Community Question: Spread vs Recoil

(tokamak) #61

I’m glad we agree on how incredibly important strategic area control was in R6. That’s what I believe tactical shooters should be about. Giving a players a bit more life allows for more flexibility and action and stops one player from completely dominating certain locations (which was great in R6 team survival, but not in an assault based ET game). The rest of your remarks deserve no further comment.

(SockDog) #62

Some thoughts.

Any single round weapon should be accurate to where you point it, lets leave the skill in actually using the mouse and movement to get a shot rather than instituting fake hurdles or just randomness.

Multishot weapons such as shotguns should have a fixed spread pattern that widens over distance. This way it’s predictable but not unrealistic.

If you must have spread then implement it via the crosshair. Move the actual crosshair and make the player compensate with finer aim.

Ultimately though, just let the player’s aim and movement decide the outcome.

A questions back to SD. What benefit do you feel it brings the actual game to have 1000 weapons available short of commercial appeal?

(tokamak) #63

A moving crosshair (essentially recoil) means there’s a new random seed implemented as well as no restabilisation after the shot. This means that the inaccuracy of a weapon rapidly escalates plus you end up with your weapon pointing somewhere you never planned for in the first place. Spread allows the player to keep pointing the exact same direction and just apply a field of damage precisely where he wants, the only thing that changes is the cone of fire.

In essence this is the difference between the Maximus (recoil) and the Chinzor (spread). A hyperblaster on the other hand, has bit of both. The high general inaccuracy of both weapons definitely didn’t compensate for playing a heavy in general but I think there’s definitely place for all these weapons. Getting both variables only means more possible diversity.

(DarkangelUK) #64

Oh yeah, ET had no need for area control at all, neither does Q3 or the likes. Only tactical shooters require control, map timing, choke point domination, strategic player positioning, all other games the players just run around at random while spamming accurate weapon… are you honestly serious with that comment? Do you expect to get taken serious with that comment? You constantly want the game to make up for your failings rather than you having to work on them, I’m still laughing at the “it’s not fair” comment lol.

(tokamak) #65

In those games players are much less capable of controlling areas yeah. You’ll agree that’s a good thing because you just dismissed R6 for it’s emphasis on holding chokepoints yourself.

If you’re going to argue with me then please be sure to have a singular point. You’ll end up contradicting yourself less that way.

(SockDog) #66

[QUOTE=tokamak;404515]A moving crosshair (essentially recoil) means there’s a new random seed implemented as well as no restabilisation after the shot. This means that the inaccuracy of a weapon rapidly escalates plus you end up with your weapon pointing somewhere you never planned for in the first place. Spread allows the player to keep pointing the exact same direction and just apply a field of damage precisely where he wants, the only thing that changes is the cone of fire.

In essence this is the difference between the Maximus (recoil) and the Chinzor (spread). A hyperblaster on the other hand, has bit of both. The high general inaccuracy of both weapons definitely didn’t compensate for playing a heavy in general but I think there’s definitely place for all these weapons. Getting both variables only means more possible diversity.[/QUOTE]

I was making a point about the representation of spread. So rather than having a visual representation of aiming inaccuracy in a form that a player can then compensate for, you’d rather imposed a hidden version that shoots where the cross hair is NOT pointing resulting in largely random outcomes.

Given the option I’d rather a game didn’t feel the need to add more crutches just to feign “choice” and “skill”. Again this is trying to put in place a complicated, inaccurate simulation of reality rather than relying on the simpler solution that is a player’s ability to interact with the gameworld though their input method.

(INF3RN0) #67

CS is there if you want complex weapon spread/recoil mechanics, but that’s at the cost of losing “pure aim” and fast paced game play. ARMA is there if you want realistic tactical weapon mechanics, again at the same costs. ET is there when you want to run and gun at high speed with “hit or miss” weapon mechanics. ETQW already showed how recoil and spread could be implemented into the system, so let’s keep going with what was working best. Recoil on heavy weapons, spread bloom at appropriate distances per weapon type, etc etc. Makes perfect sense to me- end of discussion.

(DarkangelUK) #68

[QUOTE=tokamak;404517]In those games players are much less capable of controlling areas yeah. You’ll agree that’s a good thing because you just dismissed R6 for it’s emphasis on holding chokepoints yourself.

If you’re going to argue with me then please be sure to have a singular point. You’ll end up contradicting yourself less that way.[/QUOTE]

Did I dismiss them? I’m assuming due to your lack of knowledge of Q3 you’re probably limited the games area control because of item picksups, did you know there are other game types? Clan Arena is the most popular Quake Live game type, all weapons, no pickups, limited ammo… heavy emphasis on teamwork and area control and restricting choke points. No idea what capability has to do with it, it’s still required regardless… oh look, no contradiction.

I like how you’re preaching tactics yet buckle at the thought of having to use some. Ok so some guy is vaulting a box with an accurate weapon, you can either take advantage of the situation and get the key 1st hits in while he’s in motion because all you’re having to do is aim and shoot, reposition to counter the advantage he’s trying to give himself, or just deal with it when he reaches the position dispersing any advantage he tried to gain… or you could cry “its not fair!”, stand still like a sitting duck and get hit then complain to the devs that he should be punished for out-thinking, out-manoeuvring and out-aiming you.

(tokamak) #69

I get that. Recoil is much more representative than spread because your bullets keep landing exactly on your crosshair. It’s just that I think what you’re proposing right now may not be what you’re after if I look at the rest of what you said.

CS has incredibly tight weapons. It’s what I think of when I see what you, DAUK and Shirosae are arguing for. If that’s not the case then I’ll retract that but I’ll be confused at what it is you really want.

(INF3RN0) #70

[QUOTE=tokamak;404522]

CS has incredibly tight weapons. It’s what I think of when I see what you, DAUK and Shirosae are arguing for. If that’s not the case then I’ll retract that but I’ll be confused at what it is you really want.[/QUOTE]

Have you played CS?? It’s a “stand still shooter” and the weapon interactions chew away at the game pace. I like it sure as its own thing, but I like ET more for all said reasons.

(tokamak) #71

It’s pure run and gun with an icing of quickscope.

(DarkangelUK) #72

So no then, you’ve not played it.

(SockDog) #73

I was giving multiple ideas under the topic, they were not intended to be a single cohesive idea.

As such, I said instead of drawing a large circle and saying, “bullets will land somewhere here, enjoy the randoms”. You instead draw a point within that circle under which the bullet will land. This is no different than someone actually exerting themselves and then trying to aim. Such a system allows a small degree of control over the spread and as such is no longer a totally random crap shoot.

In fact as I type this I realise where I got the idea from. ARMA/DayZ does exactly this after you’ve been sprinting.

Of course I’ll repeat myself and say I think it’s unnecessary in the sort of games SD makes. I just wouldn’t want to see that fact ignored and them multiplied by sticking to some randomised circle.

(tokamak) #74

I don’t see much issue with such an indicator actually. In a way it will help enhance the feeling of how much spread a player is dealing with. My only fear is that it might be distracting but as long as it’s optional then sure, it may or may not be an advantage depending on how you few it.

(shirosae) #75

CS is not even slightly run and gun. I played it for a few months around 2001/2002 and got bored, moving on to DoD, which balanced lotto spread with recoil that skill could compensate for.

If this confuses you, perhaps you should stop posting for a while and just read the conversation that happens when you’re not derailing it?

(tokamak) #76

It’s really simple. If you don’t move in CS then you’re dead. Constant movement is integral to it’s gameplay. Same goes for Brink. The spread is high anyway so you might as well keep moving.

(DarkangelUK) #77

Yup, definitely hasn’t played it.

(tokamak) #78

Keep an eye on the crosshair. Movement just doesn’t influence it. And even burst-fire hardly has does a thing to the spread. At 1:05 he even jumps and it doesn’t matter at all.

//youtu.be/FsPsvuQ13vo

It’s that I’m so used to being right otherwise this would be awkward.

(shirosae) #79

Hey look, I managed to get a kill from ten feet away by spraying a full mag across some dude’s chest and like six feet of wall with a gun that can kill with two headshots.

EDIT: Actually, you know what? I’m not playing the Tokamak game anymore.

I genuinely want a discussion about balancing between spread and recoil with sane people.

(Humate) #80

^thats not nice :frowning: