Higby Wants Your Thoughts on Iron Sights for FPS.....

[T MAN]

While I've been giving certain FPS design decisions a thought lately, I came across several people talking about their issues with iron sights. One guy in particular was saying that if Half Life 3 is released, it should add iron sights as otherwise it would feel antiquated and lacking. Which is curious as never have I felt that Half Life or TF2 or all valve game needed iron sights.

Also saw the latest planetside 2 video at the9 and the iron sights particularly stood out to me and im sorry devs but i did NOT like them at all. If you cant make them better then I'd say remove them all together and make it like
Halo. they were just too 2d or something i dont know like no movement or recoil. if you go watch the video then compare them to other fps Cod, BF, Crysis 1 or 2 you'll see what i mean.

Iron sighting, from what I've seen, slows everything down. Some games have iron sightng with much more insane recoil even while iron sighting so there is still involves difficulty in aiming. Then CoD, with it's often tiny maps with extremely limited pathways and sluggish movement and iron sighting which has almost no recoil at all and instant deaths, just screams "easy" to me. And in my experience, it is easy.

Although that most likely is the problem with CoD on it's own rather than just Iron sighting. But from what I've experienced, over-reliance on iron sighting mechanics have a very profound effect the flow of gameplay, and it slows it down immensely.

I don't mind iron sights, really, and I can jump right into any of the newer iterations of CoD, BF or MoH and feel right at home. But while playing CS 1.6 the other day after a long time, I kind of remembered what I miss in modern military shooters - mobility while shooting. I did a fair share of strafing and bunny hopping while shooting in CS to make myself a harder target to hit, which I almost never do in CoD (unless I'm using a shotgun) or BF3 because your movement is restricted with your sights up.

While iron sights are a commendable feature for some (mostly tactical) manshoots (it was a welcome addition in New Vegas), I say bring on some FPS titles without it. This is precisely the reason why, which doesn't involve standing around during the shooty bits but a quite a large amount of dodging, running, circle strafing and jumping.

Higby also tweeted talking about adad in fights=fun, with iron sights then there will be no adad fights cause iron sights make mobility slower and combat slower."Skill" wasn't about who could fire off a shot first, it was about who could keep their target under the cross hairs while also keeping yourself out of the enemy's cross hairs. The ability to simultaneously sustain your aim and continuously dodge the attacks against a fast moving enemy who is also fighting back and dodging your projectiles at the same time was a demanding one.

Here's a good explanation of all the aim systems in fps: http://technicalgamedesign.blogspot.com/2011/04/aim-systems-in-first-person-shooters.html

From a purely gameplay perspective, what's your view on iron sights?

Here's some quotes from what other people think about iron sights in fps

"Iron sights generally make combat less mobile, which is more realistic and helps balance stuff like snipers, but can also be a lot less fun. Honestly, I think there's room for both, but some games (bulletstorm, borderlands) would be better served by something like an alt-fire"

"Ever played an old school FPS like Quake, Enemy Territory or Counter Strike that lack ironsights, or even Halo? They take much, much more skill than any of the games that are overly reliant on them such as CoD of BFBC2. It's not the actual act of aiming down the sights that sucks the skill out, it's the way everyone moves slower with them up and can't hit anything without them"

"iron sights make gameplay more camp-happy as opposed to run-n-gun twitch shooters that I love so much"

"Either give me a scope, or lemme shoot from the hip. I don't do middle grounds"

"It depends on what type of gameplay the developers are seeking, you have something like COD where you must slow down to be accurate or something like Halo where you can shoot while you run and still be accurate"

"I'm not fond of Iron Sights. Sometimes they're so badly designed and zoomed up so large on the screen they get in the way"

"Iron sights usually are there to force the player to slow down, although in some other games like Counter-Strike if the player is still not used to the game he will still have to slow down to have better accuracy"

"Iron sights aren't needed at all. Not that they're a bad thing. Just depends what sort of game you want to play, really"

"In my opinion, Iron Sights can define the type of shooter your going for. Include them, and your looking for something that's slower paced and more cover based. Keep them out, and your looking to achieve something that's fast paced and more dodge happy"

"If it works well, like in CoD, then yes, I like it. If it would bring nothing, like if it were added to Serious Sam, then no, never do this shit"

"Iron sights are cool, but you don't need them. See Halo, or as you said all Valve games. None of those feel like they need iron sights"

"Some games are good with iron sights, some aren't. COD is fun with it"

"hate iron sights as they promote slower gameplay. Also I don't think they add much except for "realism". I don't like any game currently that has iron sights"

"Iron sights was only used to create more realism in FPS games, but now it's like all FPSs need to have it by law (I'm looking at you Bulletstorm). I'd prefer if games didn't use it because it just slows the game down"

"cannot stand iron-sights. Here's why - they cover up half the damn screen, aiming is much slower, and movement speed is far slower. It might be more realistic, but I just can't stand it in a shooter"

"I don't mind iron sights, but they do "dumb-down" shooters (aka make them more accessible)"

"It's not a deal breaker for me.I actually enjoy more the red dot sights or the holographic instead"

"I rather hate iron sights,mainly due to the fact is that when you aim and try to look through it,it takes up way too much space in the middle and makes the target that you are trying to hit from a distance barely visible"

"Its ok if a game chooses to not have iron sights, many games don't have them because it makes you ignore 3/4 of whats on the screen in exchange for a blurry gun silhouette, if it does it has to be for a good reason, and the hip firing has to be a reasonable option. I got so fed up with Black Ops after firing a sniper rifle into someones brain from point blank and missing because of the absurd >45 degree spread it got. I like how I can fire on the run in L4D2 because it makes the game much faster paced, I also like aiming down sights in New Vegas because of the sense of realism it provided. I don't like be railroaded into a fighting style because the designer thought that somehow aiming down the sights of a shotgun made it shoot tighter"

"Nope. Actually, iron sights would suck on a game like Halo. It's all relative really. It works on COD because it needs to work on COD"

[Coreldan]

Personally I wouldnt even play a modern FPS without them. PS is forgiven, cos its so old and they werent that common back then.

If wanted, some CQB weapons can be made operatable without ironsighting to give them the mobility they deserve.

But overall speaking, for most weapons ironsighting should be a must. But at "in your face" range, shooting the weapon shouldered only needs to be an option too, but still, for most engagements ironsighting is IMO a must.

When talking about shotguns especially, for those it really shouldnt be required/matter. Some goes to some extent/soem range for SMGs imo. SMGs could also have more movement speed than most weapons if they decide to go for ironsighting if they need a tad more accuracy at range.

It can really be solved with weapon specific variables. I wouldn't lock the game to the ancient no ironsight-mode or optionally lock all weapons including shotguns into ironsighting just cos of a single weapon model.

APB is a third person shooter, but it has a pretty good example of just this. CQB weapons have their movement accuracy way higher than other weapons, then agian they dont really gain anything from going into ironsight-mode. On the other hand, most other weapons wont hit anything on the move, but gain way more accuracy while in ironsights.

I really don't want this game to be some really arcade run and gun game. Taking cover, aimed shots, etc, thats what it should be about IMO :D

All this said, there is a HUGE difference in firing from the hip and firing the weapon shouldered without ironsighting. You can still be fairly accurate with the shouldered hip firing to some 5-10 meters and it's much faster and done in IRL too. Insurgency mod for HL2 did this fairly well IMO, then again it was one of those 1-shot-kill damage models.

I can't believe anyone found ADAD while fighting fun, though.

[SKYeXile]

I agree with all your points, in fact iv said the same things on many occasions. It does certainly slow down combat and reduce movement, which most people who played planetside will praise, but thats because they don't understand netcode and why people warp in planetside and they fear movement in PS2, but they're idiots.

Halo, CS(S) and TF2 are some of the most popular shooters, along with oldschool games like unreal and quake and they;re all mazing, they dont need ADS to make the game feel more "real"...its a game afterall.

I dont understand they plan to make this "light assault" class then give it a rifle feat: ADS and reduce it movement? seems kinda pointless to me.

I loved planetsides combat, the heavy armours bursting through a door, shots going everywhere, people strafing allover the place, the sounds of MCG's mowing people. all epic stuff. I hope they keep the TTK higher so each individual fight is abit more meaningful than a quick twitch of the wrist and a tap or 2 of a button and less about who got the jump on who first.

[Death2All]

I despise iron sights in my games. It's just a generic modern FPS staple that they put in all games. They put iron sights in Gears of War 3, a third person shooter. It was only for one gun, but it was still strange none the less.


Unfortunately, I think it's too late in the game's development to take something that imperative and fundamental to all the games mechanics out. Based on what little gameplay we've seen of people shooting/killing eachother it doesn't look quite like CoD. They hit the nail on the head with "Not as fast CoD and slower than BC2". I really hate instant TTKs, it looks they have a sweet spot...Again, at least off of what 4 seconds I've seen from a really low resolution video on a Chinese website.

[Coreldan]

It would be interesting to see how it would work if ADS allowed quite fast movement speed, and you would naturally always be more accurate than outside ADS, but you would be more accurate the slower you moved.

However with no analog controls for most people, it would be hard to do, this way you could choose your movement speed according to your situation.

To add to my earlier wall of text, I'd pretty much also remove crosshair for at least most weapons outside ADS, with the exception of CQB-intended weapons, perhaps. But I guess this is just me and my background with games with realistic damage models and stuff.

Slowing down isn't outright bad. I for example have NO interest whatsoever to play a Tribes/Quake like games. I don't need ARMA-like realistic, but I have some limit how ridicilously arcade gameplay I can manage.

That said, PS is still quite manageable, since the movement speeds are fairly low and at range you still need to pretty much stop and crouch. The bigger problem is the ADAD netcode, but I dont have a problem with CQB fighting happening outside ADS, thats how you would do it in real life too.

[Shogun]

i like the rambo style run and gun type of fps.
and i would like to do hipgunning and optional ironsighting for better accuracy.

as somone already mentioned, some weapons really don´t need ironsights at all, like shotguns or the thumper. please don´t put ironsights in for every weapon just because modern shooters have those things!
it makes sense for rifles and optional for pistols to be able to hit long range but when i run and gun in close quarters, i prefer the good old retro rambo style

oh and to the original poster: don´t abuse higbys name on topictitles just to get more views!

[CutterJohn]

I would like an option like Crysis had, where you could choose whether you went to the sights view, or just got a zoomed in reticle and slowed movement speed. Note that the below only occurred with pure iron sights.. If you put on a red dot sight or scope or anything, it would revert to that view.

http://www.tweakguides.com/images/Crysis_7a.jpg
http://www.tweakguides.com/images/Crysis_7b.jpg

I don't much mind the mechanic of iron sights, but I do really hate the view itself.


As for how they handle, should benefit you some, but not a lot. Something thats a benefit to use, not an absolute requirement. And ideally a minimum of screen shake. I loathe screen shake. And depth of field.. not at all a fan of depth of field. The game doesn't know what I'm looking at.

[morf]

I see iron sights as a way to possibly cut down on that guy... You've seen him before; the guy who sees the enemy line, runs to it and ADADADADAD right in front of them while the 20 people behind him are facepalming because they can't get a shot in.

Anything that means less of that guy is a great change imo.

[NewSith]

If my opinion matters, I say - "I don't care". Even PlanetSide had iron aights, because you could zoom anything in, including rek. It didn't have any effect on accuracy, but fact is a fact.

[deltase]

I totally agree what you said OP! When i use iron sights i feel really sluggish and on top of that half of my view screen is blocked by them. I dislike them and i think they should not be in PS2! For example, when i play bfbc2 i constantly need to use iron sight to have an almost perfect aim but the problem is that i can't see anything else except my target and this is what kills me! However, when i play Tribes Ascend, in which there are no iron sights, i feel like i can shoot someone, at the same time scan for nearby enemies and position myself with ease.
Oh please make it like TF2 or HL or Tribes without IS's!

[Coreldan]

Oh please make it like TF2 or HL or Tribes without IS's!

Please dont :(

Don't spend so long in the ironsights, then! :D

I've basically only played games with ironsights the last 10 years, don't quite have your issues.

[Oryon22]

I love iron sights. Makes pulling the trigger feel more personal.

I will agree that not all weapons need them (i.e. Thumper).

To be honest, the whole "run and gun" mantra from FPS' of yore was boring, and artificial feeling.

[Hmr85]

I have to agree with the poster above me. I would love the addition of Iron sights for more accurate aiming while I am running and gunning out in the open world.

I would say iron sights for the rifles. With no Iron sights for the shotguns because who needs them in CQB when you are no more than spitting distance away from the enemy player.

[ArmedZealot]

I like ironsights. The more traditional zoom mechanic doesn't really feel right. My eyes don't suddenly get more powerful if I concentrate. But if I hold my gun closer to my eyes and line a target up with iron sights then my shots should get more accurate. It feels more real and gets you more involved in the game.

There are some games that do the sniping right also, where the scope shows up taking only a circle in the middle of the screen rather than somehow changing your video feed to what the scope sees. However in Planetside there could be lore reasons for this with the visors that suits have.

[Coreldan]

The zoom is there in most games in some form cos current screens and resolutions can in no way simulate real eyes for the time being. Something that is 2 pixels big in your screen would in real life be way bigger even at range in real life.

RO2 devs explained the issue fairly well when their seperate zoom button was being questioned.

[Tasorin]

Pros do both.

I am going to run and gun in an organized fashion with my squad, and I am going to quickly switch in and out of iron sights for spotting and precision marksmanship.

Sometimes a double tap in iron sights gets the job done much more efficiently then controlled bursts in a run and gun on a hit box.

If you just want a run and gun frag fest there are plenty of up and coming games that will be doing just this. Personally I like getting in some Tribes Ascend action just to fulfill my blood lust for quick twitch killing sprees and jump jet mayhem.

[inigma]

In all honesty I prefer the sighting used in PlanetSide 1. If people want iron sights, please make it optional and not the game default. This is this vet's feedback. The sighting in PS1 made for greater situational awareness, which is a must in a mmofps.

[Tigersmith]

Ehh. I wish it did not have ironsights. But im open to it.

This is the reason I have not been talking alot on the forums. I am getting sick of the speculation that comes when waiting for this game to come out. When the beta comes out and I try it, i will give you my opinion lol

[Bittermen]

I see iron sights as a way to possibly cut down on that guy... You've seen him before; the guy who sees the enemy line, runs to it and ADADADADAD right in front of them while the 20 people behind him are facepalming because they can't get a shot in.

Anything that means less of that guy is a great change imo.

Ironsights please.

[Xyntech]

I'd hope that aiming without iron sights would be quite possible, just a bit less accurate at longer ranges.

I see no reason why it needs to be as inaccurate as it is in a lot of games to shoot without the iron sights. I don't even think of it as shooting from the hip, I just think of it like shooting without carefully lining yourself up. You should still have your gun raised, braced and at the ready, while still being able to move quickly.

Iron sites should just be a mechanism where you can gain that extra bit of accuracy that you need to make shots at longer range.

A nice compromise would be if they made regular firing be extremely effective at up to 30 meters, shooting with a laser sight be accurate at up to 100 meters, and shooting with iron sites be accurate up to 300 meters (scopes should only make it easier to aim, not make the gun any more accurate).

The only "gunning from the hip" stuff that should be going on is if you can fire while sprinting, which you probably shouldn't be able to do anyways.

Just make firing without the sights be reasonably accurate and make the sights be slightly more accurate at long range. I want regular rifles to be effective at ranges a lot longer than in PS1. Snipers should just be that much longer still, with that much more accuracy.

[BlazingSun]

My opinion: The "thing" we have seen in the video is hopefully just a placeholder, as it looks pretty lame and is just wrong.

I would suggest giving the guns holographic sights. They look fairly "futuristic" and would/could be the default sight for all assault rifles or submachines guns.

Keep the iron sight option to pistols.

[Draep]

This thread: TL;DR with misleading title. If you don't like ironsights, I suggest playing a much easier game like Crash Bandicoot, maybe My Little Pony has a game series out, I'd prefer to see garbage people like that in their own separate but equal gamespace, but I digress.

Just stop, it's getting hard to even come here just to read for the latest news. Fucking Luddites.

[CrystalViolet]

They've been saying all along that customization will allow you to tailor the game to your play style. This should mean that if you prefer not to use iron sights, you can pick side grades that make hip firing more effective. It's a win win for everyone.

[ArmedZealot]

This thread: TL;DR with misleading title. If you don't like ironsights, I suggest playing a much easier game like Crash Bandicoot, maybe My Little Pony has a game series out, I'd prefer to see garbage people like that in their own separate but equal gamespace, but I digress.

Just stop, it's getting hard to even come here just to read for the latest news. Fucking Luddites.

Troll much?

News at eleven, people have their own playstyles that they enjoy. Yours does not make you superior or hardcore. And people need a place to provide feedback to make sure that their thoughts go to PS2 developers. These forums seem provide that since the developers and marketers read and post here.

[Redshift]

If you don't like ironsights, I suggest playing a much easier game like Crash Bandicoot, maybe My Little Pony has a game series out,

Iron sights makes things easier, don't know why you're pretending you have to be leet to use them. old school twitch shooters take way more skill than iron sighted fights

[Rbstr]

Weapons should basically shoot where they're pointing.
So that means when you're sprinting it's bouncing all over the place and when it's at your hip the lines of sight don't match up so you can't hit anything that isn't right in front of you. And when you're standing still and not looking down the gun it's pointing off from the center of the screen except at some arbitrary intersection in the distance.
So when you need to hit the guy across the room or across the field you have to bring up _insert sighting mechanism X_ where X is ironsights, a scope, some fancy holographic thing, whatever.

As an aside:
Shotguns and grenade launchers absolutely need sights. Well, maybe not the retarded-scatter-everwhere-FPS-shotgun but a shotgun is not a 10-foot-radius-of-pellet-shooter. They actually work at substantial ranges. The BF games are taking steps in the right direction recently. I hope others follow.
Grenade launchers and other high-arc guns need them for proper ranging, more than rifles. I'd be very cool for an FPS to finally implement the noob-tube sight properly.
Rocketlaunchers often have sighting rifles that match the rocket balistics for proper aiming.

Iron sights makes things easier, don't know why you're pretending you have to be leet to use them. old school twitch shooters take way more skill than iron sighted fights
Pleanty of people say aiming down sights is harder. It's all bullshit, it's just different. You just want your prefered way to be seen as superior for X arbitrary reason.

[acosmo]

YES

+9001

[Redshift]

Pleanty of people say aiming down sights is harder. It's all bullshit, it's just different. You just want your prefered way to be seen as superior for X arbitrary reason.
how can either way be harder? either way you're still basically putting a cursor over a target and tracking it, only difference is iron sights are slower moving and limit your field of view.

Personally i can play with either quite happily, i think it'll be detemental to the game if IDS is the only way to play since it is conducive to camping.

[Chaff]

.
I know I DON"T NEED THEM

I'd prefer they NOT be added. I have always found it to be an awkward mechanic.


WHO CARES WHAT'S HIP OR THE NORM ?

WHO DEFINES WHAT IS CUTTING EDGE ?

I say no to Iron Sights.
.

[Draep]

Troll much?

News at eleven, people have their own playstyles that they enjoy. Yours does not make you superior or hardcore. And people need a place to provide feedback to make sure that their thoughts go to PS2 developers. These forums seem provide that since the developers and marketers read and post here.

One playstyle, ironsights will be (sorry, is) added to the game, the other (who even knows what you're advocating, are you seriously suggesting/believing that they will develop an alternative aiming system to appease a bunch of old planetside players who don't make up their target audience?) will most likely be left out.

I'm not reveling in my victory, just wish these forums weren't so cluttered.

[Sirisian]

I actually don't mind them as long as we still have a CoF system in place. I like the idea of playing through a small 1 second animation to get an accuracy boost for shooting far distances. Adds a degree of skill to the game when aiming at further distances.

What I don't want to see is the accuracy difference to be so large that aiming from the sights is required in say hallways. That kind of stuff bothers me.

//edit also what I don't want to see is 100% accurate cross-hairs since it tends to make the guns feel identical if all their ranges are the same.

[l3lizz4rd]

ITT, people who played their first fps on console.

[SuperMorto]

Here is the shit, If they are in<<, this keeps the people who like them happy, if they are in and you don't like them don't fucking use them, that keeps that lot happy, geez fucking hell.

Now iron sights ad realism to a game, and don't tell me they don't, you try and fucking shoot anything without iron sights on a gun and you wont be able to do it.

Another point iron sights help a lot in close quarter battle as said in the OP, like CODfish and all that other shit, but this is Planetside and they will make little or but no difference with a Mozzie shoved up your ass!

Thank you good bye :)

Edit* Take away the cross-hair. Now there is a plan :)

[MooK]

When it comes to iron sights, for me, it's not really a conceptual argument as to what they may represent. Instead, I prefer to consider it more as a realistic implementation, or additional feature. In that case, it's absolutely necessary, in a game like PlanetSide, to be as feature-rich as possible, and thus, without iron sights, a major feature would be lacking.

[Erikson]

Here is the shit, If they are in<<, this keeps the people who like them happy, if they are in and you don't like them don't fucking use them, that keeps that lot happy, geez fucking hell.


While I generally agree with this, there is a concern for how inaccurate not using the sights might be. In CoD, or similar games, not using the iron sights is effective only for a few meters.

I am in support of iron sights. It'll cut down on the run and gun fever. Maybe it'll encourage people to think before they shoot.

I'm really picturing moving into a base with my outfit in coordinated fire teams. One team covering the other from their iron sights, hands steady, trigger fingers ready.

[Arrow]

I personally loved the fast arcadey style feel of Planetside. To me it brought the diversity of a battle, it enabled one skillful player the chance to take on 3-5 people at once. That to me is a fun game. Quake, Tribes 2, Unreal and all of those shooters are my absolute favorites, the huge skill learning curve is what made these games instant draw backs to me including Planetside.

I've loved my fair share of ironsight games that were supposed to be uberly real but given Planetsides 2's atmosphere I just don't see the justification behind making the combat super ultra realistic. Set the tone for Planetside 2 and keep true to its original game mechanics in my opinion. Don't cater to simplicity.

[Espion]

Ironsights serve no other purpose than to slow down gameplay enough to appeal to a more casual audience.

Planetside wasn't a particularly fast paced shooter in the first place compared to other titles, and I think it has other checks and balances in the core gameplay that already play enough into this role, making it entirely unnecessary imo. Should there be a zoom mechanic on every weapon (where it makes sense)? Yes absolutely. But it should be nothing more than a simple fov change. No artificially increased accuracy, no power increase, no slowed movement, etc.

[Arrow]

Ironsights serve no other purpose than to slow down gameplay enough to appeal to a more casual audience.

Planetside wasn't a particularly fast paced shooter in the first place compared to other titles, and I think it has other checks and balances in the core gameplay that already play enough into this role, making it entirely unnecessary imo. Should there be a zoom mechanic on every weapon (where it makes sense)? Yes absolutely. But it should be nothing more than a simple fov change. No artificially increased accuracy, no power increase, no slowed movement, etc.

TRxTerm - Compilation Part 2 (Planetside) - YouTube

This is the type of gameplay planetside presented and the type of gameplay I loved about it. Say it be stale or not, I came back everytime for the past X amount of years since beta just because it was unique.

[Crazyduckling]

tldr.

i have mixed feelings about Iron Sights in PS2. It doesn't feel like it fits because its futuristic, BUT at the same time it makes sense because of the industrial feeling the game gives off so far.

[GTGD]

I think ADS could be beneficial to PS, especially for the MA weapons. But there isn't a need for HA and SA. The essence of PS is that it encourages the ability to keep your aim on an enemy for an extended period of time. TTK is going to be around the same as BF2BC, which is a good thing. It will allow for that aiming ability but also make killing faster and more realistic.

There are a couple things that should be avoided though:

1. Don't make aiming and killing be TOO quick and easy. If you thought pushing downstairs was tough in PS, imagine how tough it will be if you know you'll last less than a second as people camping with ADS will rip you apart before you can even get a shot in.

2. GET RID OF ADADADADADAD. As a product of CSHD, it was the #1 worst part of PS. Strafing is fine, but warping around like a moron is just frustrating. Also hopefully momentum will be implemented so that you can't still mash the buttons with zero momentum loss. I don't anticipate this to be a problem with PhysX but it is important to prevent ridiculous movements of characters.

3. Leave the COF system alone for the mostpart. ADS can be good, but it is stupid that it reduces the cone of fire to nothing and just adds recoil. The most ideal system I have seen in any game ever was in Day of Defeat. Recoil was not this invisible magical force that replaced accuracy. Recoil actually moved the crosshairs up, rather than just disorienting your view. Additionally, the more you fired the more the COF of the crosshairs expanded. That way you got both vertical movement and COF expansion. This made the player account for both and made the game take a LOT more skill, as well as allowing it to be accessible to everyone because they could see what was happening - unlike counter-strike when people wonder "where the hell are my shots going and why?"

[Bags]

GTGD, warping is a result of bad programming. I don't see why people can't understand this

[acosmo]

+1 GTGD

[Draep]

ITT: The reason developers don't need to listen to the fanbase before the game is made

[Erendil]

While I generally agree with this, there is a concern for how inaccurate not using the sights might be. In CoD, or similar games, not using the iron sights is effective only for a few meters.

I am in support of iron sights. It'll cut down on the run and gun fever. Maybe it'll encourage people to think before they shoot.

I'm really picturing moving into a base with my outfit in coordinated fire teams. One team covering the other from their iron sights, hands steady, trigger fingers ready.

These are my thoughts as well. The use of ADS in many games ends up being a required tactic because weapon accuracy sucks ass beyond a few feet when trying to hip-fire or run-and-gun.

But as many have already stated, IMO PS2 should be designed so that both playstyles are valid choices. This is not an either/or question. There are many different game mechanics that can be tweaked to make one tactic more favorable than the other in any given situation, like:


footspeed when hitting your walk/run/sprint keys
strafe speed
accuracy and recoil when firing single shots, bursts, and full auto
accuracy of the above when taking damage
FoV
speed with which you can switch between the two firing modes


The Devs should be able to tweak these values so that PS2 doesn't overwhelmingly favor one tactic over the other most of the time.

In addition, I would hope that there will be skill trees for both ADS and running-and-gunning so that you can personalize either one to your own playstyle, like increased footspeed while using ADS at the cost of a bit of accuracy, or increase accuracy when hip firing at the cost of footspeed.

That said, due to the huge scale of PS2 maps and the large variety of engagement distances present, they do need to make hip firing / running-and-gunning a lot more accurate than what you see in many 16vs16 FPSes. I think hitting a man-sized target out to 25 feet or so with an assault rifle is reasonable, at least for the first few shots.

Lastly, for those of you that complain that ADS will only slow down the game, I give you the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efwz2sGwG5g

In it you'll see combat that is just as fast as the vid Arrow posted. And you'll notice that Karter uses a pretty good mix of ADS and hip-firing. CoD2's hip-firing accuracy is actually pretty good for a map of this size and complexity since both tactics are used quite often. For PS2 the Devs just need to find the right balance given the scale of PS2 maps.

[ArmedZealot]

One playstyle, ironsights will be (sorry, is) added to the game, the other (who even knows what you're advocating, are you seriously suggesting/believing that they will develop an alternative aiming system to appease a bunch of old planetside players who don't make up their target audience?) will most likely be left out.

I'm not reveling in my victory, just wish these forums weren't so cluttered.

Their target audience is old Planetside players. That's evident from the amount of the old Planetside features are being left in the game. You just think you speak for all of them.

I personally think that shooting from the hip should be valid from indoors and close quarters, but from close out it should be iron sights. It adds to the realism to the game and gives you something to extend the range of the weapon at the cost of movement.

[Draep]

Their target audience is old Planetside players. That's evident from the amount of the old Planetside features are being left in the game.

Old planetside players make up less than one tenth of a percent of the total gaming market. Source. They're keeping old features because they would work and look good to anyone who likes FPS.

[ArmedZealot]

He mad. Way to show what vets are like bro.

[SKYeXile]

2. GET RID OF ADADADADADAD. As a product of CSHD, it was the #1 worst part of PS. Strafing is fine, but warping around like a moron is just frustrating. Also hopefully momentum will be implemented so that you can't still mash the buttons with zero momentum loss. I don't anticipate this to be a problem with PhysX but it is important to prevent ridiculous movements of characters.


I agree with all your points, in fact iv said the same things on many occasions. It does certainly slow down combat and reduce movement, which most people who played planetside will praise, but thats because they don't understand netcode and why people warp in planetside and they fear movement in PS2, but they're idiots.



Like i said Idiots... warping in PS2 is the result of Planetsides movement prediction system(It predicts, unlike other games that dont predict, they render movement at a delayed pace between the last packets received) and the game running at 5 ticks per second, most FPS games run at around 30. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CSHD.

Also again, Halo series is the highest selling series of alltime it does not have ADS
Counter strike is the most popular computer FPS on PC...still.
TF2 is still very popular, just as popular as MW3 infact even though the games is alot older...anyway...the stats speak for themselves, games with COF aiming are timeless, ADS games get thrown out every year.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/SKYeXile/fpsstats.jpg

It probably says something by itself that valve exclusively use COF.

[ArmedZealot]

games with COF aiming are timeless, ADS games get thrown out every year. It probably says something by itself that valve exclusively use COF.

Planetside had COF aiming, and it wasn't timeless. And no it says nothing. Game's like Counter Strike and TF2 are popular for their communities and their game play, as much as Modern Warfare and Battlefield are. Their aiming systems are about .02% of game play.

[Coreldan]

Also note that games like CoD and BF are released every year due to money making reasons and what not. TF2 and CSS are both like the "most recent games of the sequel" and are like.. god knows how many years old already too. So it's quite wrong to even imply that the aiming system had anything to do with BF and CoD being released annually while CS and TF2 not.

[SKYeXile]

Planetside had COF aiming, and it wasn't timeless. And no it says nothing. Game's like Counter Strike and TF2 are popular for their communities and their game play, as much as Modern Warfare and Battlefield are. Their aiming systems are about .02% of game play.

cool stat's you madeup there bro...care to review the real stats above again?

[Sirisian]

In it you'll see combat that is just as fast as the vid Arrow posted. And you'll notice that Karter uses a pretty good mix of ADS and hip-firing. CoD2's hip-firing accuracy is actually pretty good for a map of this size and complexity since both tactics are used quite often. For PS2 the Devs just need to find the right balance given the scale of PS2 maps.
You made excellent points. However, COD2 - one of my favorite LAN party games - is a bad example of how to use iron sights. There needs to be an actual delay (which can be different for each weapon) that makes the choice of when to use iron sights a matter of skill. In COD2 it was all about quick scoping with all weapons which took away the choice.

In the Planetside 2 video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWDkxCGK3i8#t=8s) you can see the player firing "from the hip" at 8 seconds then instantly switching to iron sights with no penalty. Doesn't even stop firing. At 14 seconds he's taking long shots without switching to iron sights which should be a valid choice with penalties and advantages. I definitely think moving slower should be one of them if you get an accuracy boost and your CoF goes down faster.

[ArmedZealot]

cool stat's you madeup there bro...care to review the real stats above again?


Why doesn't SOE release a game with a black room, nothing in it, give the players a COF system and only 1 gun to play around with. It'd be a commercial success according to you.

[SKYeXile]

Why doesn't SOE release a game with a black room, nothing in it, give the players a COF system and only 1 gun to play around with. It'd be a commercial success according to you.

aslong as the black room is only .02% of the gameplay.

[Coreldan]

I guess in a way it could also be compared to WoW. The game is quite dated in it's mechanics and MANY new MMORPGs have done SEVERAL things better than WoW, but WoW just has the ball rolling so hard and good support and good devs and all that, that the quality of the WHOLE package keeps people playing the dated game with dated mechanics.

Valve is pretty much one of the biggest companies out there. It is totally stupid to really even try to reach Valve's or Blizzards success for a gaming company :D

People are different, but two things both TF2 and CS have in common. Neither have "proper" gunplay and I have never enjoyed playing either of them. :D

[ArmedZealot]

Your stats don't show that COF is what makes a game successful. You just listed popular COF games ON STEAM and said they were successful because of it, which is wrong because there are other successful games that didn't have COF. And don't tell me that Battlefield and COD aren't successful.

[Arrow]

Still that CoD video doesnt really do any justice. Complete different gameplay. Planetside definitely had the arcadey feel to it.

Stermy vs Av3k 2009 ESL Quake Live Invitational Game 1 - YouTube

EPIC BATTLEFIELD 3 MULTIPLAYER GAMEPLAY! - LIVE COMMENTARY (PT 2) - YouTube

Watch both movies and look at what takes more skill? I personally find the battlefield games boring cause they provide no challenge. Dying in one to 2 shots is extremely frustrating and to accomplish-able by any individual playing the game. To be good at quake or even planetside it didnt necessarily take a lot of time and effort but there was a nice learning curve that always had you challenged. The need for you to want to land every shot as opposed to dumping a clip down an alley way while going prone to spray your enemy down does not appeal to me in any fashion.

[Coreldan]

ADS doesnt have to have anything to do with low TTK, though. BF3 on normal is also too arcade for my taste, hardcore is doable :D That said, I don't want 1 shot kills or so to Planetside and not saying that, but having ironsights does not mean that the damage model has to be "realistic".

That said, I could never even imagine myself playing Quake, games that arcade hold no value to me. You can't really say either which game takes more skill or if low or high TTK takes more skill, they are pretty much different skill sets.

[xSquirtle]

Every FPS since 2003 has focused on iron sight's. People focus far to much aiming down an iron sight rather then focusing on the battle surrounding them self's. I think the zoom aspect is important for snipers and long rang attacks, but lets not make this a BF3 or COD game where everyone and their grandma is iron sighted 24/7.

By the way; iron sight makes video's really, really lame. As 99% of the video that someone shot is someone looking down an iron sight.

[SKYeXile]

Your stats don't show that COF is what makes a game successful. You just listed popular COF games ON STEAM and said they were successful because of it, which is wrong because there are other successful games that didn't have COF. And don't tell me that Battlefield and COD aren't successful.

I did sorta say that, but people are under the assumption that ADS is more popular in gaming, im proven them wrong, with facts. thats not to say ADS isnt popular though that would be a ludicrus claim, there is over 200k people playing BF3 right now...but then there is god how many knows playing halo.

[Arrow]

ADS doesnt have to have anything to do with low TTK, though. BF3 on normal is also too arcade for my taste, hardcore is doable :D That said, I don't want 1 shot kills or so to Planetside and not saying that, but having ironsights does not mean that the damage model has to be "realistic".

That said, I could never even imagine myself playing Quake, games that arcade hold no value to me. You can't really say either which game takes more skill or if low or high TTK takes more skill, they are pretty much different skill sets.

Well generally yes I can say that the quake series definitely is a lot more skillful then any bf cod game or any of the like. While surely they take more smarts as far as the cross-hair plays in the game, having a steady aim and always on target is definitely a lot harder then 3 shots spraying an MG and getting a kill.

[acosmo]

whatever. ironsights ruule

[Coreldan]

Well generally yes I can say that the quake series definitely is a lot more skillful then any bf cod game or any of the like. While surely they take more smarts as far as the cross-hair plays in the game, having a steady aim and always on target is definitely a lot harder then 3 shots spraying an MG and getting a kill.

That's sorta the thing. In quake kinda games the biggest skill is in aiming and that's about it. The skill focuses elsewhere in games like BF/CoD (neither being anywhere near my favourite shooters anyways, though).

When anyone can just as easily "lol 3 shot spray" you to death, the skilled people are those who get the kills without dying themselves. In low TTK games it's more about reactions, twitch aiming, cover, location and even teamwork.

I'm not saying that the "non quake games" require less skill, but to imply that tracking a target is the only thing that requires skill in gaming is wrong too.

[SKYeXile]

Still that CoD video doesnt really do any justice. Complete different gameplay. Planetside definitely had the arcadey feel to it.


Watch both movies and look at what takes more skill? I personally find the battlefield games boring cause they provide no challenge. Dying in one to 2 shots is extremely frustrating and to accomplish-able by any individual playing the game. To be good at quake or even planetside it didnt necessarily take a lot of time and effort but there was a nice learning curve that always had you challenged. The need for you to want to land every shot as opposed to dumping a clip down an alley way while going prone to spray your enemy down does not appeal to me in any fashion.

Yea i agree with those points, espeically in an MMO setting, iv killed upto 12 people with a clip of low damage lasher rounds(well got the KB) by just spraying...god knows what you could do in PS2 if everybody just fell over in a bullet.

I think having a high TTK in PS2 is going to be necessary because of ping issues and just that there are so many people in a battle.

I think games like brink, Global agenda and The agency have acceptable TTK times for an MMO, they also require more teamwork since people live longer and you can call targets and focus fire, which maybe the case for MAXES.

[Coreldan]

Brink also has a pretty decent example of how weapons can be different. There are weapons that can and should be fired outside ironsights and weapons that pretty much require aiming down sights.

It's basically the "MA weapons" of planetside if we look at equivalents that require ADSing in Brink, while both the "light" and "heavy" end of weaponry (SMGs/shotties and like the big ass heavy minigun in Brink) that can and pretty much need to be fired without ADS.

That said, Brink could have a really low TTK when aiming for the head.

[acosmo]

I'm not saying that the "non quake games" require less skill, but to imply that tracking a target is the only thing that requires skill in gaming is wrong too.

+1 teamwork should always trump skill.

[ArmedZealot]

but lets not make this a BF3 or COD game where everyone and their grandma is iron sighted 24/7.

Too be honest I agree with this sentiment. The developers are putting a ton of work into making the setting of Planetside 2 beautiful an immersive along with it's mechanics. Iron sights add to that but can detract from it also because there is never a reason NOT to use iron sights except to move from point a to point b. And in the the9 video the muzzle flash that the weapons seem to have almost blind you when in iron sights.

I think Planetside should use it but you should be penalized enough to where you aren't using it for spray and pray type combat that is the mainstay of the game. It should be used as an attempt to pick off someone over a distance however, much like the bullpup and the 552 from counterstrike, but without the zoom and scope.

[SKYeXile]

Brink also has a pretty decent example of how weapons can be different. There are weapons that can and should be fired outside ironsights and weapons that pretty much require aiming down sights.

It's basically the "MA weapons" of planetside if we look at equivalents that require ADSing in Brink, while both the "light" and "heavy" end of weaponry (SMGs/shotties and like the big ass heavy minigun in Brink) that can and pretty much need to be fired without ADS.

That said, Brink could have a really low TTK when aiming for the head.

Well i believe they have said that HA weapons wont have sights, it maybe the case of you can have your rifles and ill take my HA :)

[Coreldan]

Well i believe they have said that HA weapons wont have sights, it maybe the case of you can have your rifles and ill take my HA :)

Makes sense, MCG is a hipfired minigungodmachine, JH is a shottie thus no need for sights either and anything VS might have has a built in aimbot anyways :D

[Arrow]

Yea i agree with those points, espeically in an MMO setting, iv killed upto 12 people with a clip of low damage lasher rounds(well got the KB) by just spraying...god knows what you could do in PS2 if everybody just fell over in a bullet.

I think having a high TTK in PS2 is going to be necessary because of ping issues and just that there are so many people in a battle.

I think games like brink, Global agenda and The agency have acceptable TTK times for an MMO, they also require more teamwork since people live longer and you can call targets and focus fire, which maybe the case for MAXES.

I hear it. It definitely doesnt have to be the TTK of quake that is waaaaaaaay to huge of a ttk for a mmo. I thought planetside 1 had it down pat just needed better coding of course.

[Zulthus]

I do not want to see the likes of iron sights in Planetside 2 personally. It slows down the game too much. Twitch based running and gunning is the best and most fun way to play.

[Erendil]

You made excellent points. However, COD2 - one of my favorite LAN party games - is a bad example of how to use iron sights. There needs to be an actual delay (which can be different for each weapon) that makes the choice of when to use iron sights a matter of skill. In COD2 it was all about quick scoping with all weapons which took away the choice.

In the Planetside 2 video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWDkxCGK3i8#t=8s) you can see the player firing "from the hip" at 8 seconds then instantly switching to iron sights with no penalty. Doesn't even stop firing. At 14 seconds he's taking long shots without switching to iron sights which should be a valid choice with penalties and advantages. I definitely think moving slower should be one of them if you get an accuracy boost and your CoF goes down faster.


I chose that CoD2 footage just to refute peoples' claims that ADS will automatically make combat slower or somehow less skillful than it was in PS1. I'm not saying "make ADS just like it was in PS2" because as much as I loved CoD2, ADS in that game definitely had its problems (like quick/jump scoping).

I agree that the ADS shown in that PS2 footage needs some work, too. Like you said, instant ADS is IMO almost as bad as no ADS at all. You'll also notice that the firer has almost no recoil at all while using ironsights - another bad game mechanic. And a slower movement speed does make sense, but it shouldn't be reduced to a slow crawl.


Every FPS since 2003 has focused on iron sight's. People focus far to much aiming down an iron sight rather then focusing on the battle surrounding them self's. I think the zoom aspect is important for snipers and long rang attacks, but lets not make this a BF3 or COD game where everyone and their grandma is iron sighted 24/7.

By the way; iron sight makes video's really, really lame. As 99% of the video that someone shot is someone looking down an iron sight.


I don't want ppl to have to use ironsights 24/7 either. I don't want either tactic to be forced down our throats. Both playstyles need to be viable choices IMO.


That's sorta the thing. In quake kinda games the biggest skill is in aiming and that's about it. The skill focuses elsewhere in games like BF/CoD (neither being anywhere near my favourite shooters anyways, though).

When anyone can just as easily "lol 3 shot spray" you to death, the skilled people are those who get the kills without dying themselves. In low TTK games it's more about reactions, twitch aiming, cover, location and even teamwork.

I'm not saying that the "non quake games" require less skill, but to imply that tracking a target is the only thing that requires skill in gaming is wrong too.


Agreed. Quake and the like focus more on dodging ability whilst keeping your CoF on target for extended periods. CoD/BF, etc rely more on quick reflexes, putting your crosshairs on target immediately and rapidly and precisely moving your reticle from target to target, outflanking your opponents and setting up ambushes, etc.

Both game types require a lot of "skill" in order to truly excel. They're just slightly different skillsets.

[Khellendros]

I don't care much for iron sights, would prefer not to have them frankly. I have yet to find iron sights more fun or interesting since I first encountered them in online play in America's Army (I think) way back. I felt PS1 did well enough with the shooting system, it was fun and did not hamper gameplay in any way that I could detect.

I don't want too much realism in the shooting aspect of games because, let's be honest, shooting in real life is not *that* fun.

I think this argument is moot tho, the devs clearly intend to have iron sights and I don't expect them to change at this point.

[Aaron]

I say yes for iron sights for immersion/realistic reasons. In reality, you can't expect to make an accurate shot from far range by shooting from the hip. With real guns, that's what you do - you look through the iron sights. To improve the FPS feel/experience, modern FPSs took this direction. I've been playing BF3 recently and I have no regrets.

[MpS]

Honestly it will really depend on how the developers go about implementing them. There are a lot of sentiments here that I agree with on both sides, yes it slows down combat, it does add to immersion, if done improperly it will end up with everybody in iron sights constantly. However until we really see how the developers actually end up going about them in the game we really shouldn't be judging them quite so harshly. There certainly are a lot of situations that can screw it up, and I'm sure its challenging to find a balance between iron sights and hip fire, but until the game comes out and we see how they implemented the iron sights there really isn't much to say on whether they belong in planetside 2 or not.

Its all about implementation, if they implement the iron sights correctly to maintain a good balance between using the sights or firing from the hip then I say hell yes let them stay as I do like having ironsights myself. But if the opposite is true in that you need to constantly be using them in order to get a kill I would say remove them as that is not planetside.

[Tapman]

I am perfectly fine with having Iron Sights on each gun as the first option available. Make the next one or two options unlock within a fairly low amount of time i.e. an hour or two for the first, 4-8 hours for the second so people have to work for it. There are going to be so many sidegrades to unlock that I am sure almost everyone will find their preference in some form or another, whether it be iron sights, a scope of some kind, or an advanced stock that allows for a little more accuracy from hip-fire assuming you even need it. (Not so much for shotguns or miniguns!) I can't imagine how anyone could have cause for concern this early about something so trivial based on the limited amount of gameplay footage we've even seen up to this point, let alone the actual time spent showing involving soldiers firing at each other for more than a second or two.

Now that we've got that cleared up/tabled until Beta, how about people put in their ideas for what sidegrades they want to see on the different types of weapons. If you have an unusual preference, tell the devs! You never know who else might benefit from the option! I don't know if it will make a difference though if you're TR or VS, we have the Velociraptor launcher.

[EASyEightyEight]

I don't mind ironsights, but I do think ironsighting and shoulder-firing should be a choice without uneven consequences. Standing still or crouched, the accuracy firing from the shoulder or while ADS shouldn't be any different (do note, ADS does not necessarily mean bullets fire in a laser thin stream, that's a CoD thing.)

However, while moving, ADS would slow the user down to a hasty walk, but obviously tighten their accuracy. Likewise, the user could simply fire from the shoulder and maintain full running speed, but their shots won't be nearly as accurate. They shouldn't be as inaccurate as they would get in CoD however.

And just to state for the record, I too would prefer if movement had some momentum to it. I think switching movement directions in an instant without needing to fight inertia looks stupid. Halo did it right.

[Elude]

I absolutely love run and gun gameplay, I grew up on twitch shooters, and I still play games like Quake today religiously.

However I disagree with the OP, Planetside 2 NEEDS iron sights, or more accurately it needs to be a slow paced game. Twitch based fast run and gun gameplay would be a nightmare on hit detection for a game like this.

[Captain1nsaneo]

Been away from the forums a lot recently so I've only read 3 pages but...

Everything in a good game is balanced. What do iron sights give you? An accuracy bonus. We've always had ways of being more accurate at the cost of something else. Prior to iron sights this was crouching. Iron sights are much faster than crouching and bring with them additional limitation of field of view.

However, it seems that people don't like iron sights because it "Slows down game play". I agree, the time between you see the enemy and you pull the trigger is increased by the time it takes you to go into iron sights or it slows down because you're always in iron sights and walking around slowly.

So the desire is to make iron sights useful but not slow down move speed?

Let's think about how we can do this while keeping it balanced. We can reduce field of view, we can make iron sights's accuracy affected by how fast you're moving, and we can reduce damage (makes sense as improved accuracy is simply a way of skill directly buffing damage as fewer shots miss).

I'd argue for a reduced field of vision combined with accuracy not being nearly as high if you're running or jumping while in iron sights being the ways to balance it, or reduce the damage a bit while in iron sights but keep the accuracy high while moving at full speed (heck, you could modulate damage based on move speed, standing still = more damage. Might be a way to combat retarded insta-deaths.). Make walking have either no or a very tiny decrease in accuracy and you'll allow people having ranged fights to still move. (Although, now that Shift is sprint I don't know what button walking would be, perhaps control as C is typically crouch now.)

Note: Some weapons don't need iron sights to be effective, CoD4's P90 and most shotguns are prefect examples of this. Note that none of these are effective long range weapons by nature.
(Playing with a pump shotgun is like gambling, it's addictive and you can't win forever.)


tl;dr:
Accuracy bonus needs to be balanced by penalizing other things. If you don't want it to be move speed suggest other things.

[Reginald]

The problem I find is not with the iron sights themselves but with how hip fire is handled. Take CoD for instance, aimed fire = accurate, hip fire = anywhere withing the crosshairs. The problem is they make the cone of fire too wide. Its a gun if you point it in one direction the bullets will go in that general direction. Too many a time have I fired a shot 4 foot away from a wall only to see the bullet hole 7 foot up and to the left of the center of the screen. Thats just wrong.

[Alaska]

I enjoy iron sights, but I also can do without. Like Captain said, "Everything in a good game is balanced". Certain games are meant to have them, some are not. Some have a mixture.

As long as it fits perfectly into Planetside gameplay, it should be all good. =]]

[DviddLeff]

I love iron sights and always wanted them to be in ps2.

They reward tactical play rather than run and gun as the methodical group will have much more of an advantage over a bunch that just runs about.

I want them to slow the player down and restrict their view while rewarding them with near perfect accuracy; that's the way it should be.

[Xyntech]

They just need to avoid making "hip firing" worthless just to promote iron sites.

Iron sites should be another way to increase accuracy, but it should only really give a large advantage at long ranges.

Make iron sites give a bit of an accuracy/kickback/bloom boost, and make crouching give some too. Just don't make regular firing worthless.

Edit: also I would make iron sites slow down the players move speed a bit, but not much, certainly not like crouching. I think that movement should affect accuracy at all times though, iron sites or hip firing. The faster you move, the more it affects it, regardless of what else you are doing.

Again, moving while gunning shouldn't be useless, it should just be a tactical decision. Up close, ADADAD while firing from the hip should make more sense, while at slightly further ranges, it may behoove a player to slow down for a second to let off a small burst before evading and lining up another shot, all fired from the hip to maximize speed, but with accountability for accuracy at longer range.

It is a game, but it's always leaned slightly more tactical than arcade. As long as it's not geared towards slow trudging and constant ironsites on every weapon at every range, I think there is enough room to accommodate both styles to a degree.

With any luck, at certain ranges iron sites and hip firing will come out pretty even between their advantages and disadvantages, allowing for two different playstyles to be employed, so you can choose what you like more. Staying faster and being slightly less accurate, or being a little slower with more tunnel vision, but landing shots in tighter groupings.

It will be interesting to play with it in beta. Hopefully the devs will still be open to tweaking a lot of those things to strike that sweet spot of balance.

I like seeing a lot of variety and I like seeing balance. To me, balance doesn't just mean that nothing is overpowered, it also means that everything (or almost everything) is nearly equally as useful as anything else. This goes for vehicles, classes, weapons, equipment, abilities, etc. Echoing Captain, it really comes down to balance.

The more features this game has while still maintaining balance, the better it will be, IMO.

[IronMole]

I did sorta say that, but people are under the assumption that ADS is more popular in gaming, im proven them wrong, with facts. thats not to say ADS isnt popular though that would be a ludicrus claim, there is over 200k people playing BF3 right now...but then there is god how many knows playing halo.

You really haven't proven much since you're under the assumption that everyone is playing those games purely because of the aiming system. Where are those FACTS?

All you have done is shown an image of the most played games on "Steam" which have been around for a few years because of the communities and gameplay - where does it show that ADS isn't the most popular?

Another thing, those who don't like iron sights clearly suck at FPS games and should stick to WoW/HelloKittyOnline.

[EVILoHOMER]

Counter Strike doesn't have them and it doesn't need them, the gameplay is perfect. Unreal Tournament, Team Fortress 2 and Quake are games that don't need them either and they still play amazing today.

Not all games have to be the same, I personally feel like they have to be in Planetside 2 just because it isn't going for fast paced action like them other games. However I wouldn't want any of them games to have them, if CS:GO has Iron sights then it fails and isn't CS to me.

[SKYeXile]

You really haven't proven much since you're under the assumption that everyone is playing those games purely because of the aiming system. Where are those FACTS?

All you have done is shown an image of the most played games on "Steam" which have been around for a few years because of the communities and gameplay - where does it show that ADS isn't the most popular?

Another thing, those who don't like iron sights clearly suck at FPS games and should stick to WoW/HelloKittyOnline.


Lol look at the internet hero, thinks he's tough because of the style of games he prefers.

[Marth Koopa]

Iron sights add realism, realism adds to the immersion aspect of games, immersion makes you feel like you really are doing the things you're doing.

Not having iron sights would be a terrible idea.

[Shogun]

in terms of immersion and realism i would prefer vehicle enter-animations over ironsights every day!

[DviddLeff]

Iron sights are like the stuffing in the roast chicken of FPS games; not necessary, but expected.

Vehicle entering animations are like pigs in blankets; you only get them once a year.

[acosmo]

Vehicle entering animations are like pigs in blankets; you only get them once a year.

but... :drools:

[IronMole]

Lol look at the internet hero, thinks he's tough because of the style of games he prefers.

Typical. :rolleyes:

[Sifer2]

I never understood the lover affair modern games have with Ironsights. Maybe its because I grew up playing FPS that didn't use them. For me the Ironsight is just an additional button I have to press before I can pull the trigger. It merely slows me down, and handicaps my experience. If realism is what the shooter is about then I accept their presence. Such as Americas Army or ARMA. Where its supposed to make you feel like a real soldier then sure.

But in a normal shooter I feel that yes they just slow down gameplay, and make fighting less mobile or skill based. In fact I suspect this precisely why many modern gamers prefer them. It lowers the amount of skill needed to effectively play the game. COD for example even has auto aim Ironsights that snap to the nearest target when you go into them. And even without auto aim it zooms in making aiming easier. An slows movement so enemies are easier to hit.

In the end I doubt they are going to take Ironsights out of Planetside 2. I think its a bit of a shame but that by slowing you down it probably helps with latency. So you can either run an be hard to hit or stop an shoot but be easy to hit. That's probably where they are going with it. But if we had a choice then yeah I probably vote for no Ironsights. Just scopes for Rifles.

[acosmo]

I never understood the lover affair modern games have with Ironsights. Maybe its because I grew up playing FPS that didn't use them. For me the Ironsight is just an additional button I have to press before I can pull the trigger. It merely slows me down, and handicaps my experience. If realism is what the shooter is about then I accept their presence. Such as Americas Army or ARMA. Where its supposed to make you feel like a real soldier then sure.

But in a normal shooter I feel that yes they just slow down gameplay, and make fighting less mobile or skill based. In fact I suspect this precisely why many modern gamers prefer them. It lowers the amount of skill needed to effectively play the game. COD for example even has auto aim Ironsights that snap to the nearest target when you go into them. And even without auto aim it zooms in making aiming easier. An slows movement so enemies are easier to hit.

In the end I doubt they are going to take Ironsights out of Planetside 2. I think its a bit of a shame but that by slowing you down it probably helps with latency. So you can either run an be hard to hit or stop an shoot but be easy to hit. That's probably where they are going with it. But if we had a choice then yeah I probably vote for no Ironsights. Just scopes for Rifles.
sorry bro but your entire post was bs. i mean, isn't planetside supposed to be an intense modern shooter with a decent resemblance to full scale combined arms warfare?

[Khellendros]

sorry bro but your entire post was bs. i mean, isn't planetside supposed to be an intense modern shooter with a decent resemblance to full scale combined arms warfare?

What does that have to do with iron sights?

[ArmedZealot]

What does that have to do with iron sights?

He's saying that sife's thoughts on why iron sights shouldn't be in the game are bogus.

sife says that he feels that iron sights better belong in games like America's Army and arma. Realistic war shooters. Which is what Planetside it closer too than your arcade shooters like quake and tribes etc.

[Sifer2]

sorry bro but your entire post was bs. i mean, isn't planetside supposed to be an intense modern shooter with a decent resemblance to full scale combined arms warfare?


I'm not sure what you mean. But if your trying to attack from some kind of realism or immersion angle then forget it. Planetside is far from realistic. If it was then combined arms would mean satellite finding you some targets to bomb or shell from miles away with artillery. Then send a APC with guys in later to pick through the rubble.

I'm talking more about what is fun. And a more competitive fast paced shooter is more fun to me. Where you don't have to slow down an go into zoom mode before you can shoot. Removing possibility of any evasive action to make yourself harder to hit. Were basically talking Counter Strike vs. Call of Duty more or less. Though I prefer Halo more than Counter Strike actually.

[ArmedZealot]

If it was then combined arms would mean satellite finding you some targets to bomb or shell from miles away with artillery. Then send a APC with guys in later to pick through the rubble.

You mean like orbital strikes and bang buses? Seems like a viable strat in PS2 to me.

[acosmo]

You mean like orbital strikes and bang buses? Seems like a viable strat in PS2 to me.

seriously, lol.

@sifer2 that pace of combat doesnt really have a place in planetside. i think we can both say that world of tribes done in forge light would be awesome though.

[Sifer2]

seriously, lol.

@sifer2 that pace of combat doesnt really have a place in planetside. i think we can both say that world of tribes done in forge light would be awesome though.


That's funny considering Planetside 1 didn't have ironsights. And you had enough health to make evasive skill based fights work in medium range to a degree. So maybe your just saying it has no place in Planetside 2?

If that's the case I do wonder why they bothered adding the light jump pack class. Seems like its just going to get shot to bits when it has to stop moving to shoot you. But I guess we will see how that goes down. But from my point of view the one's that benefit most from Ironsights will be the campers, and snipers.

[acosmo]

That's funny considering Planetside 1 didn't have ironsights. And you had enough health to make evasive exploit based fights work in medium range to a degree. So maybe your just saying it has no place in Planetside 2?
FTFY

sorry, did you just say campers? planetside isn't supposed to be about the fragfest, it's a social game where coordination and organization are made more lethal than players with artificial aiming. also the jetpacks are just for climbing things. you probably can't effectively aim at anything while flying.

[Elude]

For all those who think iron sights don't slow down the game.... Of course iron sights slow down the game! You have to click an extra button and wait an extra second for the animation to complete. On top of that iron sights slow down your run speed and they lower your FOV, which can result in tunnel vision.

I'm not against iron sights in the slightest for a game like Planetside 2. You're talking about a game that strives off massive scaled combat with 100s of players at a time, hit detection would be a nightmare if this were twitch based like CS or more excessively, Quake. Let's also not forget that Planetside 2 is a heavily team based game, eliminating one man army scenarios is in its best interest.

Skill per player should be the least important factor in Planetside 2. I'm an avid Quake player who loves a game that supports high levels of skill and gives a player a challenge but I don't think that fits at all in this type of game, at least not per player but per team instead.

[ArmedZealot]

That's funny considering Planetside 1 didn't have ironsights. And you had enough health to make evasive skill based fights work in medium range to a degree. So maybe your just saying it has no place in Planetside 2?

Planetside 1 didn't have it because games at the time didn't use it. The closest that did use it was america's army and it was the only game for a while that did. And that was only a released a year before Planetside, which had been in development since the 90's. It just wasn't a feature considered at all.



If that's the case I do wonder why they bothered adding the light jump pack class. Seems like its just going to get shot to bits when it has to stop moving to shoot you. But I guess we will see how that goes down. But from my point of view the one's that benefit most from Ironsights will be the campers, and snipers.

The jump packs are for more tactical gameplay, like flanks and such. It's been stated that there are parts of the new bases that only the packs can reach, like the backdoor's from planetside 1, or the top entrance to towers. Not for skiing and evading.

[Graywolves]

Well...Iron sights are really only useful from 100-250 meters away and is subpar to other methods of aiming down a range.


In a future where I wear epic body armor and fight over territory in a distant galaxy...I think Iron sights are just stupid.


Welcome to the year 9746, now let's spend 3 days on the firing range getting your iron sights adjusted.

[MilitantBob]

I personally love iron sights. I think it is because I'm a bit of a gun nut... err... enthusiast in real life. Iron sights, to me, do a better job of selling a fire fight. In the real world you don't see soldiers/cops/criminals jumping around while keeping the trigger held back, and for good reason. They wouldn't hit anything! Not even with shotguns, which, by the way, do not fire massive cones of lead as they are often depicted in video games. (For those interested: the shot pattern starts out as an mass of pellets a little less than an inch in diameter and spreads about an inch per meter, on average of course.)

But then again, real life has about as much to do with video games as videos games have to do with real life. Not a whole lot.:rant:

Beyond realism I like them because they make games feel more tactical and less twitch based. I believe there is a place for both styles but I think a massive war simulator would do better with a more strategic approach. I'd rather not enter a courtyard brawl just to see a bunch of soldiers hopping and bobbing around one another hosing down the walls. I'd rather see the defenders peeking out from behind emplacements, firing off controlled bursts at the encroaching enemy while the attackers leap frog their way in, covering one another's approach with suppressing fire.

But thats just me. Either way I trust the devs will take care of things and make the game awesome. With our help of course...
:wantbeta:

[SuperMorto]

This is one of the few games that has pulled having no iron sights off exceptionally well.

Aliens vs. Predator 2 Team Deathmatch - YouTube

Also iron sights give you a accuracy advantage, but they should also come with a speed penalty, they should only be used when you have the time to use them. This makes tactical movements necessary. And if you don't have time - you shoot from the hip, which will give you a (lets say) 78% chance of hitting something, and that will decrease with kickback.

And cone of fir should always start quite accurate then work its way to being less over time/bullets. Thus making people use smaller bursts of fire (like in real life) :D

[Sifer2]

This is one of the few games that has pulled having no iron sights off exceptionally well.

Aliens vs. Predator 2 Team Deathmatch - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46de5jxSq3M)

Also iron sights give you a accuracy advantage, but they should also come with a speed penalty, they should only be used when you have the time to use them. This makes tactical movements necessary. And if you don't have time - you shoot from the hip, which will give you a (lets say) 78% chance of hitting something, and that will decrease with kickback.

And cone of fir should always start quite accurate then work its way to being less over time/bullets. Thus making people use smaller bursts of fire (like in real life) :D




Good old AvP2. One of my favorite shooters of all time that one. Such a damn shame the third one ended up being a bad console port. There was a game where not needing to go into Ironsights to fire your Pulse Rifle was a god damn godsend. Since other wise a super fast alien would pounce you an rip your face off in a heartbeat. Your average COD soldier wouldn't last 5 seconds in a match of AvP2 :lol:

An to the people that responded to me above saying its to help deal with latency. Yeah I already said that. In a lot of ways its probably the replacement to the accuracy cone of PS1. Though at least the cone didn't hassle me with needing to press another button before I could shoot. Just so I could pretend i'm really there I guess? lol

I agree with the dude that said if were going for immersion I would pick Vehicle entry animations before Ironsights. But ultimately the lack of the former an inclusion of the latter wont stop me from playing and enjoying the game.

[SKYeXile]

Bring the game to a crawl, helps with latency....

[Xyntech]

Well...Iron sights are really only useful from 100-250 meters away and is subpar to other methods of aiming down a range.


In a future where I wear epic body armor and fight over territory in a distant galaxy...I think Iron sights are just stupid.


Welcome to the year 9746, now let's spend 3 days on the firing range getting your iron sights adjusted.

Those are the ranges I'd want to see iron sites used at more often. I don't get why a lot of games force you to be so inaccurate at close range without sites.

As for the futuristic setting, yeah it's pretty silly. But meh, unless they go balls out and give us cameras on every gun that we can use to shoot more accurately with, I'm okay with the old school style.

Just having ironsites to slow down gameplay for latency reasons sounds like a terrible idea though. There will always be high speed close quarters shotgun combat happening, so I want good netcode to handle it.

I just want to see iron sites used as a viable, tactical choice. Not as a mandatory "you must press this before firing or you will never hit anything!" button.

[Elude]

In a future where I wear epic body armor and fight over territory in a distant galaxy...I think Iron sights are just stupid.

What???

In a futuristic setting we wouldn't even need people let alone iron sights to fight wars.

[Bruttal]

I Like iron sights and I Do think they should be in PS2, what gets me about everyone's argument comparing PS2 to Quake and Unreal and whatever other Small arena type map game is just that. the maps are small so theres no need for a decent sight get players 100m away i bet you wish you had an iron sight then bitches.

What I dont think should be done is add a HIGH accuracy bonus for using them so if you wanna Spray at 20m your still gonna land quite bit of your shots. its vary difficult to get these things balanced but not imposable.

[Hamma]

As someone who enjoys shooting outside of video games I think (for me) that Iron Sights (red dots, etc) add more to the mechanics of the game. It adds an additional level of accuracy for people who want to take the time to do so.

I think the days of quake and doom with just a big crosshair are long gone the technology and mechanics exist now for much deeper shooting mechanics into games and I think PlanetSide 2 should benefit from that.

[duomaxwl]

I just want to see iron sites used as a viable, tactical choice. Not as a mandatory "you must press this before firing or you will never hit anything!" button.
^^^^
I'd rather iron sights be used for medium range shots, but still have the "fire-from-the-hip" style of PS as an option for close range.

[Hmr85]

I have done a lot of thinking on this and to be honest this is how I would really like see it setup. I am all for Iron sight but only to a certain extent.

I would love to see it setup as if you are 100 to 300 yards away from the target iron sights are a must if you want to be accurate and on target. Of course this varies depending on bullet drop. “I believe I read somewhere that bullet drop was in game”. You can still fire from the hip but you’re only going to hit your target about 60 to 65% of the time at those ranges. Compared to if you are using Iron sights you are only as accurate as your aim/range from the target.

Now when we move into the base this is where hip firing is a must due to how close you can be to the enemy. You can still use Iron sights and be accurate but its not needed. Anything under that 100 yard range depending on how close you are to the target increases your accuracy. So if I am 50 yards away from my target and I am firing from the hip I am hitting about 90 to 100% of the time. Once again this depends on if I am running and so on.

I would say refer back to how they have it setup in PS1 now for ranges under 100 yards.
Anyways, this is how I would like to see it setup.

[XPquant]

Iron sights are already in the game. What is the point of this conversation?

[Redshift]

I'm more than happy for iron sights for 100 meter ranges (i'd rather a scope, but meh). What i don't want to see is people being forced to iron sight to shoot the other side of a room

[Redshift]

Iron sights are already in the game. What is the point of this conversation?

because higby asked on twitter for opinions, read before you flame

[Hmr85]

I don't know, maybe it had something to do with the title of the thread and everybody being excited about PS2 maybe??

[acosmo]

ellude, the whole robots thing is silly. empires will always be sacrificing their cheap bodies instead of their expensive toys in war.

also sifer2, you do not NEED to use ironsights in PS2, but they are available if you need to get a difficult shot off.

[Elude]

ellude, the whole robots thing is silly. empires will always be sacrificing their cheap bodies instead of their expensive toys in war.

Right because robots will always be expensive..... Shit will be so easily produced in the future that it'll be completely ass backwards in which costs more, the drone or the meat bag?

Money is the least of the problems, a self replicating machine in the future doesn't need money for it's labor or even for its resources, after all space is littered with an infinite amount of such.

The closest thing you're going to get to men fighting in wars in the distant future is a civil war within a nation.

[Johari]

As long as they help with medium to long range engagements where accuracy is needed and not as a "must use or you'll miss every shot" button like previously described, then I have no problem with the iron sights/red dot. Just let me fire from the hip in CQC and know that my shots won't be flying everywhere.

[Redshift]

Right because robots will always be expensive..... Shit will be so easily produced in the future that it'll be completely ass backwards in which costs more, the drone or the meat bag?

The closest thing you're going to get to men fighting in wars in the distant future is a civil war within a nation.

You know the story behind planetside yeah? Warpgates caused people who died to be reborn.

Hence why the soldiers are inclined to not care about getting blown to bits

[acosmo]

thats extremely idealistic, elude. also @ all you people thinking ironsights or gameplay pace has ANYTHING to do with latency, they don't.

[Furret]

For everyone here that thinks iron sights are going to slow down the game, I don't think you're thinking it through.

Are you imagining base fights where every player is crawling around with their head jammed in their sights waiting for someone to come around the corner? I can guarantee you that won't be the case.

Since everyone seems to compare iron sights to CoD and the lack of skill involved in CoD, let me give you the unbiased opinion of a competitive CoD player.


There are a lot of different ways you can describe 'skill' in FPS games. In games without iron sights, the better players are the ones who can keep their crosshair tight to their enemy, both by tracking the enemy well, and using recoil/cof reduction techniques to keep their accuracy as high as possible. In a game like Modern Warfare, where iron sights/red dot sights exist, it requires a different skillset to play at a high level.

Many of you are right, it is easy to hit a player when you're aiming down the sights, but by the same token, the other player has those same advantages. Tracking enemy players isn't as important with a 3 bullet TTK, whats more important is getting your sight on them as fast as possible. The quicker you can snap to an opponent, the quicker you can start putting your bullets into him. This leads to styles like jumping around a corner while sighting in, to surprise your opponent, and basically put yourself in the same position as him, whereas strafing around the same corner will get you demolished by any half decent player (also referred to as campers).

They're both extremely difficult to play at a high level, just for different reasons. ((On a side note, I believe the transitioin from crosshair shooters to iron sight shooters has been slow, and has led to the hating of 'campers' because its a very powerful tactic in iron sight shooters.))

So how does this relate to PS 2?

I think iron sights are a good addition to the game. With a TTK higher than CoD, players will still have to track with iron sights, which still leaves some of the skill that crosshair shooter players claim will disappear with the implementation of iron sights.

Iron sights will also add more depth to infantry combat. In planetside 1, fighting past 75 m was very difficult without a sniper rifle, as a gauss took close to 10 bullets to kill, without factoring in the lead, crosshair size at that range, and the less than desirable hit detection (which i presume wont be a problem in ps2). Iron sights would extend the range of effective combat. With a larger space in between opposing zergs, I think this would give tanks and aircraft a much more effective role in moving the front lines.

As far as base combat, I can't imagine walking while zoomed in will be a more effective strategy than quickly strafing while spraying. Obviously there will be a range at which the slow strafing with iron sights will be more effective, but that's not going to take away from the game. Long tunnel fights never were strafing matches, they were camp-the-corners-of-the-tunnel-till-the-MAXs-get-here fights.

TL;DR
There's more than one type of skill. crosshair based shooters require keeping aimed on the target for extended periods of time and retaining high accuracy.
Iron sight based shooters require quick and precise reflexes to get your aim to the target as fast as possible and begin unloading bullets.

relating to PS 2: Higher TTK retains some crosshair based skill while allowing iron sight based skill. Iron sights will also extend the effective combat range increasing the complexity of open field fights. This will not affect base combat assuming hipfire spraying is not made completely useless as it is in CoD.



Slightly related: What if the running speed was only minimally reduced for strafing while aimed down the sights, but a large bounce was added to the iron sights when strafing in this way. Players would still be able to move quickly, but they would be much less accurate. To control this, players could toggle walking as they strafed to allow more accurate strafing iron sight fire, at the sacrifice of quick movement.

Food for thought, feel free to question/critique.

[MasterChief096]

I play a lot of "modern" FPS games (stupid, erroneous term for shitty games that people claim PS2 has to adopt features from because they are "modern") and I can honestly say that Iron Sights should be handled differently in PS2.

For the realism people: By the time a spacefaring civilization like the one in PlanetSide is capable of reaching a wormhole on the other end of the Solar System, then I'm pretty sure conventional iron sights would have been tossed out the window. If it bothers the realists so bad then have an animation that pulls the weapon up to the person's eyes, but zooms in like PlanetSide's system with full movement, COF mechanics, etc. Make the interface look all cool and awesome to account for the future and everything. Tie it into the lore by saying that targeting has become a chip-set interface between a soldiers helmet and the current weapon he's using, and bingo. Every soldier receives a neural reaction time implant to allow for smooth muscle control while zoomed in (hence why we keep the same movement speed etc). *Stole that from Peter F. Hamilton's Commonwealth Saga, probably one of the most realistic sci-fi novels I've ever read (however you define "realistic" in sci-fi, anyways).

I just feel like iron sights don't belong in PS2. I'm not hating on iron sights, I play plenty of games with them, and most of them have unrealistic handling of iron sights anyways. ARMA 2 comes the closest to how hard it actually is to use iron sights. If you've ever fired a real rifle downrange using the iron sights you'd know that its not as simple as raising your weapon in half a second and pumping three bullets into the center of the target. It takes time and aim.

TRxEffects earlier video post demonstrates exactly why I don't like iron sights. PlanetSide was slow a lot of the time, but when it got fast, boy did it get FAST. Running through with an MCG/JH/Lasher not reloading until you have to, while firing away at a constant stream of enemies and not having to worry about swinging a slow iron sight onto new targets.

Maybe iron sights with very slow moving aim can be an add-on to MA weapons later on in the game for suppression/long range fighting purposes, but as the primary form of aiming, I just don't think it fits the PlanetSide feel all that well.

[Gandhi]

Iron sights work well in the real world because our eyes work well. Binocular vision, the ability to shift depth focus quickly, even the simple ability to move your eyes around to scan your surroundings while you're looking down the gun sights, all of those things are missing in the virtual world. In a game you put the gun up to your face and suddenly more than half your vision is obscured by useless metal. In the act of trying to be more accurate you've made it harder to see what you're shooting.

Now in a realistic modern warfare shooter iron sights are necessary, because despite their shortcomings in game they've become a part of the experience and even I would miss them if they weren't there. But lets make this game a little different, shall we? If you really want something on the screen at the same time, then make them holographic iron sights that don't obscure half your surroundings. That's a good compromise, no?

[Tatwi]

personally, i think it looks stupid and detracts from the game. it's like an 80s arcade throw back in a 2012 game. i would be happy to not have it in ps2.

[Elude]

You know the story behind planetside yeah? Warpgates caused people who died to be reborn.

Hence why the soldiers are inclined to not care about getting blown to bits

Of course, I was just merely pointing out to Greywolves that he should probably take the whole realism thing in the future with a grain of salt because it will be completely different then it is today, we won't need iron sights in the future, but we also won't be needing half the other shit we see in the military too.

I'm for iron sights in PS2, not because it's realistic to todays standards or that its unrealistic to the futures standards. I'm for them for the sake of gameplay, bringing players down to a crawl when aiming not only helps kill off one man army scenarios but it also helps hide potential latency anomalies.

thats extremely idealistic, elude. also @ all you people thinking ironsights or gameplay pace has ANYTHING to do with latency, they don't.

I'm not much of an idealistic person, but yes I'd agree with you that it is very idealistic.

On the topic of ironsights, gameplay, and latency.... Iron sights do slow down gameplay, for a number of reasons. They slow your movement speed down (you move slower), they decrease your field of view (you turn slower), you have to press an extra button, and wait for the camera to animate into position (you literally wait longer).

Now that we know iron sights lead to slower pace gameplay, how will this fit in with it affecting latency? Iron sights won't decrease or increase latency if that's what you're getting at, but since the game is slower it means hit detection anomalies will decrease.

[acosmo]

On the topic of ironsights, gameplay, and latency.... Iron sights do slow down gameplay, for a number of reasons. They slow your movement speed down (you move slower), they decrease your field of view (you turn slower), you have to press an extra button, and wait for the camera to animate into position (you literally wait longer).

Now that we know iron sights lead to slower pace gameplay, how will this fit in with it affecting latency? Iron sights won't decrease or increase latency if that's what you're getting at, but since the game is slower it means hit detection anomalies will decrease.

the whole latency thing is silly. you'll get a ghost shot every now and then it doesn't matter how many bullets are being shot or how fast people are snapping from target to target. the game is the game and servers these days aren't like they were 10 years ago. also please take it easy elude, it's not like you'll be twitch snapping at targets 100m off and it's not like you'll have to take aim at a target around just a few meters away around a corridor corner either. ironsights will help you, they will not hinder you. just think of ironsights as a single button to press for CoF reduction as opposed to having to learn tricky CoF reduction exploits/techniques.

[Elude]

the whole latency thing is silly. you'll get a ghost shot every now and then it doesn't matter how many bullets are being shot or how fast people are snapping from target to target. the game is the game and servers these days aren't like they were 10 years ago. also please take it easy elude, it's not like you'll be twitch snapping at targets 100m off and it's not like you'll have to take aim at a target around just a few meters away around a corridor corner either. ironsights will help you, they will not hinder you. just think of ironsights as a single button to press for CoF reduction as opposed to having to learn tricky CoF reduction exploits/techniques.

I want iron sights and I want them to hinder you while also providing you with a bonus, trading off speed for precision. PS2 is a team oriented game that should penalize players who don't rely on their team mates

[SKYeXile]

the whole latency thing is silly. you'll get a ghost shot every now and then it doesn't matter how many bullets are being shot or how fast people are snapping from target to target. the game is the game and servers these days aren't like they were 10 years ago. also please take it easy elude, it's not like you'll be twitch snapping at targets 100m off and it's not like you'll have to take aim at a target around just a few meters away around a corridor corner either. ironsights will help you, they will not hinder you. just think of ironsights as a single button to press for CoF reduction as opposed to having to learn tricky CoF reduction exploits/techniques.

it would be interesting to know the coding behind forglight, but even if planetside was switched to interpolation and the tickrate upped to 10(currently 5) there would be a massive difference in gameplay. movement is really going to be a nonfactor issue. the issue with latency is TTK, for example if I come around a corner and have a position prelined up I could kill somebody before i render on their screen with a low TTK. The TTK really does need to be higher in this and the skill more about consistent aim rather than reflexes, that way atleast the games caters to all ages better aswell, its obvious kids have faster reflexes.

[Elude]

But movement is a factor! If a player is moving faster than a speeding buggy and you shoot him with a hitscan weapon on something that remotely resembles client based hit detection while both players have high latency it's going to have some visual anomaly. The player being slower will reduce the gap for error.

UT, Quake, Tribes all have relatively high TTK in comparison to your modern shooters today. Yet these games have far more hit detection issues because they are simply faster paced games.

[SKYeXile]

But movement is a factor! If a player is moving faster than a speeding buggy and you shoot him with a hitscan weapon on something that remotely resembles client based hit detection while both players have high latency it's going to have some visual anomaly. The player being slower will reduce the gap for error.

UT, Quake, Tribes all have relatively high TTK in comparison to your modern shooters today. Yet these games have far more hit detection issues because they are simply faster paced games.

those games have hit detection issues because they all use serverside hit detection, there is no problems with clinetside hit detection. planetside 2 wont have hitscan weapons(well many) because gravity will play an effect on bullets.

The only real anomaly when facing a player with high latency and CSHD is dying around corners on your screen.

and why would a player be running faster than a high speed buggy?

[Metalsheep]

While i don't like the idea of Iron Sights, i could think of a way to impliment them, while keeping the ability to shoot from the hip. Planetside takes place in the super future, where most soldiers have some kind of visor or occular implants im sure. It would make sense to link the soldiers weapon to their HUD or HMD for easier aiming. (i think the landwarrior system does something similar to this.) Giving players their Crosshiers and ability to shoot from the hip with accuracy.

Ironsites could be the first tier of aiming/sight upgrades for Rifles and other precision weapons that all players have access to. Using the Iron Sites wont necessarily slow down the player, but can allow the player to fire at distance more accurately. If the player continues to run while in ironsites or keeps spraying, accuracy dosent really improve much. Aiming down the ironsites will require discapline, you have to slow your own speed and pace your shots. But once you use the weapon or class of weapons enough, new sites will unlock, such as reflex sites, scopes of varying quality ect ect.

Cone effecting variables such as running, crouching, getting shot will effect accuracy in both Hip Fire and Sight Fire modes. Neither is really more accurate than the other, the sites just allow finer aiming at distance. Alot like Planetside 1s scopes for MA weapons. Sure, you could zoom in, but it never really made the weapon itself MORE accurate. It simply improved your vision at range and allowed you to fire at a distant target better than him spraying at you without zooming. Neither of you have a more accurate weapon. But the player who chose to zoom and maybe crouch, will win the firefight. Could the player who didnt zoom possibly kill you? Yeah, maybe. But the major advantage goes to the player who properly used his sights. Assuming the crosshiers bloom like in PS1, aiming from the hip wont be as accurate as it will be hard to tell where exactly your shots will land.

If ironsites were implimented like that, i would find it more acceptable. Cause once you upgrade to a Scope or other siteing device, you cant use the ironsites anyways. Aiming down the site shouldnt immediately slow you to a crawl or make you pinpoint accurate. The accuracy still lies with the shooter and his choices. I also like the idea of the IronSites bobbing if you are moving fast while aiming down them, but that detracts from my point a little.

Halo is similar to this, the Sights dont impede your movement or make the weapon magically more accurate, but it makes a huge difference when you chose to scope in for a distant kill, rather than trying to hip fire it the entire time.

[Elude]

those games have hit detection issues because they all use serverside hit detection, there is no problems with clinetside hit detection. planetside 2 wont have hitscan weapons(well many) because gravity will play an effect on bullets.

The only real anomaly when facing a player with high latency and CSHD is dying around corners on your screen.

and why would a player be running faster than a high speed buggy?

Quakelive and Tribes Ascend don't use server side hit detection, if they do then I must obviously be misunderstanding what it means. To word it better, both those games simulate a zero latency scenario, you don't need to lead your target with a hit scan weapon like you would with serverside hit detection.

If it they were using a form of server side hit detection (using my understanding of it in case I'm wrong) there would be no anomalies in shot registration, but instead there would be delays in the shot instead, and ultimately forcing you to lead with even non projectile based weapons.

Also clientside hit detection (again to my understanding of it) doesn't just affect hitscan, but projectile weapons also, you can see this easily in other games that use clientside hit detection. Meaning it doesn't matter if PS2 used hitscan weapons or projectile weapons, they would still get the same treatment.

[sylphaen]

As long as people can still run around and assault base fortresses or fight in forests without having to slow down to shoot straight, I dont see a problem. As such, the way PS1 zoom worked was fine imo: tighter cof longer while crouch but you could still shoot straight when running.

If we have to choose between slowing down in the open or sprinting for cover all day long to fire, camping would make a come back. Which is not exactly like speeding up the gameplay.

Will there be prone btw ? I hope not.


Edit: just to clarify, I hope prone will not be in PS2 because it's synonym to static fire gameplay and entrenched positions. I have nothing against prone in games like Day of Defeat or Red Orchestra which I like a lot (it goes with the ttk too).

[SKYeXile]

Quakelive and Tribes Ascend don't use server side hit detection, if they do then I must obviously be misunderstanding what it means. To word it better, both those games simulate a zero latency scenario, you don't need to lead your target with a hit scan weapon like you would with serverside hit detection.

If it they were using a form of server side hit detection (using my understanding of it in case I'm wrong) there would be no anomalies in shot registration, but instead there would be delays in the shot instead, and ultimately forcing you to lead with even non projectile based weapons.

Also clientside hit detection (again to my understanding of it) doesn't just affect hitscan, but projectile weapons also, you can see this easily in other games that use clientside hit detection. Meaning it doesn't matter if PS2 used hitscan weapons or projectile weapons, they would still get the same treatment.

TBH i actually dont know what quake live uses for hit detection, i presumed SSHD been an arena style game. Hi res are inbreds and used stock standard unreal SSHD in an MMO, so i presumed they would use it in tribes ascend, guess they learnt their lesson? All unreal engines use standard serverside hit detection where you need to compensate for your latency by adjusting your fire.

I guess now im not entirely sure what you meant by visual anomaly when a person using a hitscan weapon fires at somebody using CSHD. obviously they're further ahead on the server to what youre seeing them at and they're even further ahead on their client. so when you kill somebody their corpse would warp to where they were on their client when you kill them...like what happens in planetside.

are you referring to that? because on you're screen i would think everything looks fine.

Yea clientside hit detection is the same as a zeroping scenario, its one of the points of it...and not overloading the server.

Matt has said that planetside will be the same as BF3 a client/server hybrid...tbh i dont know how BF3 works either...but i know a hit on my screen is a hit, so i dont really care beyond that.

[Elude]

I'm referring to landing a railgun shot in Quakelive directly on a player and doing zero damage because they were actually a step ahead of your shot, this happens in Tribes ascend also with even projectile weapons.

This is the visual anomaly I'm referring to.

[SKYeXile]

I'm referring to landing a railgun shot in Quakelive directly on a player and doing zero damage because they were actually a step ahead of your shot, this happens in Tribes ascend also with even projectile weapons.

This is the visual anomaly I'm referring to.

Sounds like serverside hit detection to me, sure its simulating zero ping? a hit on your screen should be a hit...except on planetside on emerald...packets like to go...missing...often.

i cant find anything on google on what those 2 games are running on, tribes ascend is running on Unreal though, I really don't think Hi res are going to change it(the netcode model), its not in their capacity.

[Elude]

I own both UT3 and Tribes ascend and their netcode is completely different. You don't have to lead hitscan weapons whatsoever in Tribes Ascend, not even with 200 ping (atleast not hitscan weapons lol). Yet in UT3 you do unless you're using some clientside hit detection mod like UTComp.

Serverside hit detection doesn't have unregistered shot anomalies, when something lands it lands, the bad part is that you had to lead your shot. You have it all backwards, in UT3 you don't have these anomalies (again unless you're using UTComp) instead you have to lead your targets (which sucks).

Stock Quake 3 netcode is the same way, there are no miss hits, but you have to lead. Quakelive on the other hand you don't have to lead but you have a chance of having a shot registration error.

If the game is fast and you have clientside hit detection you are going to experience shot registration errors than you would if the game was slow with clientside hit detection. Cod4 in comparison to Quakelive or Tribes Ascend is a perfect example of this.

Hell you don't even need to compare any other game, you could simply just walk around in quakelive with a friend and take shots at eachother and you'll see your chances of miss hits decrease, but once you start picking up speed by strafe jumping around the map, and playing the way the game intended you to, you will all of a sudden start to notice tons of miss hits.

[SKYeXile]

You have it all backwards,

No, i have it right, its 2012, a hit on my screen should be a hit, shouldn't have to lead a target due to ping anymore with SSHD or CSHD, if developers cant get SSHD right now, especially when their game mode is sub 32 players, then they should goto Valve for some education.

I have never had any bad experiences with CSHD...bar hackers in planetside and issues on emerald where i get packet loss, never felt like my shots were doing nothing on Markov where I had 0.0% packet loss.

[SKYeXile]

Hrm im, reading now that while most people state that BF3 is is Clinetside hit detection(apparently) further reading shows that its server side hit detection with hit prediction, what valve use. and it all falls into place...(this si what people say, makes sense...gotta keep the hackers at bay)

Smedly has previously stated that while planetside uses one hit detection model(CSHD), PS2 will use the other(clearly SSHD) and higby had stated more recently that PS2 will use the same netcode as BF3, it makes perfect sense....it didn't before because apparently BF3 used CSHD.

Obviously most people believe BF3 is clientside, it is, arguably, but the hit is confirmed on the server so it would seem as far as i'm, Valve and smedly are concerned its SSHD.

This is interesting then, Source has issues running 32 players @ 30 ticks per second, I wonder how SOE plan to compensate with 2000 using similar netcode?

I Really should make a new thread.

[Elude]

I've landed direct hits on players in Quakelive, CoD4 and Tribes Ascend that have done zero damage while having zero packetloss, and only 80 ping. But this isn't even my argument, my argument is that the speed of the game actually affects hit detection.

They all have hit detection anomalies, but the faster the game, the more noticeable they will be. I've honestly seen more hit detection issues in modern games then I have in older games. (where I've actually witness none other then having to lead)

I'm all for client side hit detection, I would much rather have a chance of a miss even if I landed the shot than having to lead my shot on a weapon that was designed to hit instantly. I'm just showing that when it comes to clientside hit detection, it does have it's disadvantages over serverside hit detection, and it is far from perfect.

[Elude]

I always figured if you're simulating clientside hit detection then it's more than likely clientside netcode, but if thats the case in your research of BF3 then maybe its not :(.

My point I still think is valid though, simulated clientside or entirely clientside, you're still going to get anomalies in hit detection.

[SKYeXile]

I've landed direct hits on players in Quakelive, CoD4 and Tribes Ascend that have done zero damage while having zero packetloss, and only 80 ping. But this isn't even my argument, my argument is that the speed of the game actually affects hit detection.

They all have hit detection anomalies, but the faster the game, the more noticeable they will be. I've honestly seen more hit detection issues in modern games then I have in older games. (where I've actually witness none other then having to lead)

I'm all for client side hit detection, I would much rather have a chance of a miss even if I landed the shot than having to lead my shot on a weapon that was designed to hit instantly. I'm just showing that when it comes to clientside hit detection, it does have it's disadvantages over serverside hit detection, and it is far from perfect.

For the sake of argument, just say I'm right and quakelive cod4 and tribes acsend use SSHD with hit prediction then yes i beleive you could run into issues with hit detection, because the timesmap may not be totally in sync.

this is a image from CCS.

https://developer.valvesoftware.com/w/images/c/ca/Lag_compensation.jpg

Valve explain it best:

This screenshot was taken on a listen server with 200 milliseconds of lag (using net_fakelag), right after the server confirmed the hit. The red hitbox shows the target position on the client where it was 100ms + interp period ago. Since then, the target continued to move to the left while the user command was travelling to the server. After the user command arrived, the server restored the target position (blue hitbox) based on the estimated command execution time. The server traces the shot and confirms the hit (the client sees blood effects).

Client and server hitboxes don't exactly match because of small precision errors in time measurement. Even a small difference of a few milliseconds can cause an error of several inches for fast-moving objects. Multiplayer hit detection is not pixel perfect and has known precision limitations based on the tickrate and the speed of moving objects. Increasing the tickrate does improve the precision of hit detection, but also requires more CPU, memory, and bandwidth capacity for server and clients.

The question arises, why is hit detection so complicated on the server? Doing the back tracking of player positions and dealing with precision errors while hit detection could be done client-side way easier and with pixel precision. The client would just tell the server with a "hit" message what player has been hit and where. We can't allow that simply because a game server can't trust the clients on such important decisions. Even if the client is "clean" and protected by Valve Anti-Cheat, the packets could be still modified on a 3rd machine while routed to the game server. These "cheat proxies" could inject "hit" messages into the network packet without being detected by VAC (a "man-in-the-middle" attack).

Network latencies and lag compensation can create paradoxes that seem illogical compared to the real world. For example, you can be hit by an attacker you can't even see anymore because you already took cover. What happened is that the server moved your player hitboxes back in time, where you were still exposed to your attacker. This inconsistency problem can't be solved in general because of the relatively slow packet speeds. In the real world, you don't notice this problem because light (the packets) travels so fast and you and everybody around you sees the same world as it is right now.

So yes, you're correct upping the movement speed if SOE use this from of serverside hit detection, with hit prediction will cause inconsistency with hits.

IF however they were to use full clinetside hit detection(like planetside) these issues would not be possible since a hit on your screen is a hit(unless the packet goes missing) but this in turn leaves the game to be plagued with hackers.

Im not saying im right on the "Severside hit detection with hit prediction" terminology, but i believe this is the issue you're talking about and seeing.

I really believe this sever side hit prediction code is the best code. while you do die around corners, all players aim at the target on their screen and a hit is generally a hit, and if this is the code they're using then the less erratic movement would be better(lets not make it a crawl though hey?) this code off course leaves lesser options for hackers and im 99% positive with the info we have that this is the code SOE are using.

[Grimster]

I have never liked iron sights.

I think it is a great addition if realism is what you are aiming for but in my opinion using COF instead makes shooter games more fun to play.

I will probably play PS2 no matter if there are iron sights in there or not. But I am quite confident that I would enjoy a PS2 without iron sights more, simply because no shooter game utilizing iron sights have managed to appeal to me more than any of the other shooter games not using it that I have played through the years.

Like someone else pointed out earlier iron sights in real life fill a totally different function but it is a whole other thing in a virtual world being seen on a screen.

The day that we play games in full 3D with googles or whatever and all that I am sure that iron sights would make a excellent feature in shooter games.

[Elude]

Thank you for finding that SKYeXile.

Technically most games, old and new are serverside based but many newer games use a form of clientside trickery to simulate zero ping, which is exactly the type of system I've been seeing hit detection issues with. I'm not against this at all but it does leave faster moving targets more open for such errors.

Full clientside netcode I suppose wouldn't have any anomalies and it would simulate zero ping but as you say it would be more prone to hackers. I think I'll take my chance with shots not registering than I will with having hackers in a game.

[Sighpolice]

Imho Halo:CE Has the best weapons I've used in a looong time. None of them had these generic waste of gameplay "iron sights".

The gauss is an amazing gun, I still regard it as one of the most fun and enjoyable guns to use from any game. That didn't need iron sights. Fact.

I kinda dislike how PlanetSide 2 is almost copying other games because it's "the fashion".. it's quite pathetic.. I don't think developers fully understand why Call of Duty & BF series "sell so well" - It's because we have fuck all else to play.. Nobody has produced a decent shooter in years that doesn't try to copy CoD/BF.. so of course the trend shows "people buy games like CoD" not because they want to.. it's because developers have lost their souls just want to make easy money *cough BF3*

[Stevo IRL]

Imho Halo:CE Has the best weapons I've used in a looong time. None of them had these generic waste of gameplay "iron sights".

The gauss is an amazing gun, I still regard it as one of the most fun and enjoyable guns to use from any game. That didn't need iron sights. Fact.

I kinda dislike how PlanetSide 2 is almost copying other games because it's "the fashion".. it's quite pathetic.. I don't think developers fully understand why Call of Duty & BF series "sell so well" - It's because we have fuck all else to play.. Nobody has produced a decent shooter in years that doesn't try to copy CoD/BF.. so of course the trend shows "people buy games like CoD" not because they want to.. it's because developers have lost their souls just want to make easy money *cough BF3*

How is adding ironsights "fashionable". I very much doubt they sat around in the office going "Damn we need hundreds of thousands of people playing this game but we are seriously lacking one key feature that will really pull in the masses", " I know lets add in iron sights".


Any other features of PS2 that we won't enjoy ? Seeing as you seem to know more about the thought process of the developers then even themselves.

[Sighpolice]

How is adding ironsights "fashionable". I very much doubt they sat around in the office going "Damn we need hundreds of thousands of people playing this game but we are seriously lacking one key feature that will really pull in the masses", " I know lets add in iron sights".


Any other features of PS2 that we won't enjoy ? Seeing as you seem to know more about the thought process of the developers then even themselves.

Haha, well yeah I see iron sights like Ipads, just some accessory you don't actually need.. Why do we need them if not for the general masses and because other games have them? A trait which is pretty much used by fashion is it not? X model wears this, that months clothes all look like X model because it's "popular"? We didn't have them in PlanetSide 1 did we...

And I don't see what you mean by that, if anything I was taking a dig at the developers of BF3, not PS2... ?

[Coreldan]

The way I see it is that it's direct evolution to gaming. It's almost like you are saying that there shouldn't have been ever any new features added into modern games, we should just go with what we had back in 2003 and so.

To me it's a feature as games evolved, much like we're seeing nice stuff such as vaulting as opposed to having to hump-jump ourselves over knee high objects.

But yeah, it really depends how the ironsighting is made. BF3 didn't make it all that well as just about all weapons are forced to ironsight to hit anything.

[Stevo IRL]

Haha, well yeah I see iron sights like Ipads, just some accessory you don't actually need.. Why do we need them if not for the general masses and because other games have them? A trait which is pretty much used by fashion is it not? X model wears this, that months clothes all look like X model because it's "popular"? We didn't have them in PlanetSide 1 did we...

And I don't see what you mean by that, if anything I was taking a dig at the developers of BF3, not PS2... ?


But we actually know for definite whether we need them or not. Remember the shooting mechanics have completely changed, accuracy is going to play a much bigger part then in PS1. So at the end of the day if iron sights let me be more accurate for key situations then it's all good. The only problem is if the system meant that you could do something with iron sights that you couldn't while from the hip.

[FastAndFree]

But we actually know for definite whether we need them or not. Remember the shooting mechanics have completely changed, accuracy is going to play a much bigger part then in PS1. So at the end of the day if iron sights let me be more accurate for key situations then it's all good. The only problem is if the system meant that you could do something with iron sights that you couldn't while from the hip.

Iron sights have nothing to do with accuracy. As long as you have any kind of indication of where your bullets will go on the screen you have everything you need UI-wise to fire accurately. A dot, a simple cross, a laser beam or an elaborately modeled scope - it doesn't matter.

They however make them game more immersive imo, so I don't mind them.
Remember that what we are referring to as "iron sights" here will not just be simple mechanical gun sights but also red dots, digital targeting systems and whatnot

[Goku]

I don't care for iron sights, but if I can have a red dot/target reticule I will be good.

[Princess Frosty]

Personally I like it, you can both run and gun and use iron sights, how well you do depends on your judgement of when you should use it and when you shouldn't, that allows for a greater range of skill and tactics to the game.

[CyclesMcHurtz]

Iron sights have nothing to do with accuracy.

Unfortunately, this is not true as most (not all) modern games increase accuracy of the Cone of Fire when in iron sights. They also reduce recoil effects. One of these allows hip-to-shoulder transitions too fast and too accurate which makes this over-powered.

I've found this to be true in most of the modern shooters I've played recently. It's the equivalent of "high and tight" in military tactics - raising the gun to your shoulder and bracing it. This provides a more stable firing "platform", better than shooting from the hip but not as good as using a tripod and laying prone. Almost no non-suppression fire team role will shoot from the hip (IRL), it's just a waste of ammunition.

[Shogun]

sure, hipfiring makes no sense in real life, but in action movies, it does ;-)
and we will be playing an action movie in planetside ;-)

by the way, great to have a coder stating his experiences in our discussions!
thanks a lot!

[Coreldan]

Unfortunately, this is not true as most (not all) modern games increase accuracy of the Cone of Fire when in iron sights. They also reduce recoil effects. One of these allows hip-to-shoulder transitions too fast and too accurate which makes this over-powered.

I've found this to be true in most of the modern shooters I've played recently. It's the equivalent of "high and tight" in military tactics - raising the gun to your shoulder and bracing it. This provides a more stable firing "platform", better than shooting from the hip but not as good as using a tripod and laying prone. Almost no non-suppression fire team role will shoot from the hip (IRL), it's just a waste of ammunition.

I can't think of that many titles where firing without aiming down the sights would actually mean physically firing from the hip.

There is a huge difference in firing the weapon without aiming down sights and hipfiring.

[GTGD]

I can't think of that many titles where firing without aiming down the sights would actually mean physically firing from the hip.

There is a huge difference in firing the weapon without aiming down sights and hipfiring.

Have you fired a gun before? While I'm certainly not experienced, I've shot rifles and shotguns at a range before and there really is not an "in-between" area.

If you shoulder your weapon, your eyes are lined up on the site (ADS). If you don't shoulder your weapon, regardless if you are firing with the gun at your hip, raised by your ribcage, or anywhere else, it is like "hipfire". This is completely inaccurate, as you will never be able to draw a line from the sight to your target without looking straight down them, especially considering that most sights are adjusted for a specific range (I'd LOVE to see adjustable sights in PS2, btw).

I would argue that PS2 needs both recoil and a COF for accuracy while firing from the hip AND ADS to keep things realistic and so it doesn't become a CoD MMO where 2 people firing down a stairway will kill you before you can even get around the corner.

[Erendil]

I have never liked iron sights.

I think it is a great addition if realism is what you are aiming for but in my opinion using COF instead makes shooter games more fun to play.

...

The day that we play games in full 3D with googles or whatever and all that I am sure that iron sights would make a excellent feature in shooter games.

Here's the thing: many people hold the opinion that using ADS makes shooter games more fun (myself included). However, as evidenced by this thread there are a lot of folks on either side of the fence, so if SOE is smart they'll tailor the gameplay in PS2 so both ADS and run-and-gun are viable playstyles. Each should have their uses IMO.

Oh, and RE: 3D.... I plan on buying a 3D monitor and set of LCD shutter glasses soon so I'll let u know how ADS looks in PS2 when Beta starts... :D ;)

Haha, well yeah I see iron sights like Ipads, just some accessory you don't actually need.. Why do we need them if not for the general masses and because other games have them? A trait which is pretty much used by fashion is it not? X model wears this, that months clothes all look like X model because it's "popular"? We didn't have them in PlanetSide 1 did we...

And I don't see what you mean by that, if anything I was taking a dig at the developers of BF3, not PS2... ?

Something is merely fashionable if it looks good but serves no real purpose. But ADS definitely serves a purpose - it adds to a sense of realism and immersion and adds a tactical element to gameplay. With it you have to make the choice of being more accurate vs being a harder target to hit.

The way I see it is that it's direct evolution to gaming. It's almost like you are saying that there shouldn't have been ever any new features added into modern games, we should just go with what we had back in 2003 and so.

To me it's a feature as games evolved, much like we're seeing nice stuff such as vaulting as opposed to having to hump-jump ourselves over knee high objects.

But yeah, it really depends how the ironsighting is made. BF3 didn't make it all that well as just about all weapons are forced to ironsight to hit anything.

I agree that ADS is an evolution to FPS gaming if done properly. For me, if an FPS doesn't have ADS it feels unnatural and arbitrarily limiting. It'd be like removing crouch.

But like many have already said, IMO the key is to not only make ADS have obviously drawbacks (usually in the form of reduced footspeed and/or a slightly delay before you can take advantages of ADS's improved accuracy), but to continue to keep run-and-gun a viable tactic.

[Graywolves]

My opinion: The "thing" we have seen in the video is hopefully just a placeholder, as it looks pretty lame and is just wrong.

I would suggest giving the guns holographic sights. They look fairly "futuristic" and would/could be the default sight for all assault rifles or submachines guns.

Keep the iron sight option to pistols.

I needded to reply to this and push this idea immediatley.


Make the fucking iron sights futuristic if we gonna have em! Holographic or neon glowy and shit, something just so I'm not like "this is stupid" because in all honesty you can't make snap shots with iron sights, your eyes need to adjust slightly for it to work properly and it's small as fuck.


So in the end I still think iron sights are retarded as fuck especially in the way modern shooters have made it as the snap-aiming option. Lame as fuck and rediculously fucking stupid.


Get rid of the iron sights. I really hate it.

[Graywolves]

Unfortunately, this is not true as most (not all) modern games increase accuracy of the Cone of Fire when in iron sights. They also reduce recoil effects. One of these allows hip-to-shoulder transitions too fast and too accurate which makes this over-powered.

I've found this to be true in most of the modern shooters I've played recently. It's the equivalent of "high and tight" in military tactics - raising the gun to your shoulder and bracing it. This provides a more stable firing "platform", better than shooting from the hip but not as good as using a tripod and laying prone. Almost no non-suppression fire team role will shoot from the hip (IRL), it's just a waste of ammunition.

Unless you're the automatic rifleman you're not looking for kills anyways if we're talking military tactics, it's all about putting the fire down the range then assualtling the position. In which case the battle drills normally call for bounding movement.

Unless you're clearing a room you almost never fire with controlled aimed bursts on the move, especially since the entire time you're moving is just for reaching the next cover or concealment.

Even so, lots of people like to try and get attachments on to their weapon.


There are other variables to a standing and crouching firing position.

http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/m16a2/four-fundamentals-of-mark.shtml

The prone position is the most reliable with the most stable firing (even without tripod or support other than yourself) and even then shots can be very unreliable with iron sights at 200m+ as the air in your lungs has a strong effect.

Aim while crouching is next reliable but arguably most uncomfortable. Plenty of opportunity for wobbling there.

Standing while firing leaves huge room for error and then you're moving as well, there is honestly more chance for survival and hitting your target/keeping them suppressed in a spray and pray then looking down your sights while moving and taking additional seconds to get off a good shot (statisticly, on average it takes the enemy in a position 3 seconds to aim at you and fire from when you are sighted.


tl;dr Iron sights effect accuracy at certain ranges, but you're going to be dead at those ranges if you're standing in the open while moving and trying to shoot at them.


What makes me strong against iron sights is how they are used in modern shooters. Especially since no one almost anywhere in the world, even untrained, fires from the hip.... it doesn't show your toon firing from the hip, you're just not using the sights, and games try to force you to snap-aim with your sights to get concentrated shots off and it's just stupid.

It's almost like making me flip the safety between every shot.

[Casual]

Iron sights are okay as long as original planetside gameplay is retained and improved instead of just being changed to something else entirely.

If people stop moving and go into ADS with the JH/Lasher/MCG I will be disappointed. That's nothing like how planetside played at all and honestly wouldn't be an improvement of anything. Movement was important with those weapons and ADS usually removes that importance with some sort of extreme movement penalty.

The big problem with ADS is that it is always the better option 99% of the time. There's no deep choices being made when going into ADS, it's just better for you to use it in nearly all games it's in. If ADS in PS2 has very little or no movement penalty I will be fine with it, but if it slows down the gameplay to a crawl and just makes the game into something it isn't I wont be happy.

Ideally, the best situation would be to have ADS only be good with some weapons or just function differently depending on what class/weapon you're using.

Example :

MAX units would either have no ADS at all, or their ADS would not impart an additional movement penalty at all while only functioning as a visual magnification.

Same as above with heavy assault weapons, to retain how they handled in PS1.

Classes with MA rifles would have ADS that would add a cone of fire benefit and perhaps a movement penalty, in addition to functioning as a visual magnification.

Something along those lines would be fine.

[Dreamcast]

I was just seeing the video...and I was thinking exactly that.


The Iron Sights look horrible.


The middle of the iron sight, where you aim...looks way too skinny ulike any real gun I have ever seen....and it just look bad, not sure why but it did.....Maybe the video wasn't high resolution enough,idk.

I would appreciate run and gun gameplay like halo but if they want it more tactical then please don't do it like modern warfare.


Somewhere between halo and Modern warfare I guess.

[Fate]

Everyone knows that actually using the ironsights feature is optional, right? You don't have to actually ironsight to fire a weapon.

[Gandhi]

Everyone knows that actually using the ironsights feature is optional, right? You don't have to actually ironsight to fire a weapon.
As soon as it affects accuracy it stops being optional. If you want to make it purely a cosmetic thing to 'enhance realism' I'm totally fine with that, but that's not how it's going to be.

Since this game is all about customization why don't we just add a "Shooting From The Hip" attachment? Or at least let us change the iron sight for each gun to something we can live with, from nothing at all to holographic ones to a giant metal rectangle that covers up everything in front of you. That way all that's left is the actual mechanic, which I still don't like for this game but could probably live with.

[Casual]

Everyone knows that actually using the ironsights feature is optional, right? You don't have to actually ironsight to fire a weapon.

You know what else is optional? Winning.

In most games ADS is in it's flat out better than firing from the hip nearly all the time.

[SKYeXile]

Everyone knows that actually using the ironsights feature is optional, right? You don't have to actually ironsight to fire a weapon.

I hate you so much right now.

[Princess Frosty]

As soon as it affects accuracy it stops being optional. If you want to make it purely a cosmetic thing to 'enhance realism' I'm totally fine with that, but that's not how it's going to be.

Since this game is all about customization why don't we just add a "Shooting From The Hip" attachment? Or at least let us change the iron sight for each gun to something we can live with, from nothing at all to holographic ones to a giant metal rectangle that covers up everything in front of you. That way all that's left is the actual mechanic, which I still don't like for this game but could probably live with.

This makes the assumption that adding in iron sights lowers whatever hip shooting accuracy exists in the game. It could be the case that hip accuracy has not been changed and that ironsights are simply an optional trade off of accuracy vs mobility.

It's always an option whether to use them or not, they're not universally superior to hip firing, if they're done right they offer some benefit/drawback trade off which is player choice to decide to use or not, if you want to just fire from the hip then you can but you'll have to alter your tactics around that so you stay in close range to help make the most of it.

[Fate]

You know what else is optional? Winning.

In most games ADS is in it's flat out better than firing from the hip nearly all the time.

Because ironsighting with a shotgun in Modern Warfare makes it more accurate, right?

[Kouza]

Looks like i`m the last to chime in.

Iron sights, are awesome in games but, to be frank I feel what made planet side unique was its arcade feel. If you put that in you pull from that. That being said, before the games released how could we possibly know.

[Casual]

Because ironsighting with a shotgun in Modern Warfare makes it more accurate, right?

No, but that doesn't invalidate my statement. Just about any assault rifle in that game performs better at almost all ranges in iron sights. It's not a choice when one option is clearly better.

My first post in this thread explains my position on this more clearly. I'm not against ADS, it just has to be done right and actually add to planetside gameplay instead of completely alter the way the game functions.

I want a game that improves upon planetside 1, not just a sequel that looks like it but plays completely different.

[Coreldan]

I had a pretty far thought out idea how to implement all this, but seeing that the way ADS will be implemented is probably already implemented, I dont think I can be bother typing it all out lol.

[CutterJohn]

Given the futuristic context of the game, its not entirely unreasonable for the weapon and armor to have gizmos that detect where the gun is pointing, exactly, and thus allowing you to fire the weapon without physically using sights.

So.. Maybe keep sights. Those are the basic option. You can also purchase a weapon upgrade that makes sights irrelevant, allowing you to run and gun much more proficiently. The downside to it would be you no longer get zoom.

[Coreldan]

So.. Maybe keep sights. Those are the basic option. You can also purchase a weapon upgrade that makes sights irrelevant, allowing you to run and gun much more proficiently. The downside to it would be you no longer get zoom.

This was a big deal in my suggestion I mentioned above that I was too lazy to write about.

So basically, all weapons would be decently accurate to suffice in CQB outside ironsights, but still inaccurate enough that at (at least) 50+ meters you would pretty much feel the need to ironsight to get the extra zoom and perhaps more accuracy too.

Planetside has so big areas that some sort of zoom is needed, personally I rather see it through ironsighting somehow than some "here, have binoculars integrated into your eyeball" that we had in PS :D

[Espion]

Almost no non-suppression fire team role will shoot from the hip (IRL), it's just a waste of ammunition.

I hope you're not using too much RL example as a basis for SciFi game development. I'm all for people being able to zoom in, but I think slowing people down is a terrible idea... and if there's no slowdown from zooming then you can't really go crazy with CoF/recoil decreases.

Mechanics that raise the skill ceiling and give players the tools they need to perform better is a much better alternative than artificial bonuses for pressing a button.

[Espion]

Because ironsighting with a shotgun in Modern Warfare makes it more accurate, right?

Not sure about CoD but in BF it sure as fuck did. Shotgun with slugs was easier than using a sniper rifle at range

[Erendil]

I hope you're not using too much RL example as a basis for SciFi game development. I'm all for people being able to zoom in, but I think slowing people down is a terrible idea... and if there's no slowdown from zooming then you can't really go crazy with CoF/recoil decreases.

Mechanics that raise the skill ceiling and give players the tools they need to perform better is a much better alternative than artificial bonuses for pressing a button.


There's nothing intrinsically less skillful about the concept of ADS - only in its implementation of not done properly. In fact, I would argue that if done correctly its presence makes combat more skillful than not having it due to the tactical decisions you have to make on whether to be more accurate but an easier target to hit, or less accurate but a faster target.

There's more to a firefight in a large-scale, semi-tactical shooter than simply run-and-gun. There's providing cover for your teammates, leapfrogging, interlocking and suppressive fire, using cover/concealment, etc. And ADS encourages the use of all of these tactics on-the-fly where accuracy is often more important than dodging ability. But I'm sure you know this. :cool:


Not sure about CoD but in BF it sure as fuck did. Shotgun with slugs was easier than using a sniper rifle at range


I think it's pretty obvious that DF is referring to a weapon like a shotgun that fires pellets with a fixed spread. Obviously using a shotgun slug is a different beast since you're dealing w/ a single projectile that doesn't have much of a random vector beyond that afforded by the weapon's CoF - a CoF that ADS serves to reduce or almost eliminate.

However, ADS logically won't have nearly as much bearing on the accuracy of a shell filled w/ buckshot - at least given the pellet spread most FPSes inflict on shotguns. And as DF so eloquently pointed out, if it's implemented properly you don't have to use ADS if you don't want to... :p

[TacKLed]

The problem here is that people forgot to take off their massive nostalgia goggles at the door. Ironsights is for the better in my opinion. When PS1 came out, the prevailing FPS games were fast paced cooridor shooters that had no ironsights and relied more on fast paced personal skill. PS1, while promoting teamwork, was essentially using a lot of the mechanics abeit on a larger scale. That was 2003. This is 2012. I'm not saying that it will turn into Call of DUty, which I'm not bashing since it's a fun game every once and awhile, but the addition of ADS will make the game more tactical like Erendil said.

And the major thing you all are forgetting is that this game needs to rely on newcomers to be successful. It is good and all that it is a massive fan service but not ironsights in a game this massive is just not acceptable in this day and age, especially for a game of this scale, and the devs know this

[Graywolves]

If there are iron sights, I want an implant to aim for me so I never use them.

[Effective]

No to Ironsights.

Didn't read whole thread. Only looked at first 2 pages to see complaints about ADADAD warping. Because people don't understand why warping occurs they fail to realize the extremely low chances of it happening in PS 2.

"WAAAHHH REMOVE SOMETHING THAT ISN'T ACTUALLY GOING TO WORK IN PS2 WAAAHHH" sums up the majority of the comments about warping.

[Gandhi]

It is good and all that it is a massive fan service but not ironsights in a game this massive is just not acceptable in this day and age, especially for a game of this scale, and the devs know this
I don't agree with this at all. If the rest of the game is done well I don't think a single person who would have bought it is going to look at gameplay footage and say "What no iron sights? Screw that game". Because Planetside already offers something no other FPS does, the massive scale and persistent environment. THAT's why people are going to play it, there's no need to copy features out of other shooters just for the sake of attracting players. Especially if those features don't fit in with the rest of the gameplay.

Anyway. Since this game is big on customization I think the easiest solution is to add various options to control aiming, one being iron sights, and then let players choose the style that works best for them. It should be easy to give them all comparable advantages and disadvantages.

[acosmo]

ITT casual fragfesters vs tactical gamers?

[Coreldan]

ITT casual fragfesters vs tactical gamers?

While a quite radical generalization, but pretty much.

I personally don't value "my kinda games" higher or think that those "fragfest" games are worse. It's been proven that just about the few biggest online shooter names would be these "fragfest". I wouldn't call em casual, cos they are often more so e-sports than many of the "tactical shooters".

The arcade fragfest games just arnt my thing at all, while I personally prefer "tactical shooters" that are quite realistic. I don't mind PS2 being unrealistic or having longer TTK than what I'm used to, after all it's so unique that the other things make up for it.

But I do believe that with a correct kind of implementation, both crowds could probably be satisfied.

[EASyEightyEight]

Still trying to figure out why people can only assume ADS = CoD mechanics. If I were in charge:

Crouching/Standing hip-fire would be just as accurate as iron-sights.
On-the-move: hip-fire is less accurate, but akin to PS1's level of inaccuracy. ADS brings the accuracy back to nearly of that of standing, but with reduced speed.

It'd be like this, imagine the target is at a range where he's exactly [---] big (30 meters-ish: )
[--] Crouching = both
[---] Standing = both
[----] Moving =ADS
[------]Moving = Hip

ADS would basically just be a method of walking/crouch walking while on the move. Not exactly beneficial, just the option of accuracy over evasion. However, again this is how I would do things. I felt hip fire in PS1 was already inaccurate enough. I could still hit things up to 30 meters reliably well, plenty of missed shots, but it wasn't like most modern shooters where hip fire is so inaccurate it was like a small child with bones of jello attempting to keep a full-auto rifle steady during sustained fire.

We're just going to have to get used to the fact that the dynamics of the shooter have changed. Planetside 1 was Planetside 1, for gamers playing games in 2003. This is going to be Planetside 2, a game selling itself to the modern shooter fans of 2012, whom coincidentally are exposed primarily to games with ADS.

Obviously, the game play of PS1 few here seem to want to let go of isn't enough to keep people around. Logically, some changes are needed for the success of the second coming of Planetside. Sorry guys, we're being considered, but the game isn't being developed solely for veterans of Planetside 1.

[acosmo]

While a quite radical generalization, but pretty much.


yeah my bias came out pretty blatant there. the whole idea around esports is all about making a player into a machine (skill focus), where the whole idea around tactical gaming is making a team into an organism with a machine likeness.

[Coreldan]

yeah my bias came out pretty blatant there. the whole idea around esports is all about making a player into a machine (skill focus), where the whole idea around tactical gaming is making a team into an organism with a machine likeness.

Yeah, that's what I just about always say: both require skill, just different skills.

Like, in those "arcade" games, it's about good tracking and aiming skills while evasing well. In "tactical" games it's about not getting into the situation where someone gets to aim at you to begin with. When you are getting shot, you made a mistake. When you do get into the engagement, it's about reflexes and twitch aiming, as TTKs are usually lower than in "arcade" games, so not much tracking is required, but reflexes and twitch aim skills still decide the winner. Apart from that there are positional awereness, teamwork and a lot of stuff that requires skill.

I don't like it at all when "arcade" people say it requires less skills, but then again I don't agree when people say that these "tactical" games require more skill either. Both have a lot of skill involved, they are just so different type of games that they require different skills.

[acosmo]

I don't like it at all when "arcade" people say it requires less skills, but then again I don't agree when people say that these "tactical" games require more skill either. Both have a lot of skill involved, they are just so different type of games that they require different skills.

which leads us to ask, which type of gameplay is more satisfying? the answer being whichever is the person's preference. personally i think a mix of the two is the best way to handle it. when the leetskills crowd wins the battle but the operator crowd wins the war, that is when there is proper balance for planetside

[Arrow]

Yeah, that's what I just about always say: both require skill, just different skills.

Like, in those "arcade" games, it's about good tracking and aiming skills while evasing well. In "tactical" games it's about not getting into the situation where someone gets to aim at you to begin with. When you are getting shot, you made a mistake. When you do get into the engagement, it's about reflexes and twitch aiming, as TTKs are usually lower than in "arcade" games, so not much tracking is required, but reflexes and twitch aim skills still decide the winner. Apart from that there are positional awereness, teamwork and a lot of stuff that requires skill.

I don't like it at all when "arcade" people say it requires less skills, but then again I don't agree when people say that these "tactical" games require more skill either. Both have a lot of skill involved, they are just so different type of games that they require different skills.

To say that those games are more tactical is very incorrect. Arcade games aren't just zergin around dodging bullets. Your talking about a very game that you used to play called planetside that was arcadey and used all the latter. Teamwork, awareness, and a lot of stuff that required skill. TRx wasn't what it was and didn't catch a lot of shit because we played the game averagely.

On another note, quake/UT/RTCW/Planetside! is very twitch and very fast. Even more so but since its an arcade game if you don't keep up the consistency then you will allow the player to rocket jump/surge away and get the upper hand or just flat out own you.

What you are describing between the difference of these shooters is really on the tactic of upper handedness. Realistic low TTK games are twitch in the sense of I see you first so your dead which will not work in a MMO of this scale.

[Coreldan]

Planetside wasnt actually all THAT arcade'ish if you ask me, at least in comparison to some of the real arcade games in terms of speed, something like Quake comes to mind.

I see Planetside somewhere in between. It's not arcade, but it wasnt exactly a tactical shooter (didnt really even exist back in 2003 :D), nor would I want it (or planetside 2) to be.

I was only really talking from the point of "generic online FPS" point of view. I don't play arcade online shooters at all, I've never enjoyed them, yet my main games are pretty much APB and Planetside, which arnt anywhere near the "Battlefield 3"-mold. They are just unique enough, the above was sorta just referring to your "usual online shooters". Sorry if I came out wrong.

[Arrow]

Planetside wasnt actually all THAT arcade'ish if you ask me, at least in comparison to some of the real arcade games in terms of speed, something like Quake comes to mind.

I see Planetside somewhere in between. It's not arcade, but it wasnt exactly a tactical shooter (didnt really even exist back in 2003 :D), nor would I want it (or planetside 2) to be.

I was only really talking from the point of "generic online FPS" point of view. I don't play arcade online shooters at all, I've never enjoyed them, yet my main games are pretty much APB and Planetside, which arnt anywhere near the "Battlefield 3"-mold. They are just unique enough, the above was sorta just referring to your "usual online shooters". Sorry if I came out wrong.

Have you not played ghost recon!?!?

[Coreldan]

Have you not played ghost recon!?!?

Actually not. I havn't touched Tom Clancy games since the original Rainbow 6 & Rogue Spear and Sum of All Fears.

Well, yes, those are probably the first tactical shooters right there already. But the fact they had no ADS is sorta teh reason why I didnt consider them in this discussion.

[Arrow]

Actually not. I havn't touched Tom Clancy games since the original Rainbow 6 & Rogue Spear and Sum of All Fears.

Well, yes, those are probably the first tactical shooters right there already. But the fact they had no ADS is sorta teh reason why I didnt consider them in this discussion.

Ah yes and those are all games that implement them now that are prime examples of games going to complete shit. Would you not agree?

[Coreldan]

Ah yes and those are all games that implement them now that are prime examples of games going to complete shit. Would you not agree?

Not quite sure if I'm following you, but either way I do not think those games were better than modern shooters nowadays. Back in the day I didn't mind the lack of ADS cos no game had it at the time, nowadays I wouldnt go back to it, though.

[Arrow]

Not quite sure if I'm following you, but either way I do not think those games were better than modern shooters nowadays. Back in the day I didn't mind the lack of ADS cos no game had it at the time, nowadays I wouldnt go back to it, though.

In terms of gameplay I think a lot of those games were much more phenomenal then a lot of modern shooters. A lot of modern shooters in my eyes fail to live up, but not all.

[Coreldan]

In terms of gameplay I think a lot of those games were much more phenomenal then a lot of modern shooters. A lot of modern shooters in my eyes fail to live up, but not all.

I'd say you just have too strong nostalgy glasses.

The new games may not live up or just be bad, but go pick up one of those old ass games and you'll have the nostalgy wear off pretty fast, I'd say.

Or then not, you might just genuinely think they are overall better than new games, but I could never in my right mind claim that.

BF3 has the worst spawn system in any game I've ever played, I give those old Clancy games that much, I never had to curse bad spawns there, something I do every second spawn in BF3 now lol.

[Xyntech]

I think Planetside had a good balance between tactical and arcade, but I felt it was a little weak in both.

I'm hoping that Planetside 2 will make the tactical elements more tactical, and the arcade elements more skillful and fast paced.

Still keep a similar balance of having both being viable and balanced against each other, but make both more satisfying and detailed.

For me, Planetside was a great game over all, but a lot of the details were lacking. It was made up for by other details that were really well done and by the overall game being such an amazing experience, but I think there is a lot of room for improvement.

Of course, it's a delicate thing, because if you change one little thing, it can mess with the balance of everything else. I think that the PS2 dev team is on the right track, sort of ripping the entire thing apart and then adding back in as much of the original game as makes sense in the new system. You need to have a cohesive vision to balance something like this. Hopefully they've made the right decisions on some of the big controversial stuff, like tanks.

[SKYeXile]

ironsights make the game more realistic...bbl flying away on my remote aircraft.

Battlefield 3 Panic Attack!! - YouTube

[Graywolves]

Lol that BF3 clip was hilarious.



I don't think iron sights are more realistic in the way they are implemented. Right now it feels like snap-aim > Shoot. Which is very silly especially when the enemy is under 75 meters away (and then most games have aweful scaling and 100 meters is half a block away...)

[sylphaen]

Lol that BF3 clip was hilarious.
:thumbsup:

[TheBladeRoden]

I don't mind sights as long as it doesn't respectively turn zoomed out mode into SprayandMissSide

[VioletZero]

I'm going to take a controversial stance here and say that, for Planetside, slower is better.

That's not to say that I don't like skill gaps. Hardly, I like skill gaps in the right games. But Planetside is not the right game for it. Planetside 2 should focus less on individual player skill and more on wide scale tact. Which skill gaps kind of undermine.

This fits better with the MMO formula they are going for here.

So I think ironsights are right at home with this game.

I also feel as though ironsights as a mechanic were victimized by a lot of recent, and really crappy, shooters who made terrible use of the mechanic and made people think that mechanic itself was bad.

[Qwan]

IMO iron sights arent bad at all, I would prefer them for quick reflex firing. Going to a scope when the guy is like a few feet infront of you isnt very accurate when tracking. Maybe a reflex sight add on would be nice, but i say leave the scopes for snipers and long range options. In close quarters combat, room to room its the iron sights or a reflex for the win.

[Graywolves]

Reflex/snap aiming with iron sights for a closer group (of shots) and a quicker TTK has no place in a game of this scale.

If it is in it should be used for being more accurate for enemies over 100m/300ft away.

[Qwan]

Hmm what makes you say that, iron sights would play a very important part in this game. When your moving down a hall way going to a scope isnt very smart seeing as targets arent just standing there waiting to be shot. They move and keeping a wide veiw compared to the circle of a scope view will make the difference when tracking targets.

[Graywolves]

Hmm what makes you say that, iron sights would play a very important part in this game. When your moving down a hall way going to a scope isnt very smart seeing as targets arent just standing there waiting to be shot. They move and keeping a wide veiw compared to the circle of a scope view will make the difference when tracking targets.


BLUF: Aiming/zoom mechanics should be used to aim at targets that you actually need to aim/zoom-in at. Not as an inbetween your de facto aiming (crosshairs/center of screen on target) and pressing LMB.

Having 10-20 other people in the same area, all quick-snapping to iron sights for shots makes it pointless. The zooming-in-aim-mechanic should be used for only things you need to zoom in on.

Going to iron sights down a hallway is just as silly as using your scope, your opponent is right there and in a closed area. And again there is atleast four other people (that's a very conservative number) right next to you and behind you. You then have 5 people focusing down a lesser number of targets.

Having a greater number of people focusing down targets with snap-aiming might sound like it's not a problem but it really is. For a game of this scale to work you need the outnumbered to have a chance to fight and for them to have a chance we can't pretend that looking down your barrel doesn't make your weapon's theoretical CoF 3x smaller.


The times that zooming/aiming should be used is when the enemy is fighting from a distance away, on their walls, etc.

Zooming in to snap-aim-fire someone 25meters away doesn't require me to have more skill to shoot them, it's more like flipping the safety off and on twice between every person I shoot at. It's a stupid mechanic the way it is implemented in most games.


On the scale of Planetside 2 that method can't work as it would behave like a force multiplayer. Players becoming more effective just because they snap-aim-fire-new target and repeat. PS2 doesn't need a force multiplier on the individual grunt level of play for everyone.


P.S. Iron Sights being more effective in closer quarters than other methods of aiming is a myth. The purpose of Iron Sights is that when you look between two close points your eye adjusts to that and has a zooming in effect. For a target up to 300m away, if it has a nice bright white dot on it, it makes that bright white dot very clear to put your center aiming thing on to.

No one needs any assistance aiming when you're target is less than 50m infront of you, even at 50 you can hit a target with little to no assistance.

[Qwan]

BLUF: Aiming/zoom mechanics should be used to aim at targets that you actually need to aim/zoom-in at. Not as an inbetween your de facto aiming (crosshairs/center of screen on target) and pressing LMB.

Having 10-20 other people in the same area, all quick-snapping to iron sights for shots makes it pointless. The zooming-in-aim-mechanic should be used for only things you need to zoom in on.

Going to iron sights down a hallway is just as silly as using your scope, your opponent is right there and in a closed area. And again there is atleast four other people (that's a very conservative number) right next to you and behind you. You then have 5 people focusing down a lesser number of targets.

Having a greater number of people focusing down targets with snap-aiming might sound like it's not a problem but it really is. For a game of this scale to work you need the outnumbered to have a chance to fight and for them to have a chance we can't pretend that looking down your barrel doesn't make your weapon's theoretical CoF 3x smaller.


The times that zooming/aiming should be used is when the enemy is fighting from a distance away, on their walls, etc.

Zooming in to snap-aim-fire someone 25meters away doesn't require me to have more skill to shoot them, it's more like flipping the safety off and on twice between every person I shoot at. It's a stupid mechanic the way it is implemented in most games.


On the scale of Planetside 2 that method can't work as it would behave like a force multiplayer. Players becoming more effective just because they snap-aim-fire-new target and repeat. PS2 doesn't need a force multiplier on the individual grunt level of play for everyone.


P.S. Iron Sights being more effective in closer quarters than other methods of aiming is a myth. The purpose of Iron Sights is that when you look between two close points your eye adjusts to that and has a zooming in effect. For a target up to 300m away, if it has a nice bright white dot on it, it makes that bright white dot very clear to put your center aiming thing on to.

No one needs any assistance aiming when you're target is less than 50m infront of you, even at 50 you can hit a target with little to no assistance.

Ok your right about one thing if you got a number of individuals moving down a hall your right whos gonna snap to quick sights, just fire. But as an individual putting the round on the target is essential. Cause changing magazines, in the middle of a fire fight is not good. Scopes should be used for just that tagging long range targets, iron sights should be posted on a weapon because weapons with the ability to be leathal at long range are more accurate. Regardless of whether the weapon is used for close combat or long range having that iron sight as standard should be a must. Reflex sights are good for close range assaults (50m-80m) it increases that accuracy and doesnt require you to close the none aiming eye. This in combat is what conserves ammo as well makes every round count.

[VioletZero]

Just to be clear, what is snap aiming again?

[Gandhi]

Reflex sights are good for close range assaults (50m-80m) it increases that accuracy and doesnt require you to close the none aiming eye. This in combat is what conserves ammo as well makes every round count.
I think you're confusing the real and virtual worlds a little here. In game I don't have a non-aiming eye, I have a single camera with 2 modes: iron sights on or off. This is a huge limitation that tends to get ignored for the sake of 'realism' and is one of the main reasons why the snap aim mechanic in a game is nothing like in the real world. So forget realism, focus on what's best for the game. Maybe the standard Modern Warfare snap-aim system will work out, I doubt it but I'm ready to be surprised. But I really hope that we at least try a couple other methods during beta to see which works best. I know that means extra work for the developers, but I think it's worth it considering it's a core gameplay mechanic that we'll be using all the time.

[Bittermen]

I think you're confusing the real and virtual worlds a little here. In game I don't have a non-aiming eye, I have a single camera with 2 modes: iron sights on or off. This is a huge limitation that tends to get ignored for the sake of 'realism' and is one of the main reasons why the snap aim mechanic in a game is nothing like in the real world. So forget realism, focus on what's best for the game. Maybe the standard Modern Warfare snap-aim system will work out, I doubt it but I'm ready to be surprised. But I really hope that we at least try a couple other methods during beta to see which works best. I know that means extra work for the developers, but I think it's worth it considering it's a core gameplay mechanic that we'll be using all the time.

High doubtful that SOE will change the shooting mechanics in the beta stages.

But if it happens it happens!

[Shade Millith]

I don't mind about the "Zoom in, move slower".

I just hate the big stonkin' gun that takes up 2/3rds of the screen. It's also either "On" or "Off". If we wanted 'realism', then the soldier would be able to have the gun near his face for some improved accuracy, but not close enough to take over half the screen up with 'REALISM GUN!'. Or an option to keep BOTH eyes open, so I can see past the gun.

Also what scares me is that non-ironsights might be completely useless, so I'm forced to use it.

[Jimmuc]

i was looking thru the pictures when i came across this one http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/viewer.php?img_id=1791

and if they kept the aiming reticule from this picture i'll be happy. from the video it looks like they had the HUD off so using the sights was a must. the only showing of the HUD was during the air fighting scene in first-person, imo they should've showed the HUD on during the infantry fighting in first-person also. yes it wouldn't had looked as good but the details where left out. :groovy:

[Zulthus]

Iron sights are not a "modern" mechanic. It's a DIFFERENT mechanic. As someone above me said, I do NOT want to be forced to use my iron sights if I want any sort of accuracy at all. I really liked PS1's aiming system, it was simple and it kept the pace of combat going. It would just be stupid to make iron sights a necessity in PS2. Sure, they're fine in small scale matches like COD or Battlefield, but not in a massive game such as PlanetSide. Iron sights would slow it down too much. I won't even lie, I love the way current PS combat works. Even without the warping, it's still a matter of who can keep their crosshairs on the enemy while at the same time avoiding their fire. Iron sights in a nutshell: I shot first, I win. You both move so ridiculously slow that there is absolutely no challenge to keeping that red dot sight on an enemy's head.

[Raymac]

I like having the trade off between firing from the hip and having more mobility but less accuracy versus aiming down the sight and losing mobility but gaining accuracy.

[comrade]

I don't mind about the "Zoom in, move slower".

I just hate the big stonkin' gun that takes up 2/3rds of the screen. It's also either "On" or "Off". If we wanted 'realism', then the soldier would be able to have the gun near his face for some improved accuracy, but not close enough to take over half the screen up with 'REALISM GUN!'. Or an option to keep BOTH eyes open, so I can see past the gun.

Also what scares me is that non-ironsights might be completely useless, so I'm forced to use it.

I 100% agree with that!

[VioletZero]

Iron sights are not a "modern" mechanic. It's a DIFFERENT mechanic. As someone above me said, I do NOT want to be forced to use my iron sights if I want any sort of accuracy at all. I really liked PS1's aiming system, it was simple and it kept the pace of combat going. It would just be stupid to make iron sights a necessity in PS2. Sure, they're fine in small scale matches like COD or Battlefield, but not in a massive game such as PlanetSide. Iron sights would slow it down too much. I won't even lie, I love the way current PS combat works. Even without the warping, it's still a matter of who can keep their crosshairs on the enemy while at the same time avoiding their fire. Iron sights in a nutshell: I shot first, I win. You both move so ridiculously slow that there is absolutely no challenge to keeping that red dot sight on an enemy's head.

In my opinion, that's how it should be.

Slow and methodical.

Not whoever is more skilled.

I am also in complete disagreement that it works better in smaller scale matches. I think it is the opposite. It works WORSE in smaller scale matches while in larger ones, there's depth of tact.

[SKYeXile]

In my opinion, that's how it should be.

Slow and methodical.

Not whoever is more skilled.

I am also in complete disagreement that it works better in smaller scale matches. I think it is the opposite. It works WORSE in smaller scale matches while in larger ones, there's depth of tact.

we're talking about an FPS here, skill is sorta meant to be the deciding factor, there is however a broad range of different skills depending on the type of FPS.

[VioletZero]

we're talking about an FPS here, skill is sorta meant to be the deciding factor, there is however a broad range of different skills depending on the type of FPS.

Well, what I mean is not your ability to aim like in Quake.

There's definitely other skills that come into play.

I would just hate it if mobility in the game was used in hopes of out-aiming your opponent.

[Zulthus]

Slow and methodical? This isn't Command and Conquer. We're talking about first person shooter. Remember.

[texico]

I think it should be a tool that is used to literally add an extra little bit of accuracy/range to a machine gun that's firing at it's absolutely limit of range, but in itself doesn't do anything to improve the accuracy of the gun nearer than that (although the fact you happen to be standing still while ironsighting would, although if you stand still with normal sights at medium range it'd have the same effect anyway).

When you're trying to shoot something at that kind of range, you're generally going to be moving pretty slow anyway, so ironsights taking a hit on mobility isn't a neg.

That way, it's in no way a necessity to have to be using ironsights all the time in medium/close combat to keep up with your opponent because if your opponent's doing it he's not gaining any accuracy advantage (and is infact losing out on mibility).

So ironsights wouldn't take over the game's shooting mechanics and most of the time everybody would be firing from the hip. But when they're trying to land a few extra bullets on somebody right at the end of their weapon's range, they can ironsight for a little more stability, accuracy, range and vision.


Having said all this, I wish they'd use a more sophisticated, sci-fi method of ironsighting (at least for the VS). Ironsights seem very dated for a futuristic style game light PS2.

[VioletZero]

Slow and methodical? This isn't Command and Conquer. We're talking about first person shooter. Remember.

I do remember.

But I still think that best organization and best plan should win over best reflexes and best ability to aim.

This is supposed to be "massively multiplayer", and the game should be designed in mind so that the players who take the best advantage of this aspect should be the winners.

Although, if you do want a good FPS MMO that is based around individual player skill, there's Firefall coming out. Which is very akin to Tribes and is looking REALLY good.

[Zulthus]

Firefall isn't an MMO. It's an instanced FPS. Also, skill is and always will be the deciding factor in an FPS. If players are supposed to think things out carefully and methodically before they pull the trigger, this game will have almost no players. People come to have fun, not be bored to death.

[Raymac]

I do remember.

But I still think that best organization and best plan should win over best reflexes and best ability to aim.

"Everybody has a plan until you get punched in the face." -Mike Tyson

Having a good plan is important, but will only take you so far. Strategy is probably more important in Planetside than any other shooter, but it's not a turn based strategy game or anything. Skill should still be king.

[VioletZero]

"Everybody has a plan until you get punched in the face." -Mike Tyson

Having a good plan is important, but will only take you so far. Strategy is probably more important in Planetside than any other shooter, but it's not a turn based strategy game or anything. Skill should still be king.

It should not be any more skill emphasized than it is in Battlefield 3.

If it emphasizes too much on reflexes and such, that might take out the importance of Commander roles. Since, no matter what they do, it really just comes down to the skill of the person you're commanding. There should be a noticeable ceiling to how much you can "outskill" your opponent and ironsights are good for this.

[acosmo]

"Everybody has a plan until you get punched in the face." -Mike Tyson

Having a good plan is important, but will only take you so far. Strategy is probably more important in Planetside than any other shooter, but it's not a turn based strategy game or anything. Skill should still be king.

aww yea mike tyson in the house

[Beagle]

Also, skill is and always will be the deciding factor in an FPS.

There can be more to skill than mouse aim and ability to move evasively.

If players are supposed to think things out carefully and methodically before they pull the trigger, this game will have almost no players. People come to have fun, not be bored to death.

Rock and roll didn't destroy society, ironsights won't destroy Planetside 2. They offer reliable accuracy when you need it and have been proven effective in a variety of different FPS styles.

Take away the ironsight graphic everyone gets all worked up about and call this thread "Higby Wants Your Thoughts on Aiming Your Gun for FPS.....". Do you have a problem with Aiming Your Gun in Planetside 2? Do you think that being able to Aim Your Gun is going to ruin the game? Considering the main argument seems to be "Ironsights are only put in to attract the BF3/CoD players", I find it difficult to believe it will both attract them and scare them away at the same time.

Complaining about this kind of game because you are afraid it will have more depth and thought involved is absoloutely inane.

[Graywolves]

There can be more to skill than mouse aim and ability to move evasively.



Rock and roll didn't destroy society, ironsights won't destroy Planetside 2. They offer reliable accuracy when you need it and have been proven effective in a variety of different FPS styles.

Take away the ironsight graphic everyone gets all worked up about and call this thread "Higby Wants Your Thoughts on Aiming Your Gun for FPS.....". Do you have a problem with Aiming Your Gun in Planetside 2? Do you think that being able to Aim Your Gun is going to ruin the game? Considering the main argument seems to be "Ironsights are only put in to attract the BF3/CoD players", I find it difficult to believe it will both attract them and scare them away at the same time.

Complaining about this kind of game because you are afraid it will have more depth and thought involved is absoloutely inane.


I have a problem with how Iron Sights are typically implemented. Any trained military personnel is ALWAYS aiming with his rifle, this hipfire crap is bullshit.

In games like CoD the Iron Sights are used as an inbetween for acquiring the target and firing, which is moronic.

If I have the enemy in my sights and centered, if I shoot I should hit them.

I have no problem with Iron Sights working as a proper "aiming at people far away" feature. But I shouldn't have this peice of crap "acquire target-aim-shoot-" BS. That's not adding skill, that's making me press an extra button just because.

While we're at it, why don't we put safety switches in the game. So I can put my safety one and off between targets.

[acosmo]

Any trained military personnel is ALWAYS aiming with his rifle, this hipfire crap is bullshit.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xGAWwdYcVlI/SWawivSJfdI/AAAAAAAADb8/qjGMX0gXgMU/s400/usmc-1.JPG
are you saying he isn't trained military personnel? he isn't aiming with his rifle atm

[Graywolves]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xGAWwdYcVlI/SWawivSJfdI/AAAAAAAADb8/qjGMX0gXgMU/s400/usmc-1.JPG
are you saying he isn't trained military personnel? he isn't aiming with his rifle atm

He's conducting a foot-march. Derp.

Notice how the butt of his rifle is already against his shoulder, he can immediatley put himself in the proper firing position at a moment's notice.

[acosmo]

He's conducting a foot-march. Derp.

Notice how the butt of his rifle is already against his shoulder, he can immediatley put himself in the proper firing position at a moment's notice.

yep. but he has to press his ironsights button first.
+1 ironsights
-1 unreal/quake/counterstrike style

[Rbstr]

Notice how the butt of his rifle is already against his shoulder, he can immediatley put himself in the proper firing position at a moment's notice.

Gosh, putting himself in a proper firing position...sort of like...putting the gun up to his eye so he can look down the...iron sights?

Don't be such a pedant.

[Graywolves]

yep. but he has to press his ironsights button first.
+1 ironsights
-1 unreal/quake/counterstrike style

lol.

I guess you beat me.

[Hmr85]

yep. but he has to press his ironsights button first.
+1 ironsights
-1 unreal/quake/counterstrike style

Its a Trijicon acog scope and it is always on. He doesn't have to push anything. The iron sights are back up incase his primary gets damaged. You shall notice his front sight is folded down and out of the way.

[acosmo]

Hmr85, i'm just saying that he isn't constantly aiming with his rifle like players do in counter strike. he is marching with his rifle down to the side. if he pulled the trigger, he would shoot the ground to the right of him, as in, not what he was looking at. with planetside2 having no holstering of weapons it makes sense for players to not have to constantly be aiming at everything they look at.

ironsights allow for this. by ironsights i do not literally mean ironsights, but i mean pressing whatever aim button the game dictates for whatever weapon you're using.

[Metalsheep]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8uEU7BcLI4A/TI2RQAmopiI/AAAAAAAAArY/PFeMrCKqHNo/s1600/landwarrior_story1_287.jpg

Landwarrior System, there is a sighting system on the barrel of his weapon that links to his eyepiece, showing where his gun is pointing and gives him crossheirs to fire. He never has to raise his gun to his eye, or use ironsights.

If we have this in 2011, in the superfuture where Planetside takes place, im sure all soldiers have this kind of technology.

Landwarrior also provides other functions, but i thought I'd share.

[VioletZero]

Instead of focusing on realism, focus on what makes the game better.

In my opinion, Ironsights are good because they slow down combat. That way, it relies more on tact than skill to win. Not to mention the added benefit of it being very accessible to newbies.

In an MMOFPS of this structure, both of these are good things.

[Belight]

As a real life gun enthusiast I love the iron sights in games. It's much more realistic. In real life, no one fires from the hip unless they have no other options. Rambo is just a movie and he woulda gotten killed in the first 5 mins. That's not the way special forces operate.

It also stops the jumping strafing spaz attack shooting that a lot of shooters have.

I think the more tactical and "sim" they can make PS2 the better.

[Belight]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8uEU7BcLI4A/TI2RQAmopiI/AAAAAAAAArY/PFeMrCKqHNo/s1600/landwarrior_story1_287.jpg

Landwarrior System, there is a sighting system on the barrel of his weapon that links to his eyepiece, showing where his gun is pointing and gives him crossheirs to fire. He never has to raise his gun to his eye, or use ironsights.

If we have this in 2011, in the superfuture where Planetside takes place, im sure all soldiers have this kind of technology.

Landwarrior also provides other functions, but i thought I'd share.

This is a great point. I didn't really think of that.

[VioletZero]

If it bothers people to have a hulking gun blocking their view, I can sympathize.

So it might be a good idea to, instead, just have the accuracy bloom like crazy whenever you move and require you to either slow down or stand still in order to get decent accuracy.

[Metalsheep]

This is a great point. I didn't really think of that.

Thanks, though i was slightly misinformed, the Landwarrior system was created in 2001. And has multiple sighting systems integrated, not just one. It also has Thermal, IR and Laser sights that can judge distance and direction as well as a plain camera with crossheirs.

I simply don't feel that futuristic shooters have a need for ironsights when in the present we already have technology that renders it almost pointless.

[VioletZero]

Thanks, though i was slightly misinformed, the Landwarrior system was created in 2001. And has multiple sighting systems integrated, not just one. It also has Thermal, IR and Laser sights that can judge distance and direction as well as a plain camera with crossheirs.

I simply don't feel that futuristic shooters have a need for ironsights when in the present we already have technology that renders it almost pointless.

I imagine a piece of metal is cheaper to produce than such a high tech system.

[Shotokanguy]

Hang on, hold it, huh what?

You can't holster your weapons? I guess it didn't have any use other than letting you run faster, but it's weird to think about.

[Metalsheep]

I imagine a piece of metal is cheaper to produce than such a high tech system.

Well, yes. Which is why we don't see much of the LandWarrior system currently, but the American Military was trying to integrate this with all infantry soldiers. (It does alot more than just give sighting, so its a pricey system currently.) I could only imaging in the super future all soldiers would have this kind of equipment. Especially the Terran Republic and the VS.

[acosmo]

from what we know, you cannot put away or holster your weapon in PS2. this means you constantly have your weapon out. assuming no 'ironsights', players will constantly be aiming at whatever they're looking at with their gun shouldered.

even with the whole 'landwarrior' stuff, you still have to assume a proper firing posture in order to sustain firing. having computers and high tech stuff doesn't help with that now does it?

[VioletZero]

Even with the landwarrior system in use, I am still in favor of ironsights.

[Raymac]

from what we know, you cannot put away or holster your weapon in PS2.

Is that accurate? I was under the impression there just wasn't an animation or whatever to holster your weapon so it just wouldn't display, but you could in fact holster your weapon. I may have misunderstood though.

I think the realists are just going to have to deal with the whole hip-firing thing. It's kind of been a staple in movies and video games forever. We all know it's not realistic but neither are big firey explosions unless you are using gasoline bombs.

[Metalsheep]

even with the whole 'landwarrior' stuff, you still have to assume a proper firing posture in order to sustain firing. having computers and high tech stuff doesn't help with that now does it?

True, but i have always assumed in Shooters that the gun is always shouldered unless it shows otherwise. (Like when you sprint, how you move the gun down and sideways to run.)

There just becomes no reason to raise the weapon to your eye with the Landwarrior system. Technically you can even aim around corners and fire with it, though it doubt there is alot of recoil control that way. But i digress, i think its safe to assume your weapon is shouldered at all times.

[HitbackTR]

In other news you cant beat a fart out of a dead mule.

[acosmo]

so metalsheep, say i'm walking through warpsanc to an outfit mobilization meeting or whatever.

when i'm looking at my outfitleader, you're saying that my player should have his weapon out, aimed, shouldered and ready to fire on him?

[Metalsheep]

so metalsheep, say i'm walking through warpsanc to an outfit mobilization meeting or whatever.

when i'm looking at my outfitleader, you're saying that my player should have his weapon out, aimed, shouldered and ready to fire on him?

No no, but its a videogame. You already said we cannot holster our weapons. When your gun is out, your aiming it. Unless they add in a function to "lower" your weapon.

But when you are looking at the game, you see your weapon on the bottom right side, pointed forwards. I have always assumed this meant that your weapon is shouldered and at the ready to fire. Because when you have a rifle to your shoulder, pointed forwards, its at the bottom right of your view and ready to fire.

[Raymac]

so metalsheep, say i'm walking through warpsanc to an outfit mobilization meeting or whatever.

when i'm looking at my outfitleader, you're saying that my player should have his weapon out, aimed, shouldered and ready to fire on him?

Dude. How many screenshots do you need showing soldiers with their guns pointed down? Relax.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/viewer.php?img_id=1677
http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/viewer.php?img_id=1677
http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/viewer.php?img_id=1622
http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/viewer.php?img_id=1695
http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/viewer.php?img_id=1696
http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/viewer.php?img_id=1710
http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/viewer.php?img_id=1749

OK I've made my point