping points of specific jumps, and due to the way the entities in the scene all operate, the problem the randomness provides is not guaranteed death, just like the "proper pattern" isn't guaranteed success.

Shooting is the primary component of shooters, as getting to platforms (read: jumping) is the primary component of platformers. If your game doesn't include shooting, it isn't a shooter. It's really that simple.
If a game sets you up such that there was no way you could have succeeded given all the factors leading up to that point, that's a guaranteed death. If that's not the case, then that's fine. However, randomized shots come with guaranteed misses, shots that the player could never have hit even though they're well within the parameters of the gun.

 

[Aphaz]

b4 this get to a flamewar ( ) why not simply have it as it was in FF, i.e. if u move/hold fire longer your crosshair spreads further apart and u get "more inacurate". i personaly liked that. and since we're talking about "a spiritual successor" i'd go that way.

just sayin'

 

[Vedemin]

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.

- - - - -
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.

You are speaking with the only person here, that wants heavy recoil values (like in BF Hardline, that was a damn good recoil). So I just think that error (RNG) is a bad thing, I prefer skill in controlling a weapon that kicks like a horse

- - -
Su-25 can just carry more of them ^^

 

[Daynen]

There is an important difference between the kinds of recoil we're mentioning here: the first is climbing, in which your aim is forcibly moved upward temporarily. The second is spread, in which your reticule opens up and represents vibration of the gun, diminishing the accuracy of repeated shots. There's another kind of recoil that didn't really exist in firefall though: kickback. the kind that forces the shooter backward in some way. The other two kinds mitigate this one somewhat, but here's a thought: kickback is the kind of recoil I would most expect during any kind of flight, since there's no ground or friction to keep the wielder in place. It would also allow an interesting use for high-recoil weapons: aerial backpedaling.

Imagine seeing a floor of lava rising. Your jets are malfunctioning and you have only moments to make a life-or-death jump across a chasm to escape. What do you do? You turn your back to the cliff, jump backward and fire your big-ass shotgun while holding on for dear life. It kicks you backward, boosting you over the gap! Now aren't you glad you didn't tune your weapon for minimum recoil?


Oddly enough, the "screen-shaking" that most people seem to hate actually has little to do with any of these occurrences and could in fact be left out almost completely; only climbing recoil would even resemble it, and only then with weapons that have very high fire rate, like an HMG.

 

[NoahDVS]

You know what I think would be fun, especially as a way to balance a minigun? Backwards recoil. If you don't actively fight against it with your movement, each shot pushes you back a small amount. This has the effect of slowing down forward movement and speeding up backwards movement while firing. A minigun could even be used to aid backwards jet propulsion.

Edit: lol, didn't even read the post above me first and we both had similar ideas.

 

[taiiat]

this is aiming at way more messages than just the quotes, trying to cut down length.

If I take the same shot and 1/100 times it does nothing, what do I, as a player, gain from that experience?

you eventually learn how to operate the game and you can perform reliably.
inversely, if your shot consists of point at him and click on him, what do you gain from that?

without any of these systems every Weapon is nearly equally effective at every task, which is in effect a game with very little Skill involved. RE: this is not an insult, this is a statement.
clicking on people or slowly pulling your mouse down does not represent Skill. being able to place yourself in the appropriate location that you should be at, using your Tools at the right times, moving quickly when you should and aiming accurately when you should, outplaying your opponent strategically, Et Cetera is how you play Skillfully.
RE: moving slower does not make you an easier target. consistently moving slower does. your movement speed being more varied strategically - like a Skilled Player would be doing, makes you the hardest to hit of all. because you're harder to track - because your movement rate is sporadic.

i've already clearly explained that these systems aren't there to represent reality(because none of it is, guns represented realistically makes for a fairly flat game), they are there to make Shooting more than Duck Hunt where you can move.

You're not going to accidentally win a duel in Quake

ofcourse not, but you also don't accidentally lose either. both of you take your Railgun shot at the same time (because that's everyones' Primary Weapon), and whoever shot a couple Milliseconds earlier is who wins.

if, you missed Shots due to Spread, that means you weren't within the Parameters of that Weapon. because you had no Trigger Discipline and were just clicking on someone as much as possible.
the exact systems i'm suggesting to basically copy/paste shamelessly, still lets your... Machine Pistol hit from a Kilometer away. but only at a much lower effective Rate of Fire than it's capable of. this limits the effectiveness of your Weapon at that Range, because you're not supposed to be using it there.
you can still create Black Swans with it like you want to, but such events don't determine the outcome of a session. they just don't. like i said, i'll make you win 1/100 times but you already lost plenty.
that's why Competitive Tournaments have many stages, so that regardless of what game it is, to ensure that Black Swans don't skew outcomes. because even in your beloved Arena Shooters, there are Black Swans.

You are speaking with the only person here, that wants heavy recoil values (like in BF Hardline, that was a damn good recoil). So I just think that error (RNG) is a bad thing, I prefer skill in controlling a weapon that kicks like a horse

like i initially asked, what are we talking about? actual Recoil, or Kick?
because if it's Kick, there is nearly no Skill involved in controlling it. it is an extremely predictable response, there's good reason why controlling Kick in Shooters is explained as 'just pull down'. it really is that simple.



without variation of unpredictability, there is no Skill because you're not actively managing anything, you learn a fixed value, apply that value, and you're done.
i.e. you learn what speed to 'pull down' at while shooting, and do that every time. you're not proving any Skill there, you're proving memorization of numbers. the variation that forces you to adapt to the situation is what actually tests your Skills.

'backwards force'

as long as you keep it in check, it's fine. the easiest big problem comes in if the game is unreliable at detecting if you're touching the ground, as this type of force would only concatenate the issue.
as well as, having to play Animations from these forces, forces the Player to not be able to move basically 'for no reason' - and that doesn't feel good. reduced Acceleration rate for a (very) short period can work, however.



Edit:
sorry, i forgot i already said i explained and i'm done, if we aren't going to see eye to eye then we aren't.

 

[Beerdog6]

That would be cool.
Ya know... being able to craft stuff like into game weapons that reduces these things.
The devs could just claim the reason there is recoil in the game is because the mech suit your wearing is devoting it's resources into the safety of flight due to the jetpack so they can't put recoil dampeners in there...

but what if you could craft your frame to have less jets and instead be able to have less recoil from your weapons instead of your weapons shouldering that burden. That way you can craft better weapons without worrying about the recoil stat.
Or crafting a frame that more recoil at the cost of better jetting capability.

Screen shake is stupid and causes sickness but you can still have recoil without it.

I also agree about screen shake, but some kind of recoil is inevitable. Having been in the military and fired a great range of weapons, they all have some kind of recoil. Even the higher tech ones. but there are trade offs. An AR15/M4 platform has little, but not a lot of damage. A Barrett or other high tech sniper has lots of damage, but more recoil, even with the high tech design and compensators, and takes training to control and bring back into a solid sight picture. The problem I have with most shooters is that they are cartoons compared to real life and it bothers me a bit. The ARMA engine has a pretty good feel, even with its problems.
A rail gun tech might eliminate some of this. As would a powered suit. But look at an A10 firing its cannon.
Use the customization to trade off, accuracy, fire rate, damage, weight, durability, energy use, ammo capacity.
Well, that's my two cents.

 

[taiiat]

But look at an A10 firing its cannon.

you definitely can, with how slow it starts flying in extended bursts! plenty of time to get a good looooong look at it.
xD

 

[MattHunX]

Screen shake bad, very bad, no likee.

Recoil on the other hand is a factor of Newtonian physics. Please comment on the following logic chain;

You wear a powered exoskeleton (frame) to augment your physical strength.

This allows you to carry a more powerful projectile weapon (say 20mm, or maybe even 30mm).

The larger projectile has more mass, and far more propellant.

Therefore, in accordance with Newton's Second Law, you will experience acceleration back along the axis of the barrel of the weapon. Due to the way that weapons are held this normally translates into the barrel rising. Muzzle devices are available to redirect the muzzle blast upwards to counter act this, but there are trade offs in using said devices, such as being blinded by the muzzle flash since the majority of it is now traveling upwards rather than out.

I'm in favor of having recoil in the game. It would make people fire short, controlled bursts rather than having a death grip on the trigger.

Obviously energy weapons would not have to deal with recoil.

Wow, you certainly have a round-about physics-teacher way of explaining things.

What you've said, for me, translates as, futuristic anti-recoil technology could only do the same for futuristic high(er)-powered weaponry, as today's anti-recoil does today. It can't eliminate recoil completely, in every weapon. Only some. Read something about recoil-less shotguns, nowadays.

And yep, I also prefer there to be recoil, so people who cannot be bothered with aiming their massive OP, disgusting guns should have to deal with a loss of accuracy. I prefer firing in more accurate burst. When a giant creatures is in my face, I'll happily forget about recoil and unload in its face, but every other encounter, not of the up close and personal kind, should require actual effort from the player to aim and control their fire.

 

[EvilKitten]

I think I have already said this before but it bears repeating, if you place the barrel of your gun in line with the arm of your exoskeleton (IE an integrated weapon system not a hand held weapon) then there will be no muzzle climb in any of the guns.

 

[MattHunX]

I think I have already said this before but it bears repeating, if you place the barrel of your gun in line with the arm of your exoskeleton (IE an integrated weapon system not a hand held weapon) then there will be no muzzle climb in any of the guns.

Kind of Mega Man-ing it. A weapon that can unfold from your gauntlet, maybe. Forearm-mounted?