Community Question: Spread vs Recoil

(shirosae) #141

FPS encounters are a zero sum game. As soon as one player’s spread gives them the headshots, the other player’s spread stops tossing coins.

The critical factor is not the accuracy over 15 shots, but who gets enough hits in first to get the kill. As the average number of shots required to get a kill rises above the number of hits required to get a kill, the lottery tends to 50/50 incredibly quickly, because those initial shots as one person catches another off guard mean less and less.

As shots taken are worth less and less, the duration of encounter lengthens, because it takes longer periods of fire to score your hits on average. That extra time allows players to move, duck, find cover, because returning fire isn’t as important. If anything, random spread destroys the value of cover and strategy, because it doesn’t matter if you thought about it in advance of just grabbed some after the fight starts.

DO NOT WANT.

(MoonOnAStick) #142

[QUOTE=shirosae;404667]It occurs to me that if you really wanted to offer the same tedious slow turtle gameplay that almost every other FPS has offered for the past few years, you could do it by replacing spread with a damage modifier based on the same stance/movement curves. Over several thousand shots you get a distribution of damage identical to spread, but the distribution keeps the same shape with small sample sizes.

Spread is pretty much literally the worst option available. Random distributions don’t work on small samples.[/QUOTE]
But the number of bullets fired in one round is huge. 1000? 10000?
No reason why you couldn’t scale damage so that the average for N bullets has a similar distribution to whatever you ended up with from a hit-or-miss spread model. The central limit theorem provides a convenient way to do that. I suspect the end result would feel pretty similar (the damage dealt over a 20 minute round would hopefully be identical.)

The critical factor is not the accuracy over 15 shots, but who gets enough hits in first to get the kill. As the average number of shots required to get a kill rises above the number of hits required to get a kill, the lottery tends to 50/50 incredibly quickly, because those initial shots as one person catches another off guard mean less and less.

I’ll admit my probability theory is rather rusty, but wouldn’t any sensible distribution assign the highest probability of hitting a point to those times when the cursor is positioned over it? If one player gets in some early, off-guard, shots and then both players keep their cross-hairs trained on each others faces, the player with the early shots still has an advantage. Only now there’s a non-zero probability that the other chap could win.

On topic - I’ve got no problem with a (small) simulated random element. Real life isn’t predictable. From the gust of wind as your sniper round travels through the air, to the bird taking a s*** on your head as you depress the SMG trigger. All part of nature’s rich tapestry. Not sure it adds any particular depth. If players can’t predict or influence a random component then does it do anything more than make a weapon unattractive beyond a certain range?

(tokamak) #143

As the average number of shots required to get a kill rises above the number of hits required to get a kill

Wait, what?

(shirosae) #144

[QUOTE=MoonOnAStick;404674]But the number of bullets fired in one round is huge. 1000? 10000?
No reason why you couldn’t scale damage so that the average for N bullets has a similar distribution to whatever you ended up with from a hit-or-miss spread model. The central limit theorem provides a convenient way to do that. I suspect the end result would feel pretty similar (the damage dealt over a 20 minute round would hopefully be identical.)[/quote]

The number of bullets fired in one round isn’t really important. The number of bullets fired in an individual exchange is important, because it’s that behaviour that determines whether the outcome of exchanges are based on skill or a lottery.

I’m not convinced there are enough random factors in a player versus player bullet exchange for the central limit theorem to apply on the scale we need.

Depends on the shots required / hits required ratio. If it were 16/15, then you effectively don’t see much quantisation because almost all bullets go where they’re supposed to. If it’s 4/1, then you would expect your first three bullets to miss most of the time, which is 3 bullets firing worth of time that your shooting doesn’t matter most of the time.

It also slows gunplay down, because everything takes longer. But yeah, basically this.

(tokamak) #145

We’re not discussing spread that can’t be influenced or is difficult to influence. I hate it and everyone else seems to hate it as well.

(Apples) #146

Spread by nature cant be predicted, I’m still wondering why you guys are having this endless debate… Its a three dimensional cone of fire we’re talking about, not tossing a coin…

If you can calculate and predict exactly where your bullet will land with a random spread algorithm while you are shooting, I salute you rain man!

As long as there is random added, the firefight is moot, because even if two people are exact same good at sticking their Xhair on eachothers face, one bullet can miss and the other can hit, as there is a non zero probability that the bullet will not go where you pointed you crosshair, you can narrow it down all you want, random is still random, even if characterised by a distribution law, you have still non null probability that the bullet will go “far” away from your maximum probability, and this ad lotto, and this can make a total noob win a firefight, even if he wins one firefight over 100, its still a firefight he won just by random mecanism and not by outgunning his opponent.

My 2 cents of euros (better keep it, economy is bad)

(shirosae) #147

If 15 shots fired leads to 3 headshots on average, that is a hilarious lottery. If that ratio stays at 5 to 1 whilst hip firing or running or whilst jumping over boxes, or gets larger, it’s still a hilarious lottery. 5 to 1 is so ridiculous that dynamic or not isn’t even in the picture yet.

The only way a 5 to 1 shot/hit ratio is not a hilarious lottery is if that is some freaky outlandish extreme scenario and your spread is not normally a 5 to 1 shot/hit ratio. Which is what pretty much everyone else is asking for; that most of their bullets to go where they’re aimed.

Spread is the worst option available.

This is the thing I don’t think people get: they talk about spread patterns like it’s okay if after 10,000 bullets you have a smooth distribution with a peak in the centre. It isn’t, because individual player engagements don’t happen on the scale of 10,000 bullets. They happen on scales of a few bullets, where either your bullet goes where you aimed or it doesn’t. Quantisation effects are massive, and overpower everything else incredibly quickly.

Both Brink and ETQW vanilla to some extent had overdone spread, and we even had one of the SD devs on here after Brink talking about ‘perfectly predictable’ circular spread. I’m trying to convince SD that they need to balance guns over a few bullets and not over thousands of bullets for their gameplay to avoid lottery status.

(tokamak) #148

You’re simply still stuck in the era where a multiplayer match consisted predominantly of big manly men doing back flips and rocket jumps with huge precise guns meeting head on in combat. Those games are still there, they’re still being played, but game development has moved on since then. Dexterity being the predominant factor in firefights is lame as hell. However, should you truly value it then there are already tons of true classics that have turned that dexterity mettle into a complete, lovingly polished art. There’s absolutely nothing to be improved about it.

The cerebral and creative aspects of games however, are still pathetically underdeveloped. This is what guarantees a truly fulfilling experiences, gaming sessions with originality and a strong narrative. There’s a world to win here.

(Senethro) #149

crouches, scopes

NARRATIVE GENIUS!!!

A WORLD IS WON

(tokamak) #150

The other extreme would be instagib. Imagine ETQW with instagib (and zero spread with high headshot damage comes close to it). All tactics fall away, classes no longer matter, upgrades no longer matter, even team work hardly matters. Just a bunch of people running around in highly chaotic firefights that can last very long yet end within the blink of an eye.

A tactical shooter should be more than just a series of stand offs.

(SockDog) #151

[QUOTE=tokamak;404699]You’re simply still stuck in the era where a multiplayer match consisted predominantly of big manly men doing back flips and rocket jumps with huge precise guns meeting head on in combat. Those games are still there, they’re still being played, but game development has moved on since then. Dexterity being the predominant factor in firefights is lame as hell. However, should you truly value it then there are already tons of true classics that have turned that dexterity mettle into a complete, lovingly polished art. There’s absolutely nothing to be improved about it.

The cerebral and creative aspects of games however, are still pathetically underdeveloped. This is what guarantees a truly fulfilling experiences, gaming sessions with originality and a strong narrative. There’s a world to win here.[/QUOTE]

So you think breaking something that is polished to introduce something that adds faux skill/tactics/strategy is an improvement? Sounds more like a desperate attempt to wrestle away actual skill and ability and instead level the playing field.

Seriously you’re like the anti-occam of game design, complicate everything in the hope it adds to the game when in actual fact it detracts more. Honestly why aren’t you playing Brink more, it’s everything you always describe in a game.

(tokamak) #152

Yes. Dexterity and Cerebral skill are in the same field of tension. The more weight the one gains, the more weight the other one loses. I still recognise the importance of both but I see dexterity only as a means to carry out your tactics with higher fidelity. As intangible as both are, I still believe a 7:3 or 8:2 cerebral/dexterity ratio is what makes a game exciting. Or to put things in perspective:

Counterstrike 2:8 (1:9 for the classic)
W:ET 4:6
ETQW: 6:4
R6 RS: 9:1
ARMA: 10:0

As for complexity. There are different ways of achieving that. Stratego is a more complicated game with more different pieces than Chess from the outset. Chess however, is capable of reaching infinitely more complexity with simple pieces.

Or for video games, take LoL, with what, 100+ different playable characters with each their set of three upgradeable special skills and a whole host of different items? The skillset valued most here is knowing all these different factors by heart so you know what to do.

Rather than that I’d like to see games using simple principles that then interact with each other in other to create a wealth of diversity. It’s amazing what happens to a relatively mundane shooter when you start adding heartbeat sensors, tear gas, gas masks, smoke, flash, frags, jammers, decoys, heat sensors and (destructible) doors to the mix.

A player needs to posses over a two or three toys in which he can profoundly change a battle (mind you, change, not determine). That’s what would make a game extremely fulfilling to play. However, in order for these toys to matter at all, the emphasis on dexterity ought to be compromised.

(DarkangelUK) #153

Add a fake, broken mechanic and pretend it’s depth by hiding it behind rhetorics… sure fire winner that one :rolleyes:

oh look, he’s wandered off the beaten path again because the actual subject matter isn’t convincing… deja vu? Apparently as soon as you remove spread, everything else gets removed and no one has to think about anything ever.

(tokamak) #154

The actual subject matter is weapon variance which nobody seems to be interested in discussing at all.

(DarkangelUK) #155

Oh they do, just not with you as it seems all you want to do is break them to make them unique, then prance around spewing “DEPTH! DEPTH!”. It was probably veered off course by yourself as usual.

(tokamak) #156

I won’t apologise for taking the discussion to something people are far more interested in. But taking it from page 1 you at least deserve equal credit.

(INF3RN0) #157

Toka, you’re not smart. End of discussion? Not being trolly either, just getting bored of your repetitively pretentious nature. The underlying theme in every idea you contribute is that you somehow think it will give you (just you) “cerebral advantage”; most of the time backed by assumptions and selfish desire. My biggest problem however is the fact that you present every idea like you are some sort of unrecognized genius with experience in every type of scenario and no one else knows better- point being your the farthest from. You should really expand your mind past the parts of FPS games that stunt your growth or just learn to master them, after which you might notice that there’s plenty of thinking mini-games for you to enjoy. If that’s not enough, I suggest you focus on finishing your math degree.

(Humate) #158

The actual subject matter is weapon variance which nobody seems to be interested in discussing at all.

I am, and I actually agree that players should learn the strengths/weaknesses of the weapon as well as be able to outaim their opponent.The risk/reward mechanics associated with stance/movement/firingmode dont have to be based on spread though.

(tokamak) #159

Alright, apologies.We’ll keep the amount of spread conversation for another time then.

(BioSnark) #160

Question for everyone using the term “lotto/lottery” with regards to spread.

Would each shot being represented as a damage cone with higher damage numbers in the center and drop-off on the edges be more acceptable? Is the randomness your issue with spread or is it that it alters the skill curve or both? Or would this change be too obvious of an abstraction of a bullet? Just wondering.

Obviously distorted example as a top-down view where the shooter (firing a single shot) is at the point of the cone aiming south-east:

RedCone.jpg606×706 39.1 KB


legend: lightest = highest damage