Sniper

(INF3RN0) #141

[QUOTE=tokamak;210858]It´s important but not defining. Aim helps you win the game but it doesn´t win you the game alone. Hence the instagib comparison where it´s all about aiming (okay and movement). But never mind that, it was a stupid digression anyway.

Agreed with most of what you said.

I would love to have tweakable guns, you can add stuff to it, but at a price (like in COD and R6) the more you add to it, the heavier the gun becomes the more spread you get. In R6 this was incredibly fun as you find yourself going back to the drawing board frequently to get a gun that performed optimally for what you planned to do with it.

Then again I have no idea how this plays out in brink, maybe a set of clear and defined weapons is good enough and it doesn´t need all the shades between them.[/QUOTE]

FYI not getting on your case, just some questions since quite a few seem to share your views :tongue:. I am curious if you like the QW weapon damage system? It is something like 5 headshots to a kill I think (I only go by what I aim for so not sure what the body shot count is). I personally enjoy this in comparison to a COD insta kill (practically) or even a wolf 3 head shot kill. It allows you to take advantage of your mobility in an effect that if you can out maneuver and still keep a good aim on your opponent your going to win. Hit boxes are based on size and location, ie your head is the smallest and most mobile target making it the hardest to hit. If you still think the 1.5 sniper rifle is an instagib weapon, maybe you should have tried the 1.2 one lol. 1.5 is extremely difficult to use in comparison, and especially if your opponent is moving like mad. If you get someone who doesn’t know how to move your going to kill them fast, but just as quick as with any weapon at all. QW has adequate movement speeds in my opinion to balance with its importance to aim. The ability to improve in these areas is going to differ between players of course. This is similar to a players ability to use any weapon at all. I feel that an assault rifle in the hands of a good sniper is going to more “insta gib” with a faster RoF, more ammo, and increased movement speed (if they hit mostly all head shots). Objective modes further balance the importance of moving/aiming by forcing you to achieve something more. This is why I think it is still important to aim, but you can offset it by decreasing damage, increasing spread, increasing movement speed, etc. There is a downside to this though, as those who are better at compensating for factors that would potentially make it harder to aim. I personally accept when I am out matched individually, which is usually my own fault and not the game’s. But with a game that offers as much tactical and teamwork play as these games do, there are many ways to render aiming obsolete or to outplay someone with good aim, but the bad part is that most of the time it requires teamwork. To name a few things that successfully offset aim, turrets, mines, grenades, outnumbered fire fights, vehicles, etc. Basically by adding elements like this you keep aim important, but not the heart and sole of game play. I would say that in the end aim is only 25% of the greater picture (at least in these types of games).

(Stroggafier) #142

[QUOTE=shirosae;210844]Responses to the entire thread:
Brink doesn’t have aim as it’s defining skill:
Don’t be silly. It’s an FPS where you use guns to shoot at people. The console version has that gravity well aim-assist thing, which isn’t as effective as giving you regular console FPS autoaim. If that’s isn’t an attempt to keep aim important, I don’t know what is.
[/QUOTE]

I’d say that’s an attempt at making aiming less important (not more). i.e. let the autoaim or aiming-well take care of the aiming details. What it leaves is “point” rather than “aim” as a technique. Its this subtle difference that I believe allows the game to progress past the mechanics of the firefight into arguably a more emotional free-for-all feeling when in firefights. It also allows for the use of less “accurate” tools in favour of more ergonomic tools (I’m referring to keyboard versus controller) and for less controlled movemeent in favour of SMART movement.

(shirosae) #143

Typical console autoaim: Gun locks onto targets within a certain radius of your aim.

Brink gravity well thingy: Your analog sticks become more sensitive when there’s an enemy behind you and less so when in front, so you can lower your stick sensitivity to do better aiming without crippling yourself with massive turn times.

The system could completely remove the ability for fine aiming like a regular console FPS autoaim, but doesn’t. If it’s an attempt to make aiming less important it’s the worst backfire in the history of backfires, because it does exactly the opposite.

(MILFandCookies) #144

I personally wouldn’t confuse the statement: “its either swim or sink for a lot of games” to mean they are making a baby pool.

(INF3RN0) #145

I really hope not because that is basically what has been happening in the last few years :mad:.

(H0RSE) #146

the “sink or swim” line, to me anyway, just let’s gamers know that when they start up Brink, they won’t need to be a hardened FPS veteran to play it. And even if you are a veteran, it will incorporate a lot of things that just make the game less of a hassle to play. Also things like voice chat defaults to off (on console, I don’t think it is defaulted to ‘off’ I think it is set to only hear your friends), the SMART system and the “arrow navigator” on the screen to help you find objectives, just makes the game more accessible to all gamers, without taking away from the game. f course, these options can be disabled as well.

Brink will still have great gameplay and depth. It will just make it so players can access all the features with minimal effort.

(Stroggafier) #147

You are correct to say that “easier” does not directly mean “less importanct”. However, making something easier by any means, still allows the player to focus less on that activity and more on other things (or conversely requires less expertise in that task to move forward in skillful play). Making it easier to hit your opponent, whether through aim assist, turn assist, more rounds, or more damage, allows the player to refocus on other game elements. Hence indirectly, aiming becomes less important to the player. In this context, the actual technicality of how its made easier is not that important. The actual technique might still be important from other perspectives, such as making the firefight seem more fluid (e.g. no snap-to head shots, no instagib) or more intense (e.g. closer range, less weapon damage).

Edit: Agreed, @HORSE, this will allow Brink to have broader interest and gameplay and allow more rapid learning by players new to this genre.

(knippon) #148

I don’t mind Brink welcoming more players, but I don’t think adjusting to the lowest common denominator would be good for anyone. So I hope there will be a good balance between letting FPS newcomers learn on their own and FPS veterans who want to compete at the highest level.

(Stroggafier) #149

What does “competing at the highest level” mean? In any game, there will be players that excel at that particular game. Brink will be no different.

What may be different are the game peculiar winning “skills”. i.e. a paradym shift. For example, the “skill” of coordinating your mouse to point at the head pixels while simultaneously hitting WSAD keys may be displaced a little by other button combos or by having to anticipate different events.

(knippon) #150

When I say “highest level” I’m talking about letting better players excel at what they do and not be punished by the game to level the playing field for players not as proficient.

They key combinations may change but the concept will always be the same. The most accurate shooters who have the most elusive movement should be rewarded.

(Stroggafier) #151

Replace “accurate” with “effective” and you may have the new paradyme that we are talking about.
i.e. Focus on results but not necessarily on the same methods as before.

(knippon) #152

I have no clue what you’re talking about when you mention the new paradyme but if accuracy is not a factor then I don’t think I want any part of it. Thats like saying baseball players should use a tee to hit the ball so they can concentrate on base running and fielding.

Having said that I have no problem with console players getting aim assist as they are disadvantaged by the controller. Please keep those elements out of pc gamers.

(INF3RN0) #153

The standard FPS system works fine for getting kills, Aim/Shoot/move , but you don’t have to kill the system to change how you win the game. You can make shooting harder, but then it becomes less friendly. You can make it easier, but then it becomes insta-gib. You can make a game where kills are determined by who completes a puzzle first. There are going to be guns, your going to have to aim, and if that’s not enough you can think of yourself as a pro “objective” player or the fastest guy at getting from A to B. If people can’t cope with being taken down by more competent players simply because they can’t hit anything, then its time for a new genre of game.

(Stroggafier) #154

I’d bet accuracy will still be in the equation, but it will simply be a little easier for everyone to be more accurate.

+1 INF3RNO

(BioSnark) #155

Yes, and I hope it’s on a mouse an keyboard… so we can see how fast people go down without the missing :wink:

(H0RSE) #156

When I say “highest level” I’m talking about letting better players excel at what they do and not be punished by the game to level the playing field for players not as proficient.

What do you mean by “punished by the game to level the playing field for players not as proficient?”

Brink isn’t going to be like, “Hey! you’re too good…why don’t you tone it down a notch before I tone it down for you…”

If you’re good, you’re good. If you’re not, you’re not. Brink is just trying to make it fun for everyone, no matter how ‘good’ you are at the game.

Having said that I have no problem with console players getting aim assist as they are disadvantaged by the controller. Please keep those elements out of pc gamers.
aim assist is typically “console only” territory. If they were to put it on PC (which I doubt they will) the PC has the advantage to set server settings like games with no aim assist, either through in-game settings or user created mods.

(signofzeta) #157

having aim assist on PC shooters I feel is a huge disadvantage. Don’t you hate it when your crosshairs snaps to your opponent’s chest and not his head?

(brbrbr) #158

agree, but this feat can be leaved on “consoles” versions, because this make “console” gamers feel less impaired[than they actually are in terms of platform peropherals].
at least for offline gameplay.

(Nail) #159

methinks the “joke” was mis-interpreted, aim assist on PC is an “aimbot” ie: cheat

It’s the main reason Pc gamers look down on console players, especially in shooters. The analogue gamepad can’t compare to the digital mouse for control so consoles need auto-aim, mouse gives far more precision control

(tokamak) #160

Well there’s more to it than just shots, you basically need to count all the factors and then look at the average time it takes to kill a player. In Raven Shield it’s 1/2 shots and you’re out, however because the movement is slow and the spread is wide (unless you’re holding still) players can be engaged in a very long duel, so even with the high vulnerability the ‘shoot out time’ is quite long but also frantic, the fights CAN take long but many deaths are the result of looking the wrong way or blinking at the wrong moment.

Now take UT2004, lots of monillity, very accurate weapons, but also very low damage. It takes very long to kill a player. An even more extreme example is Metroid Echoes, where it takes 100 shots (!!!) with your normal weapon to kill the other player. In these games, tactics are completely void. You don’t have to be worry about players jumping on you or using cover, when they see you they’ll have to engage in the long process of withering you down and you have lots of chances to combat them in a long ballet of jumping around each other.

So no, to that extend, I don’t like it when players can use their mobility to their advantage because in this sense it means that there’s no deeper tactics available. It’s fun for an arcade shooter but the thrill is just gone. It feels like playing street fighter with guns.

COD did it wrong as well. It’s a wrong combination of high mobility and instant kills, same for counterstrike btw.

As for Quake Wars, I think that players take a tad too long to die. But then again, we need to keep in mind that there are objectives going on as well. There’s a very fragile balance of fighting over an objective or just killing everyone and doing the objective in a cleared out room, or just never getting to the objective because you’re too busy duelling with other players. Best comparission would be TF2, even though the players take much longer too die as well, but TF2 lays the emphasis on combat and QW on the objectives. In TF2 the objectives are just an excuse to get as many players near a choke point as possible

All in all I hope that in Brink it takes a bit less time to kill players in QW.

As for a spread system, I really love what Shattered Horizon did, the guns are pretty accurate and you can kill from very long distances, but the gun really gets out of control if you simply squeeze the trigger and it takes a pretty long time for the spread to fall back again. This means that as long as you remain cool, you can be the unstoppable killing machine*, but when your in a compromised situation, outnumbered or surprised you can squeeze the trigger fend off players as much as you can in a panic attack. It results in a huge damage output but if you don’t manage to kill them fast enough you’re toast because you’re left with a wildly inaccurate gun.

It’s just perfect for a game involving objectives. Plus it also helps the whole ‘drown/swim’ dilemma. Newbies always stand a chance of killing just one player with one intense bullet spray, but the real pro’s will want to stick with controlled bursts to REALLY stand a chance in the long therm.

*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoNEVU84fTs&fmt=37 (oh and this video was meant to demonstrate how the normal gun can be more effective than a sniper, because the range at which these kills are executed is normally reserved for the sniper in SH)