Community Question: Spread vs Recoil

(badman) #1

Guns! They’re a big part of shooters and, one might argue, the main characters you interact with. But how does one differentiate similar weapons from one another to make every single one a meaningful addition to the arsenal? Beyond obvious things like rate of fire, the two main protagonists we’re looking at here are spread (increasing/decreasing the cone of fire based on distance to target) and recoil (kickback exhibited by the weapon while firing it). This brings us to this week’s community question:

What’s your preferred way of differentiating weapons of the same type in a shooter?

Please cast your vote in the poll above and do share any thoughts you have on the issue in the comments. We look forward to your replies! Pew.

(light_sh4v0r) #2

Quake/ETQW style weapon differentiation is best in my opinion. No need for more than 10 guns.
And please keep the spread low. (in all fairness the spread in Brink worked quite well for me considering the game never ran better than 10 fps, I needed every bit of luck I could get :tongue:)

(Breo) #3

A combination of spread and recoil.

Both are added for balance in games and those physics exist in reallife aswell (Newton’s law of motion).
One of the most difficult part is to balance the weapons if the spread/recoil are decreased the damage and rate of fire need to be adjusted aswell or you will have instant deaths without gunfights.

(edxot) #4

Breo, you completely missed the point here. it’s like this:

  • make 12 new maps for etqw and a ranking system who forces players to play all 12 maps and both sides, based on xp/min.
  • now ? maybe we can do it next year.
  • not next year, now. make 12 new maps for etqw and a ranking system who forces players to play all 12 maps and both sides, based on xp/min.
  • xp/min ? dont you prefer k/d, w/l, or maybe something else ?
  • no. make 12 new maps for etqw and a ranking system who forces players to play all 12 maps and both sides, based on xp/min.
  • new maps ? what kind ? terran maps ? alien maps ?
  • whatever. make 12 new maps for etqw and a ranking system who forces players to play all 12 maps and both sides, based on xp/min.
  • why use same spread and recoil ? we could change that.
  • no. make 12 new maps for etqw and a ranking system who forces players to play all 12 maps and both sides, based on xp/min.
  • again etqw ? dont you prefer a new game instead ?
  • no. make 12 new maps for etqw and a ranking system who forces players to play all 12 maps and both sides, based on xp/min.
    …

SD, please come to portugal in your vacancies. you will fit just perfectly.

(TheG4mer) #5

Why isn’t this edxot troll not banned yet?

(edxot) #6

troll ? some people have no sense of humor.

(Dthy) #7

You really like the number 12 don’t you edxot. Also, and I’m not sure if this is intentional, but you’ve managed to say “12” a total of 12 times. Time for a fun fact about 12. With the multiples of 12 (112, 26, 3*4) you can use addition to make 12 (((((6 - 2) + 3) + 4) + 1) = 12).

(edxot) #8

yes lol. it was coincidence:

btw
(((((6 - 2) + 3) + 4) + 1) = 12) <=> 6 - 2 + 3 + 4 + 1 = 12

(Beermachine) #9

Recoil every time over spread.

One of the big issues with spread based mechanics in objective orientated stopwatch style game modes is how it’s implemented related to movement.

On chokepoint style maps (all of RtCW, ET, Brink and quite a few sections of ETQW, mainly the last objectives) the defending team has a massive advantage (positioning, cover, less recoil while crouched, easier to aim while not moving, small area to cover with aim, easier medic revives, the list goes on and on).

The attacking team really needs no / very low spread while moving, jumping, sprinting like a maniac etc (generally being as unpredictable as possible to avoid easy headshots) to help overcome these advantages to be able to break through that point. With spread while moving, the gameplay eventually boils down into a slow paced, cautious, cover based tactical shooter style being optimal (with respawn times / locations / open maps with many flanking routes used to balance objective A vs D), or a CS style strafe, stop, strafe stop (with very low / instant spread refresh times). While both are fine, I much prefer the frantic arcade style with your team bursting through a chokepoint on mass with high speed fluid motion that I so loved in RtCW / ET.

Multiple weapons choices also really muddies the water, where the outer D and inner D’s can choice the weapons to best suit the areas they are defending, while the A team has to choose either more generic loadouts for both situations or go specialised, reducing their effectiveness.

Call me a traditionalist, but the trend of throwing loads of weapons into games as well as creating a nightmare for map / team balance once the tactics / strategies develop, also imo takes away some of the raw movement / aim skill aspect of a FPS.

Rather than both sides being on an even footing in a firefight (MP40 vs Thompson), the rock / paper / scissor / hard counter style of weapon balance means that no matter how well you played, if your opponent is at least semi decent the weapons involved will ultimately make the difference rather than the skill level of the players. Makes sense in tactical cover based shooters, but imo less so in arcade ones.

To be fair ET / QW did this balance very well, some variety in weapons, but the advantages / disadvantages of having the wrong weapon for your situation were generally not too severe in most cases.

Recoil’s a different and closely related subject that has a lot of effects on gameplay, but this posts long enough already!

(Humate) #10

Rather than both sides being on an even footing in a firefight (MP40 vs Thompson), the rock / paper / scissor / hard counter style of weapon balance means that no matter how well you played, if your opponent is at least semi decent the weapons involved will ultimately make the difference rather than the skill level of the players. Makes sense in tactical cover based shooters, but imo less so in arcade ones.

To be fair ET / QW did this balance very well, some variety in weapons, but the advantages / disadvantages of having the wrong weapon for your situation were generally not too severe in most cases.

The goal of the counters is to keep the opposing team honest in class balance.

(tokamak) #11

Like ETQW?

(DarkangelUK) #12

You must’ve been a hoot on the team if that’s how you played ETQW.

(tokamak) #13

Precisely my point. And ETQW did have spread while moving.

(DJScream) #14

Atleast for me ETQW was too slow paced and it had way too much spread. Again the promod fixed lots of issues but the game was too broken to be saved.

Beermachine makes lots of good points and it’s easy to agree to them.

(tokamak) #15

Well there we go then. I think ETQW nailed it even though I usually prefer a slower pace, and more nuanced fire-fights.

(DarkangelUK) #16

*looks at toks post
*looks at toks post count

aaahhhhhhhhhh

(.Chris.) #17

ET:QW wasn’t that slow paced.

The huge maps made the game feel slower than it really was. You’re typically given ample transport to reach the objective area so travel time is generally on par with previous games. However once you’ve used up all your vehicles or some tw@ takes a armadillo or bumblebee without any passengers, you have to trek a far distance to reach the objective which can take ages, a reason I never understood why 4v4 (no vehicles) ET:QW took off, even less fun if the other side still has vehicles roaming around and a few snipers. This excludes MCP objectives though which are slow paced and aren’t much fun ever thanks in part to having to deal with 100 deployables before you can gain 5m till they are all repaired again.

Anyway once you reach the main areas of contention things are anything but slow, the last stage on half of the maps, assuming you could reach them were typically my favorites and really show how fast paced the game can be, something I tried replicating on every stage of my custom maps, with varying success and failure, not that anyone tried them thanks to ranked servers…

Holy jebus, knocking on 8000 posts!

(tokamak) #18

Exactly. All the indoor objectives in ETQW are incredibly frantic. For the outdoor stuff you need vehicles and all they do is make the fight even more hectic.

For smaller games it would be fun to tailor the weapons to the smaller vehicles as well. Drop the rocket launcher, make the transport vehicles slightly more susceptible to bullets. Maybe turn the speeds a bit down so infantry is harder to avoid.

It would be interesting to see mechanised infantry happen in these sort of games. And even for bigger matches it’s fun to have the game revolve around several mechanised fire teams rather than a whole team flocking around uber vehicles.

(edxot) #19

[QUOTE=tokamak;405670]Exactly. All the indoor objectives in ETQW are incredibly frantic. For the outdoor stuff you need vehicles and all they do is make the fight even more hectic.

For smaller games it would be fun to tailor the weapons to the smaller vehicles as well. Drop the rocket launcher, make the transport vehicles slightly more susceptible to bullets. Maybe turn the speeds a bit down so infantry is harder to avoid.

It would be interesting to see mechanised infantry happen in these sort of games. And even for bigger matches it’s fun to have the game revolve around several mechanised fire teams rather than a whole team flocking around uber vehicles.[/QUOTE]

i would not drop the rocket launcher. but at least, it should have less ammo. imo 25% less ammo would make it more balanced.

(Humate) #20

The huge maps made the game feel slower than it really was. You’re typically given ample transport to reach the objective area so travel time is generally on par with previous games. However once you’ve used up all your vehicles or some tw@ takes a armadillo or bumblebee without any passengers, you have to trek a far distance to reach the objective which can take ages, a reason I never understood why 4v4 (no vehicles) ET:QW took off, even less fun if the other side still has vehicles roaming around and a few snipers. This excludes MCP objectives though which are slow paced and aren’t much fun ever thanks in part to having to deal with 100 deployables before you can gain 5m till they are all repaired again.

Yeh usually the amount of time it takes to get to the objective without a vehicle, is about the time a new one spawns anyway. Some players arent willing to wait, or they dont actually know thats what usually happens. Also not to start a debate on /kill, but its speeds up the game significantly as well when the team caps spawn. That said, the whole spawn re-capping in pub can put a damper on the pace of the game… and often players that do that, get told off by their own team-mates to “let them have it” - especially on slipgate /cough