A best of both worlds compromise for Aimpunch.


(Rémy Cabresin) #1

Let me first say that I know this will attract a lot of people who will just complain that want aimpunch entirely removed, which personally I think may be better than the current implementation for some reasons, but is bad for others but because we all know SD does not intend to completely remove aimpunch I feel that conversation is somewhat pointless and I would rather look at a compromise or a ‘best of both worlds’ between what SD wants the system for and what the community wants/dislikes about it.

Personally I think the main concern about aimpunch as it is in the game at the moment is that it’s a feeling of no control players get once they understand the mechanic. I also believe that the system as it is is just as unfriendly to more casual minded players as much as it is ‘punishing’ to more hardcore players. Mainly meaning that if a mechanic is to a degree RNG dependant, at a technical level aimpunch is not RNG but in combination with recoil and spread it usually feels at such, it punishes players who want to learn the mechanic(the high end) but also punishes newer casual players because the mechanic is essentially ‘unlearnable’. The system as of now widens the skillgap as much as it closes it, a newer or more casual player could improve a lot faster if he wasn’t held back by an unlearnable factor.

Now the pro’s for aimpunch, and I know a lot of people disagree here but realistically they are simply true and SD wanting them has valid reasons, are mainly forms of feedback. Mostly, what is hitting me and from where? And ‘uhh’ ;). There is also the question of allowing a player to react, but personally I think Dirty Bomb’s higher TTK(longer to kill) already does that. The strafing, walljumping etcetera allow you to react and adjust whereas in low TTK games you would already be dead. So this argument as a pro for aimpunch, I think, is a bit unfair.

In my opinion, aimpunch should be something that addresses mainly the things above: Something that still provides these forms of feedback in a form of aimpunch, but without creating a feeling of no control once a player wants to ‘invest’ or understand the system behind it.

A system that in a way is quite similar to Wolfenstein Enemy Territory, a game that a has a lot of similarities even at core gameplay to DB as DB was originally based on it. But taking a more DB fitting spin on it, as W:ET was very drastic with it’s viewkick implementation and I can see that being very disruptive, moreso than current DB, if just copied 1-to-1. Essentially a milder version that translates more information to the screen. Currently in DB your crosshair is where your bullets go(not considering spread for a moment), the change would be that the viewmodel, your camera, would move independent of your bullet trajectory. A visual guide below:

https://imgur.com/AaPGHhB
The red dot indicates crosshair placement, the blue dot indicates bullet trajectory.

This will allow to keep the pros SD wants for aimpunch, there will still be clear visual feedback. However this will allow players to learn to ‘ignore’ aimpunch because bullet trajectory is what really matters. Knowing 100% regardless of aimpunch where your bullets will be going, essentially giving you the control that removal of aimpunch would create.

The only counterargument that I have had when discussing this version of aimpunch would be that new players, or players not wanting/invested in trying to learn the system would not understand where their bullets are going. Whilst a reasonable argument I feel like this is just as true for the current implementation of aimpunch, simply because of that no-control feeling of where your bullets are going. A newer player has to learn things, regardless of what it is, with that in mind I would ‘vote’ for a system that is learnable and easy to understand opposed to something that is easy to understand but not learnable/uncontrollable. I might perceive this wrong(I haven’t been a new player/FPS player for along time :D), but my assumption would be that it is easier for a new player to be able to learn “my bullets will always go straight but my crosshair will be there” than “my bullets will always go where my crosshair is but I don’t know where my crosshair and bullets will go”.

An example of that is how the most recent aimpunch changes seem to have only increased the feeling of jerkiness and no control eventhough technically there is less aimpunch.

Also, on the topic of the forms of feedback, currently aimpunch is mostly impacted by RPM, this is why weapons like the hochfire can feel very disruptive to play versus even when it’s only doing 2/3 damage per bullet from very long range. I think this should also be changed to be more around feedback of range and weapon type. As in all the assault rifles will give say X% aimpunch, all the LMGs will give Y% of aimpunch, all the SMGs will give Z% of aimpunch etcetera. Merc design is limited by weapontypes and to a degree about what effective ranges they will have access too. I think communicating this in the aimpunch is more important than how fast a weapon shoots. Also since with the reworked idea stacking of aimpunch will be less relevant as bullet trajectory is independent.

I know that this is likely a much more intensive rework than just tweaking values, but I do think it is the best version of aimpunch for a game like Dirty Bomb without sacrificing either ‘sides’ pros and wantings, for the long term.

Long read maybe, but with how SD’s stance on this seems to be and the community feeling unheard/ignored I felt like posting my two cents. This idea has been brougth up by myself more often aswell as by other players but I wanted to put it down for, possible, more players to consider, I will be posting this on the Official DB forums and Reddit to see if opinions vary widely between these places, as some have claimed. Thanks for reading and feel free to discussion and give opinions :). Regards, ADETO.


(nokiII) #2

I think one of my main problems with aimpunch (current iteration and your proposal) is , that if you get hit by something the screenshake is so erratic, that it feels like an FPS drop due to the sharp sawtooth shaped curve the crosshair makes (linear crosshair incline/decline).

For that reason I would propose in addition to your changes a sine wave based curve to smooth out the jerkiness, which would get a similar effect to W:ET, which, as you said, has very disruptive viewkick, but it doesn’t feel like your FPS goes into the trashcan when it transitions at the highest or lowest point.


(Rémy Cabresin) #3

@nokiII said:
I think one of my main problems with aimpunch is , that if you get hit by something the screenshake is so erratic, that it feels like an FPS drop due to the sharp sawtooth shaped curve the crosshair makes (linear crosshair incline/decline) which probably wouldn’t be different to your model.
For that reason I would propose a sine wave based curve to smooth out the “shakiness”, which would get a similar effect to W:ET, which, as you said, has very disruptive viewkick, but it doesn’t feel like your FPS goes into the trashcan when it transitions at the highest or lowest point.

Yea this just contributes to the no-control feeling, I used abit of a general term because I didn’t want to just seem ‘whiney’ about the annoyances :P. Making larger more drastic aimpunch would smooth out the feeling but I feel in DB if you make a much larger curve the bullet trajectory problem just gets very big. As you’ll have to aim at knees to compensate for headshots/upper body. Personally I just believe separating bullet trajectory is what SD and the community will, eventually, agree on or it will just always be a them vs us problem. The only argument against imo would be a technical limitation related to viewmodels and trajectory but fingers crossed rite?


(nokiII) #4

@F1032B8728B0 said:
Making larger more drastic aimpunch would smooth out the feeling but I feel in DB if you make a much larger curve the bullet trajectory problem just gets very big.

You don’t have to have a higher kick to smooth out the feeling, as long as the crosshair doesn’t move at a linear speed (which it does atm) all the way up and down, but accelerates in the middle and decelerates at top and bottom, resulting in the same amount of kick height and length, but smoother feeling as there are no abrupt changes in direction.
I’m kinda bad with words, but I hope I got the point across. :>


(Rémy Cabresin) #5

@nokiII said:
You don’t have to have a higher kick to smooth out the feeling, as long as the crosshair doesn’t move at a linear speed (which it does atm) all the way up and down, but accelerates in the middle and decelerates at top and bottom, resulting in the same amount of kick height and length, but smoother feeling as there are no abrupt changes in direction.
I’m kinda bad with words, but I hope I got the point across. :>

Yea I get what you’re saying, I could definitely help. Don’t know if it would address the other concerns but would atleast address the jerkiness.


(nokiII) #6

Oh no it wouldn’t. That would be something more of a quality of life change than fundamental design change, but if you’re starting to redesign / recode the whole thing anyways, why not do it properly.


(n-x) #7

@F1032B8728B0 said:
This will allow to keep the pros SD wants for aimpunch, there will still be clear visual feedback. However this will allow players to learn to ‘ignore’ aimpunch because bullet trajectory is what really matters. Knowing 100% regardless of aimpunch where your bullets will be going, essentially giving you the control that removal of aimpunch would create.

Afaik, clear visual feedback has never been the reason SD gives for aimpunch. Their reason is, that you get an advantage for positional play and shooting first (additional to the advantage you have by a better position and shooting first) and to throw off the aim of your opponent.


(Rémy Cabresin) #8

@n-x said:
Afaik, clear visual feedback has never been the reason SD gives for aimpunch. Their reason is, that you get an advantage for positional play and shooting first (additional to the advantage you have by a better position and shooting first) and to throw off the aim of your opponent.

True, definitely also a factor. Is addressed pretty much the same as the forms of feedback with both systems I think. They carry over pretty much the same visually, you would still have the benefit of giving the other player aimpunch before they give it to you, they will have to adjust first etc.


(n-x) #9

I dont want to get into a long fruitless discussion with you, as I like your approach of visual aimpunch instead of real/physical aimpunch, but I dont think what you try to pass as a compromise here is a compromise, as it does not contain the effect SD wants aimpunch to have.

But it is also hard to say what effect SD wants from aimpunch as their reasoning behind it is not very sound.


(Rémy Cabresin) #10

@n-x said:
I dont want to get into a long fruitless discussion with you, as I like your approach of visual aimpunch instead of real/physical aimpunch, but I dont think what you try to pass as a compromise here is a compromise, as it does not contain the effect SD wants aimpunch to have.

But it is also hard to say what effect SD wants from aimpunch as their reasoning behind it is not very sound.

From what I’ve seen publically and in direct conversation myself to devs the effect is mainly forms of feedback, a form of positional reward, and a form of skill gap closure. 2 out of 3 boxes checked with the least ‘fitting’ for DB’s gun play dropped as the compromise. The reasoning SD has is fine to be fair, from a ‘balancing’ perspective for the current playerbase, but that’s why I think it needs to change for the long term. Balancing your players skills vs eachother should be a matchmaking area, not a weaponbalance one imo.


(Xenithos) #11

Why can’t we just have it so that when one person continually shoots at you, the first bullets within the first half second or so will give aimpunch, but everything after that FROM THE SAME TARGET stops giving aimpunch for about ~3 seconds or so?

This fixes CONSTANT rng in the bouncing by meaning if the player couldn’t kill you in the first half second you now both have equal chance etc, and they would also have to remove aimpunch from affecting the person that shot at you in the firstplace too for when you manage to start getting hits on him that way the primary shooter still gets his half second of high advantage, and it doesn’t lend to feelings of loss of control for longer than a half second to the shooter’s target.

ALSO in this format, it would mean that if you got shot from 3 different places at once, you would of course still get tons of aimpunch, punishing players that aren’t moving tactically and still rewarding teams that are together. Win win. THATS a compromise.


(bgyoshi) #12

@Xenithos said:
Why can’t we just have it so that when one person continually shoots at you, the first bullets within the first half second or so will give aimpunch, but everything after that FROM THE SAME TARGET stops giving aimpunch for about ~3 seconds or so?

Except the part where it completely removes the advantage of shooting first

@F1032B8728B0 said:
This will allow to keep the pros SD wants for aimpunch, there will still be clear visual feedback. However this will allow players to learn to ‘ignore’ aimpunch because bullet trajectory is what really matters. Knowing 100% regardless of aimpunch where your bullets will be going, essentially giving you the control that removal of aimpunch would create.

Like I said in my other forum post

Pros don’t like aimpunch, they don’t want aimpunch, and they want it to be something you can ignore so that learning to ignore it is a skill. When that happens, the team with the best aim will win the game. A well-balanced team of mercs with worse aim than a 5 man team of only medics will lose. If aimpunch didn’t affect the location of your bullets, then all you have to do is aim better than your opponent.

Aimpunch isn’t only about feedback. Aimpunch is there so that you have no control when you’re being shot. Aimpunch is there so that you are rewarded for getting the jump on your opponent, and aimpunch is there so that you have to keep tracking your opponent.

It’s there so that your first reaction to being shot is to take cover, not to turn around and return fire

It’s there so that you learn to dodge and try to escape your opponents fire and turn the tables on them with some aimpunch of your own

It’s a mechanic specifically designed to fuck up your bullets

If you remove the mechanic that fucks up your bullets then you remove 90% of the strategy from the game

That’s what the pros like. A game with 1 best strategy so they can all focus on having the best aim.

Pros don’t like tactics

Pros don’t like strategy

Pros don’t like planning

Pros don’t like thinking on the fly

Pros just want to aim at the head and win

I’m glad you put out your idea but the only reason why this game has any strategy at all is because of aimpunch.

And in all honesty, the aimpunch isn’t that jarring at all, and it’s not so bad that aiming is impossible. I never feel completely “out of control” with aimpunch and, if my only option is to shoot back, I don’t have a problem hitting my opponent. It makes HEADSHOTS a lot harder, but sometimes all you need to do is lay bullets into their chest while adadad’ing and adding some ducking in so that they lose their tracking and you get the beneficial aimpunch instead.


(WatchAsILead) #13

@bgyoshi said:

@Xenithos said:
Why can’t we just have it so that when one person continually shoots at you, the first bullets within the first half second or so will give aimpunch, but everything after that FROM THE SAME TARGET stops giving aimpunch for about ~3 seconds or so?

Except the part where it completely removes the advantage of shooting first

@F1032B8728B0 said:
This will allow to keep the pros SD wants for aimpunch, there will still be clear visual feedback. However this will allow players to learn to ‘ignore’ aimpunch because bullet trajectory is what really matters. Knowing 100% regardless of aimpunch where your bullets will be going, essentially giving you the control that removal of aimpunch would create.

Like I said in my other forum post

Pros don’t like aimpunch, they don’t want aimpunch, and they want it to be something you can ignore so that learning to ignore it is a skill. When that happens, the team with the best aim will win the game. A well-balanced team of mercs with worse aim than a 5 man team of only medics will lose. If aimpunch didn’t affect the location of your bullets, then all you have to do is aim better than your opponent.

Aimpunch isn’t only about feedback. Aimpunch is there so that you have no control when you’re being shot. Aimpunch is there so that you are rewarded for getting the jump on your opponent, and aimpunch is there so that you have to keep tracking your opponent.

It’s there so that your first reaction to being shot is to take cover, not to turn around and return fire

It’s there so that you learn to dodge and try to escape your opponents fire and turn the tables on them with some aimpunch of your own

It’s a mechanic specifically designed to @$!# up your bullets

If you remove the mechanic that @$!# up your bullets then you remove 90% of the strategy from the game

That’s what the pros like. A game with 1 best strategy so they can all focus on having the best aim.

Pros don’t like tactics

Pros don’t like strategy

Pros don’t like planning

Pros don’t like thinking on the fly

Pros just want to aim at the head and win

I’m glad you put out your idea but the only reason why this game has any strategy at all is because of aimpunch.

And in all honesty, the aimpunch isn’t that jarring at all, and it’s not so bad that aiming is impossible. I never feel completely “out of control” with aimpunch and, if my only option is to shoot back, I don’t have a problem hitting my opponent. It makes HEADSHOTS a lot harder, but sometimes all you need to do is lay bullets into their chest while adadad’ing and adding some ducking in so that they lose their tracking and you get the beneficial aimpunch instead.

This is how I’ve always felt about aim punch, Veterans just want all weapons in this game to have no recoil and shoot like lasers so they can melt through people faster. Even at its current state Dirty Bombs aim punch and recoil is the lowest in almost any game I’ve played and it surprises me that Vets want even less.

I personally like it, I’m not anywhere near as good as the best players in this game and Aimpunch gives me a chance to play smarter and have some sort of fighting chance against a level 200 sweaty virgin Fragger, vets complain about the game not being competitive and then proceed to ask to remove mechanics that make the game competitive.


(Szakalot) #14

meh, imo the skill-gap closers are all the things OTHER than shooting: explosives, one hit fire supports, flashbangs, fires, super high HP or super high HP regeneration.

Why not keep the gunplay clean. I think the arguments that ‘good players want aim to be the win-all’ are very simplistic, considering all the other skills in the game, other than aim (map knowledge, abilities, movement, gamesense, teamplay)

edit: plus the idea that aimpunch is there so that you seek cover first before returning fire… i don’t really know what to say, it sounds like people are playing a completely different game


(bgyoshi) #15

@Szakalot said:
meh, imo the skill-gap closers are all the things OTHER than shooting: explosives, one hit fire supports, flashbangs, fires, super high HP or super high HP regeneration.

Why not keep the gunplay clean. I think the arguments that ‘good players want aim to be the win-all’ are very simplistic, considering all the other skills in the game, other than aim (map knowledge, abilities, movement, gamesense, teamplay)

edit: plus the idea that aimpunch is there so that you seek cover first before returning fire… i don’t really know what to say, it sounds like people are playing a completely different game

It’s there so that seeking cover first is more feasible and enticing than returning fire right away. When your aim is at the top level, the aimpunch you receive will throw you off enough that returning fire isn’t really an option anymore. Playing casuals and casual ranked like what’s happening now, there are few who have that kind of aim, and it’s almost always possible to have some return fire. Like I said… dodging and jumping around to try and turn the table.

Teamplay is irrelevant in 5v5. There’s too few people to warrant any team strategy aside from just running in a 5-man ball. Flanking is risky, splitting up is losing, and sneaking around isn’t really a thing. You stick together, shoot at the enemy, it’s pretty boring.

Map knowledge is something everyone knows in competition. It really doesn’t affect the game much at all.

The abilities are great as they are now, but if aimpunch didn’t exist, then they would be largely useless unless they were one hit kills.

Same thing with high HP and high HP regeneration; neither of those things stand up to headshots from a high RoF weapon, which are just infinitely easier to maintain without aimpunch.

Aimpunch really is the core of the mould holding the tactics and abilities together in this game.


(Rémy Cabresin) #16

@bgyoshi said:
Pros don’t like tactics

Pros don’t like strategy

Pros don’t like planning

Pros don’t like thinking on the fly

Pros just want to aim at the head and win

This is entirely untrue, Pros want a field where all of these factors are decided mainly be team and player skill rather than elements of ‘non-control’(at a technical level you can say ‘well just aim for body shots to compensate for the effects of aimpunch that is control’, but then we are having a discussion about are we still promoting the importance of headshots properly). As someone who has played at the highest level in competitive activity peaks, I know that things like explosives/stategy/timing/positioning can all be, and imo SHOULD be, as impactful as aiming and the majority of high level players agree. Personally I feel that the “remove aimpunch or game ded” is just as stupid if not more stupid than the current implementation of aimpunch btw.

I entirely disagree with a lot of sentiment in the “Pros” community that everything should be decided by aim. This idea has become a trend purely because of the long term Sniper/Burst rifle meta that existed but before that as far back as early Alpha, DB has always known a balance between how much aim can do compared to other factors(mainly explosives/strategy/timing/coordination as a team etc). This was the same in Enemy Territory, which ofcourse a majority of DB is based on at a core level. But I do think that, and I know I’m not alone here and this isn’t a feeling that only exists in the competitive scene but in the casual scene aswell, DB has become a bit too favoring towards Abilities lately and I think a fair part of the Aimpunch discussion is an attempt to ‘reel it back’ to emphasize gunplay. There is plenty to be said about other changes that can be done to return slightly to the less ability ‘heavy’ gameplay DB set out with, personally I think other factors than aimpunch are larger issues here, but that doesn’t ‘invalidate’ that Aimpunch can be a better system than it is atm.

Also have to say that Aimpunch really isn’t what holds tactics and abilities together, or if it does it is at a very minor level for things like hitting a Kira trying to target her laser etc. Strategy/tactics/ability usage comes from timing/synergy/coordination. I know that these are less emphasized/practiced levels of gameplay in public and even Ranked, but if the ‘catchphrase’ is team focused shooter, then these should always be prioritized teamwide imo.

My proposal above doesn’t really diminish any of the values you describe you want as well, all the benefits you describe of aimpunch will still exist and you will still be able to use them to your advantage same as any other player, it just adds a layer that both you and the player you are shooting at benefit from.


(pumpkinmeerkat) #17

thanks for post. would be lovely of SD to join the discussion :smile: was never a huge fan of the way aimpunch was implemented in DB but the most recent changes are a step in the wrong direction IMO.

@Exedore
@massE
@stayfreshshoe


(henki000) #18

I think aimpunch should be more effective. Skill gap in Dirty Bomb is already at very high level. “Pro” players can wipe entire team of new players alone. Thus making game too difficult and unfair experience for masses. It’s unrealistic appearance. I think aimpunch with it’s rng effect give new players better chance to fight back or atleast get that one important revenge kill. If they strike “pro” player from behind and get positional advantage. If there is no aimpunch, it would make high damage/slow rof weapons more effective. Along with sniper rifle, how about Javelins rocket? Would people like that rockets does not suffer any aimpunch? I’m surprised how much people want those weapons nerfed, but same time, same people, would buff those with aimpunch removal. Without aimpunch there is too much vision and focus for health balance. Players will be avoiding enemies they know they cant beat. And pro players will find new players camping more in spawn.


([ *O.C.B.* ] Wildcard) #19

@bgyoshi said:
Teamplay is irrelevant in 5v5. There’s too few people to warrant any team strategy aside from just running in a 5-man ball. Flanking is risky, splitting up is losing, and sneaking around isn’t really a thing. You stick together, shoot at the enemy, it’s pretty boring.

That statement is not only slightly misleading but entirely untrue as that completely ignores everything that happens in the gameplay aside from the team fights that will occur at times within that setting. If you ignore every other part of the map, outside of when all 5 members are in the same exact spot as the other 5 players, then yes its fight in a 5man group or fail; but there is more that goes on during a game than that as such fights mostly occur during the defense of an objective point outside of specific scenarios (making it situational and thus no longer feasible as an example of the current norms).

Underground is an example of this as you can have a Nader take down one gen while the other has C4 planted on it; this is then followed by the Engineer moving to the roof to meet up with the rest of the team to drop down as the right-lane door is opened by Nader, with minor variation on placement depending on team composition. An Aura/Rhino combo alters this so that they will position themselves either on the roof or the right-lane door ,to help create a crossfire with anyone holding roof via the opened door, to help cover the C4; this creates a good deal of pressure as many areas are seemingly being assaulted at once, and covering all of them in such a short span of time in a 5v5 format is extremely difficult assuming a balanced match. You are still fighting together but you are not in a 5-man Ball as you put it; a 5-man ball is basically asking to get wiped by a few well placed explosives and is not at all feasible in the current or even prior meta-game as what you described implies a very closed formation.

Now perhaps this is merely something lost in translation due to poor word choice or ambiguously constructed commentary, as that is entirely possible, but the way you phrased this gives off more of a description of a Zerg Rush as opposed to what usually happens within DBN Competitive play; not that it doesn’t occur but it is not typically the go-to strategy as a single Fragger and/or Stoker can heavily impede such an attempt, if not cause heavy casualties to those attempting it.


(Teflon Love) #20

@henki000 said:
I think aimpunch with it’s rng effect give new players better chance to fight back or atleast get that one important revenge kill.

As someone with an aim as bad as the average new player’s, I can state that no iteration of aim punch ever made any difference to me.