Random Deviation

[Whip Nailed it]

what's your take on it?

i hate it with a passion as it turns some gunfights into luck based instead of skill

i'm sure on a couple vids i noticed that random deviation was present

edit: this is how i would like it to work


bad company 2 had a good system where your first 2-3 shots were spot on and then the cone got bigger the longer you held the trigger, this encouraged burst firing

i hope this system is used and not straight up random deviation from the very first shot

[Sledgecrushr]

I guess your talking bout bullet spread from recoil. Well its prolly going to happen if you go full auto with whatever weapon your using.

[wasdie]

You're never going to get around bullet deviation with these kind of games. They use it to supplement recoil. Increasing recoil alone can have a lot of negative effects on how the game controls. This way guns still feel like it has a lot of power, it doesn't stay steady while you fire, but it doesn't go all over the place and make you lose track of your target if you sit and hold the trigger. It rewards careful bursts, positioning on your enemy, and teamwork over individual skill and 1v1 encounters.

It's a necessary evil. In Counterstrike the recoil was built to be the same every single time so that you could master it. However that's how Counterstrike was built, to be a very skill based FPS focusing on very small amounts of highly skilled players. Games like Battlefield and Planetside have to use different mechanics that fit the more diverse gameplay and open environments. Matches aren't meant to be 2 minutes and 30 seconds long and consist of 5 people on each side. Using the gameplay that fits that model would not fit a game meant for 32+ people on each side fighting a match that takes 20+ minutes to complete.

It seems to me that a lot of gamers don't understand that gameplay mechanics are not easily translated from one game to another. They want all games to play like a very small subset of games they are use to.

[Sabot]

deal with it.

[Littleman]

Depends... random deviation from shoulder-fire is okay in my book. It's when I'm ADS and my bullets go way off mark that I find it frustrating and defeating the purpose of ADS.

I mean, random deviation during ADS basically turns ADS into a CoF/spread tightener, not an actual precision aiming mechanic.

[Whip Nailed it]

Depends... random deviation from shoulder-fire is okay in my book. It's when I'm ADS and my bullets go way off mark that I find it frustrating and defeating the purpose of ADS.

I mean, random deviation during ADS basically turns ADS into a CoF/spread tightener, not an actual precision aiming mechanic.

this is how i look at it too

deal with it.

great input

:rolleyes:

[Sabot]

great input

:rolleyes:

What do you want me to say? Every single shooter has a different kind of gunplay.. some are similar but you still have to adapt. If the deviation is so big it's game breaking, they'll fix it... otherwise, deal with it and adapt.

[wasdie]

Depends... random deviation from shoulder-fire is okay in my book. It's when I'm ADS and my bullets go way off mark that I find it frustrating and defeating the purpose of ADS.

I mean, random deviation during ADS basically turns ADS into a CoF/spread tightener, not an actual precision aiming mechanic.

Well as I said before, if you were to model the recoil of the weapon to follow the spread that would balance the weapon, it would become unusable. You would lose track of your target far to easily. In turn this would slow everything down to much.

ArmA 2 does that. Trying ADS while holding the trigger of a M249 while at a crouched position. It goes straight up. Yes it's realistic, but it's very clumsy when the action is trying to be very arcady.

[Shade Millith]

Depends... random deviation from shoulder-fire is okay in my book. It's when I'm ADS and my bullets go way off mark that I find it frustrating and defeating the purpose of ADS.

I mean, random deviation during ADS basically turns ADS into a CoF/spread tightener, not an actual precision aiming mechanic.

The problem with Iron Sights still using Bullet Deviation/CoF is that when you're hip firing, you can SEE what your CoF is. When you're in Iron Sights, you suddenly lose all visual indication of what your CoF is.

I don't care about the zoom in, slower movement, or gun taking up the screen. I can't stand the removal of indication of what my CoF is!

[zomg]

I don't really think it's a huge problem. How else would you implement something like gun inaccuracy when going full auto?

I did like the approach used in Day of Defeat. They had "physical" recoil where the crosshair actually moved with the shots, instead of the bullet simply landing away from the crosshair. This allowed you to correct the aim by moving your mouse, which made it possible to control recoil if you were good at it.

Also, the more powerful automatics had massive recoil. For example with the BAR, you would need to be pretty good to control the recoil, while with the MG42 (from the hip) it was nigh impossible - but possible to a degree. This in turn made it so that automatics couldn't be crazily accurate at longer ranges.

It was mostly somewhat predictable vertical recoil, meaning you could pull the mouse down to control it, but also some random horizontal recoil to not make it too easy.

[wasdie]

I don't really think it's a huge problem. How else would you implement something like gun inaccuracy when going full auto?

I did like the approach used in Day of Defeat. They had "physical" recoil where the crosshair actually moved with the shots, instead of the bullet simply landing away from the crosshair. This allowed you to correct the aim by moving your mouse, which made it possible to control recoil if you were good at it.

Also, the more powerful automatics had massive recoil. For example with the BAR, you would need to be pretty good to control the recoil, while with the MG42 (from the hip) it was nigh impossible - but possible to a degree. This in turn made it so that automatics couldn't be crazily accurate at longer ranges.

It was mostly somewhat predictable vertical recoil, meaning you could pull the mouse down to control it, but also some random horizontal recoil to not make it too easy.

But going along with that, the guns didn't have iron sights. Only the rifles. Imagine trying to play with a BAR and trying to fire down the sights. It would have been a nightmare with that recoil.

That's what the deviation is for with ADS. It allows you to better control the weapon while simulating the unpredictable recoil and inaccuracy you get from firing full auto.

[ChipMHazard]

I like it when a game features bullet physics. I don't particularly like hitscan weapons.
Obviously it depends on just how random it is. If it happens to be anything like being suppressed in BF3 pre-patch then it needs to be lowered. But just wait for beta.

[Otleaz]

If you aim at the center of the head with a gun at ideal range, the deviation should leave every bullet landing somewhere on the head.

If you aim at the center of the torso at maximum range, the deviation should leave every bullet landing somewhere on the torso.

^
That is how I expect it to work. Randomness becomes secondary to skill.

[maddoggg]

Sadly in games like bf and ps you just need some random deviation to make the close quaters,mid range and long range weapon fit their rolles more properly.

However random deviation SHOULD BE NOTING LIKE IN BATTLEFIELD 3 where luck is more important than skill.
I can be ok with bad company 2's random deviation.

[Whip Nailed it]

bad company 2 had a good system where your first 2-3 shoths were spot on and then the cone got bigger the longer you held the trigger, this encouraged burst firing

i hope this system is used and not straight up random deviation from the very first shot

[Littleman]

Well when I think of firing while aiming down the sights, I'm very much okay with my aim being jolted around and lifting with each shot. It encourages burst firing still, but I know my bullets will go where my sights are set and doesn't make the whole mechanic seem like a necessary key press before actually shooting my weapon.

[super pretendo]

there is nothing wrong with randomness as long as players are given the tools to deal with it. Dealing with uncertainty is an aspect of skill

[kadrin]

Not really a fan of random deviation, I personally prefer bullets to fly straight at where you're pointing but having recoil modeled well so where you're pointing shifts.

Battlefield 3s recoil is alright, where when you finish firing your gun resets to your original aim point, but I prefer more Day of Defeats style where your aim point physically moves and you must move your mouse around to keep it centered.

Though in both Day of Defeats and Battlefield 3 almost all recoil is vertical and they use random deviation to represent side to side, I would much rather the gun jitter around in your arms physically shifting your aim side to side, and up as you fire and have the bullets come out for the most part perfectly accurate to where you're currently pointing.

Anyone who's fired a gun full auto knows that they don't just go straight up, but bounce around quite a bit, even when deployed on bipods.

[Gandhi]

Random deviation only makes the difference if both people involved are equally skilled, then it can be luck as to who wins. But that's no different than one guy winning because he happened to see the other guy a fraction of a second sooner, most of the time that's just a lucky circumstance. This time I saw you first and won, next time you might see me first and win.

If you have one skilled person fighting one who isn't then random deviation isn't going to influence the outcome of that fight very much, unless the TTK is ridiculously low, in which case there's not much skill involved to begin with.

So as long as we're not talking about crazy high deviation it's fine with me. It'll vary from gun to gun obviously, and that's a really useful property to work with when you're trying to balance everything.

[gufftroad]

id take random deviation over the whole you gun moves up but shoots straight otherwise approach reason being if your gun just moves up people will just get used to it and move the gun down to compensate making the recoil a non factor in fights basically turning the gun into a super accurate laser gun

but i'm not a huge fan of deviation either it just happens to be the lesser of two evils here. the best way to simulate recoil would be to have the whole gun move around when you shoot it. recoil isn't straight up in real life your gun moves around quite a bit to the left and right as well as up and some down if you are over compensating for it or under for that matter. the problem with doing that is you end up with games that move too slowly

[Russ]

I prefer high recoil, no deviation. The longer you fire the more erratic the recoil becomes, it is not predictable and becomes unweilding. I like to see why my gun is not being accurate, not have some mystical force that makes my bullets fan out.

[Pancake]

I think this is how random deviation works. There is a cone. The bullet will fall within this cone. The cone gets bigger as you shoot.

I doubt the bullet will fly 90 degrees perpendicular due to "random" deviation.

[SKYeXile]

Its called a COF!...yeash.

[Neksar]

I've played games where ADS just tightened the constantly-visible CoF. As long as I am made aware of how ADS affects me aim, I don't care.

[infected]

they should just flat out copy bf3 weapon mechanics as it is quite well done.

clearly ps2 has the opportunity to be more than just a clone of modern fps, but they definitely need to clone some crucial aspects.

[Gonefshn]

I like deviation when it kicks in from full auto.

You should be able to achieve pretty accurate fire as long as you control your shots.

[Bags]

I am against all RNG coded into a game.

[super pretendo]

I am against all RNG coded into a game.

Dealing with randomness is an aspect of skill, as long as you have the tools do deal with it

[noxious]

id take random deviation over the whole you gun moves up but shoots straight otherwise approach reason being if your gun just moves up people will just get used to it and move the gun down to compensate making the recoil a non factor in fights basically turning the gun into a super accurate laser gun
This isn't true. Even high-level Counter-Strike players still need to use bursts at range.



It's a necessary evil. In Counterstrike the recoil was built to be the same every single time so that you could master it. However that's how Counterstrike was built, to be a very skill based FPS focusing on very small amounts of highly skilled players. Games like Battlefield and Planetside have to use different mechanics that fit the more diverse gameplay and open environments. Matches aren't meant to be 2 minutes and 30 seconds long and consist of 5 people on each side. Using the gameplay that fits that model would not fit a game meant for 32+ people on each side fighting a match that takes 20+ minutes to complete.

It seems to me that a lot of gamers don't understand that gameplay mechanics are not easily translated from one game to another. They want all games to play like a very small subset of games they are use to.
CS was never built like that at all. It was simply a mod where accidentally these mechanics became popular, and then later refined. It wasn't built specifically for highly skilled players. You're confusing cause and effect.

You're not explaining why in Planetside a similar method of recoil and spread control wouldn't work either, you're just dumping it in there as a fact. Please explain it because I don't understand it. All I imagine you're saying is that the guns need more randomization so that bad players have a better chance. If this is what you are saying, then it's a terrible idea.

What does the fact that a CS game lasts 2 minutes have to do with gun mechanics? I could see something like that working easily. Just not with the same TTK, but again, that has nothing to do with gun mechanics. There's nothing truly special about the guns in CS anymore. They just feel very responsive and give you the kind of feedback that helps you understand what's going on. Recoil with predictable feedback, COF spread, all of that is in tons of other games and they're not nearly all like CS. Even COD has both - a game that everyone calls dumbed down for all the wrong reasons.
I was going to quote this post for the same reason. There isn't a coherent argument against CS-style recoil in that post.

[The Kush]

what's your take on it?

i hate it with a passion as it turns some gunfights into luck based instead of skill

i'm sure on a couple vids i noticed that random deviation was present

edit: this is how i would like it to work


bad company 2 had a good system where your first 2-3 shots were spot on and then the cone got bigger the longer you held the trigger, this encouraged burst firing

i hope this system is used and not straight up random deviation from the very first shot

God no..

That is awful. I hate games that do that. You should have the sake accuracy no matter how long you shoot your weapon for. This is an arcade game and it's the future and guns don't lose their accuracy the more you shoot.

[SKYeXile]

Dealing with randomness is an aspect of skill, as long as you have the tools do deal with it

Like resilience!

[noxious]

Dealing with randomness is an aspect of skill, as long as you have the tools do deal with it

Being able to react to randomness is a skill, yes, but randomness still adds imbalance to any competition of skill (unless the purpose of the competition is to determine who is the best at reacting to randomness). By its nature, randomness does not impact all parties equally unless a competition were to continue indefinitely. As all competitions necessarily have a finite duration we must accept that either A) there is no variability and the outcome of a match is always based on skill, or B) there is variability and the outcome of a match is only partially based on skill.

[Littleman]

I almost feel like part of the original concern is lost by this point...

Shoulder-fire, random deviation, or rather, bullets flying off all over the place, I'm okay with.

If I'm ADS however, the most inaccuracy I'll allow is just outside of my iron sights, up to maybe double that with the traditional CoF effect. Otherwise, I'd prefer it worked like CoD, and every shot jerked my aim off the side and up or down with each shot.

Actually, I prefer the latter, but the former is less likely to make people nauseous and I'm okay with it, as long as it doesn't get so bad I ask why bother to ADS at all?