Please give us recoil, not cones of fire

[Arkanor]

I'm seeing this in a lot of games lately and it's just tremendously annoying. As much as people like to hate on those games though it's conspicuously absent from the Call of Duty series (and BF3).

I'm referring to cones of fire, I.E. when a weapon appears to be aimed at a target but shots disperse around that target in a random cone. Typically this occurs after some fire has happened, preventing all shots from staying on the target for an easy kill. Fair enough, weapon dispersion is necessary to prevent kills from being too easy (a-la COD/BF3) for such a big game with longer spawn delays, but the cone-of-fire method is annoyingly counter-intuitive.

Weapons recoil, it's generally not all that easy to keep them on target firing full auto. When you're shooting a real gun though there's a pretty obvious indication in this in that your sights aren't pinned precisely over the target the entire time you're shooting (unless you're Iron Man). COD/BF3 got the fact that guns hit where they're aimed mostly right, but weapon recoil is dramatically understated, making full-auto fire fairly effective and kills rather easy. The STALKER series seems to do a better job of this, when you start missing the target you have a good indicator because your sights fly way off it, this provides immediate visual feedback that you need to stop firing and re-align on the target.


Anyway, that's my rant. I much prefer visual recoil over the immense dissatisfaction of feeling like I have no influence where the bullets are going. In game terms (TTK/etc) it should mean the same thing except less firing fruitlessly because you thought your gun was pointed somewhere the game says it actually wasn't. It also opens up the possibility for people to become better at the shooting by compensating for the recoil pattern (to some extent, the pattern should be semi-random and not fixed).

EDIT: Few people have brought this up and I figure I'd add it to the OP instead of let it get lost, just to clarify, hip-fire typically uses a floating reticule and a cone of fire (typically expanding the reticule to signify inaccuracy). This is used in almost every game and is expected, your character doesn't have as good of an idea where the gun is pointed at the hip, and can't compensate nearly as well. It has its place in close quarters/rapid indoor firefights where accurately sighting isn't always an option.

[Tsunami]

or you could have a preset spray pattern specific for each weapon. This encourages the users to learn the weapon and know the pattern to get all the bullets in the spot they want.

Basically rewards players for learning the weapon

[SFJake]

Bleh, I actually hate both. There's something for ya! :P

Nothing more obnoxious than dealing with recoil with a mouse. I'd rather deal with random spread, honestly.

[Stardouser]

A hybrid method is best. A certain amount of spread if you hipfire or are moving, if you crouch and aim down sight it will be reduced to zero, but recoil will be present in either case. However, since it is, in fact, a hybrid method, the recoil need not be excessive.

[Comet]

They're not going to change something like this at this stage of development I'd imagine.

[Forsaken One]

I love tactical shooters but one thing I don't agree with is recoil. Let me list a few reasons why.

#1. It makes the screen move or jerk around. This is not only annoying but can cause some people motion sickness.

#2. recoil can NOT be used as a way to balance something. Adding something that a player may be even able to counter a little with "skill" throws off the balance of said weapon. Balance should be uncounterable by the player, the player should be forced to learn via skill how to best use a balanced weapon instead of turning a balanced weapon into a overpowered weapon.

CoF however does not allow someone to spray and counter their spray by pulling down on the mouse.

Some of my personal rules to gaming.

A game should never impair a user. if a flash bang goes off it should only deafen and blind the char it should NEVER be bright and loud to hurt the user (some games are guilty of this... one game even made me almost deaf and forced me to replace my screen because the flash bangs burned an image into it.... ) this also falls under things like giving a user motion sickness via mechanics. (an example is recoil.)

Something should NEVER be balanced in such a way that a user can counter what makes it balanced. if something has high power yet very slow reload and small clip yet the user can "weapon swap" to avoid these penalty it effectively ruins the balance and makes said thing overpowered. The same falls under things like recoil. It has high power but balanced by high recoil and yet being skilled can make the recoil at least less then what it was? You just destroyed the balance of the weapon and made it overpowered.

Something should be balanced and then it is the users job and skill to make the most of a weapon in a way that does not override what makes the weapon balanced in the first place.

[Talented Maori]

No to random bullet spread, yes to recoil!

[Synapses]

You are going to get it. ^_~

[morf]

Hybrid method is best:

Hipfire = really big CoF, more or less useless beyond 10 yards

Iron sight = reduced mobility, but pinpoint accuracy on the reticule, adjusting for recoil separates the men from the boys.

And of course bullet drop is a consideration in either case.

[WolfAlmighty]

Don't flame me for not knowing this, but is PS2 going to have different classes of weapons (e.g. Aassault rifles, carbines, SMGs, long rifles)? In such a case, you cannot have each gun be pinpoint accurate even while crouched and not moving and ADS. No gun has pinpoint accuracy at all ranges, which is what cone of fire emulates. It shouldn't be quite as extreme as BF2, but it should also not be nonexistent.

Then again, this is the future so maybe you could justify the removal of it canonically.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

I think you're missing a major reason for COF.

CoF is important in game using ADS or zoom because it artificially represents an inability of the shooter to know exactly where a hipfire is pointed - this is why the cone tightens drastically when looking down sights or in a zoomed perspective. This is necessary because IRL there is no 'center' of screen or crosshair for you to nail every time - just a felt out guess at where you're pointing. However, the player can see 'dead center' (a crosshair) and all peripheral vision of the character, the shooter knows where the hipfire will land, unfairly eliminating the need to aim down sights or zoom - thus the inaccuracy of hipfire has to be artificially implemented by using a CoF.

Pretty simple stuff. :D

[TAA]

From memory Frontlines Fuel of War did an excellent job with recoil. I didnt play it for that long due to the lack of clan support. It certainly had absolutely spectacular sound effects.

How did they do with Homefront? Did that use CoF or recoil?

[Khellendros]

No to recoil, yes to CoF!

[Galzus]

Playing Blacklight Retribution reminded me of how much I hate cone of fire. Your red dot sight is right on a guy's face and it looks like you're going to get a headshot? NOPE! Your bullet just when a couple yards the other way!

CoF also promotes luck-based wins

[goneglockin]

Something should be balanced and then it is the users job and skill to make the most of a weapon in a way that does not override what makes the weapon balanced in the first place.

What the hell are you talking about? Skill should not override balance?

I have an idea, let's make a shooter where clicking your mouse on someone challenges them to a realtime mini-game of paper, rock, scissors...

I didn't grow up with FPS games, they grew up with me- and I can't stand what the console kids have done to them these past 6 years. Game mechanics designed to make FPS a pointless, dull, non-competitive, everyone wins circle-jerk have ruined the entire genre.

Playing an FPS game today feels like a cheesy theme park ride; a simulation of the golden era from 1998 to 2006. It's got guns and you shoot people, but any similarities to what FPS games actually were stops there.

You can have it, I'll wait a couple more years for the pendulum to swing back the other way. The brown, modern war, tactical shooter's time is almost up.

[Badjuju]

Yes to Recoil, no to cone of fire. I disagree with the post above about players countering recoil being a bad thing. The amount of recoil balances guns and thus makes different guns harder to use with sustained fire due to this recoil. Learning to counter recoil is a skill set and thus increases the skill cap IMO. Cone of fire is random deviation of bullets. Random is typically bad in any game remotely competitive, especially when it pertains to a major mechanic. Sure you can keep the cone down by burst firing, but I hardly call that a skill set as takes next to no skill to burst fire. Also, I am all about realism as long as it flows with game play design, and recoil is what you get when firing a weapon in the real world. I was in the military so for me the feel of the way a weapon fires in game is a big deal to me, along with sound, explosion effects, ect. The only thing that bothers me more than poor gun mechanics is when people hip fire or shoot with the but stuck in their arm pit in movies. There are plenty of vets around these days, is it really that hard to get some input on how to operate a riffle correctly? Sorry for the tangent, sooo... go recoil!

[Reefpirate]

I vote yes to Cone of Fire because:

Easier to balance a wide variety of weapons this way.

If the CoF is screwing up your aiming, and you think it's too 'luck based', guess what? You need to be closer to your target with that weapon, or let up on the trigger a bit. Hello balance.

You want recoil? Ok, I guess if you learn the recoil pattern on that super-fast SMG you can use it at virtually all ranges just as effectively as an AR or longer rifle. Not cool.

[Pinkie Pie]

i agree with OP. i HATE the random-spread idea, and i think that proper recoil would add to the realism.

[Badjuju]

I think you're missing a major reason for COF.

CoF is important in game using ADS or zoom because it artificially represents an inability of the shooter to know exactly where a hipfire is pointed - this is why the cone tightens drastically when looking down sights or in a zoomed perspective. This is necessary because IRL there is no 'center' of screen or crosshair for you to nail every time - just a felt out guess at where you're pointing. However, the player can see 'dead center' (a crosshair) and all peripheral vision of the character, the shooter knows where the hipfire will land, unfairly eliminating the need to aim down sights or zoom - thus the inaccuracy of hipfire has to be artificially implemented by using a CoF.

Pretty simple stuff. :D

I don't think its the COF that exists when people are hip firing which people do not like, its when they are aiming down sites. From the hip a COF or very unpredictable recoil makes sense. While aiming down sites it makes none at all.

[AThreatToYou]

I've dealt with random spread, and it's very annoying. I've also dealt with recoil, and it's also very annoying. I'd like a system with both where we can trade-off these stats for other penalties through customization and changing weapon types.

What's an important consideration, however, is the first bullet should ALWAYS, WITHOUT FAIL, ONE MILLION USES NO VARIATION, GO EXACTLY WHERE YOU AIM IT. Then recoil will effect the vertical accuracy. If the player moves side-to-side or rotates their view while firing down sights, then cone-of-fire should come into play. Through all of the COF and recoil system, the first bullet should always go where you aim it.

[Accuser]

I think the BF3 system is perfect. There are a number of factors involved:

Base accuracy: The CoF of your first bullet. This is 0 for sniper rifles and very small for most weapons, slightly larger for LMGs.

Vertical Recoil: The amount that the aimpoint is pushed up from each bullet.

First Round Recoil Modifier: This causes most guns to have a higher recoil on the first bullet before you get control of the weapon. It's smaller on burstfire weapons like the NC, and larger for sustained fire weapons like the TR.

Horizontal Recoil: Each round randomly applies either a left or right recoil. Most weapons have more left or more right, for example, 0.1 left and 0.3 right. The net effect is a pull to the right for sustained fire and minimal impact on burst fire.

Hipfire Accuracy: CoF when hipfiring. Increases based on recoil numbers.


This system allows you to use many mods that sidegrade your weapon. A foregrip will reduce left/right recoil, but also damage base accuracy. A heavy barrel will increase base accuracy, but increase vertical recoil. A suppressor will reduce vertical recoil but damage hipfire accuracy. And with all of that, the only concern in "CoF' is base accuracy and hipfiring.

[Forsaken One]

Bullshit stuff

The fun fact is you don't seem to want a SKILL based shooter, you want a shooter that lets you learn to exploit and cheat the system.

Many old school fps games did that. look at quake. the game was so boring that they legitimized exploits like strafe jumping to make the game less boring.

with tribes it was skiing.

Games have evolved to the point where they don't need retarded exploits to cover and change the fact that the game how it was designed to be played is boring.

If you think you're skilled because you can cheat the system and exploit then honestly you can go beep yourself.

Play the real game and win by its rules without cheating, then you can claim you are skilled.

[Badjuju]

I vote yes to Cone of Fire because:
You want recoil? Ok, I guess if you learn the recoil pattern on that super-fast SMG you can use it at virtually all ranges just as effectively as an AR or longer rifle. Not cool.

The only major FPS i have seen this be an issue in at all is COD. With good weapon balance and bullet mechanics this shouldn't be an issue. I also disagree. I believe dealing with recoil is a skill set and will set players apart from each other, as well as bring realism into the game. Taping the mouse or only being able to shoot some one at a certain range due to unpredictable bullet pathing in such a vast environment does not. From my experience, COF mechanics lead to much lower skill caps than recoil mechanics. That's not to say recoil dosn't cause some deviation, particularly from the hip which should only be effective at close range.

[Absentis]

I would prefer recoil over CoF. CoF is a cheap way to emulate recoil without giving any skill to the weapon's user besides getting closer (if you can call that skill). Recoil is better because it adds an element of skill to the user instead of giving the mentality spamming their weapon downrange and hoping the CoF works in their favor. In my opinion, the one time CoF can replace recoil is if the CoF has a pattern that normal recoil has.

[Novice bot]

Say no to non-Iron sighted CoF and you'll see me running around, firing sniper head shots from the hip. As an UT player I'd find this the most viable strategy anyways.

[Pinkie Pie]

the first bullet should ALWAYS, WITHOUT FAIL, ONE MILLION USES NO VARIATION, GO EXACTLY WHERE YOU AIM IT.[/B] Then recoil will effect the vertical accuracy. If the player moves side-to-side or rotates their view while firing down sights, then cone-of-fire should come into play. Through all of the COF and recoil system, the first bullet should always go where you aim it.
i feel that this can't be stressed enough. no matter what you do, whether you're t-bagging a dead guy or riding a dinosaur, the first bullet always go where pointed. ALWAYS.

[goneglockin]

The fun fact is you don't seem to want a SKILL based shooter, you want a shooter that lets you learn to exploit and cheat the system.
...
Play the real game and win by its rules without cheating, then you can claim you are skilled.

Is this guy for real? I think he's for real.

Ok everyone, you heard him- you have to play the game by the rules. If there is no rule against something, and it irritates this pseudo-FPS gamer from an alternate universe, you are an exploiting, cheating, skill-less loser.

Also, Quake and Tribes are boring and lying prone in some bushes waiting for someone to walk into your crosshairs=state of the art, cutting edge FPS gaming excitement.

You know what game you would like? Anyone remember those flash advertisements where'd you have to click the moving object to win a prize? Yeah, that sounds like more your speed.

[Arkanor]

A hybrid method is best. A certain amount of spread if you hipfire or are moving, if you crouch and aim down sight it will be reduced to zero, but recoil will be present in either case. However, since it is, in fact, a hybrid method, the recoil need not be excessive.

I guess I forgot to include this. If you're not using the weapon's sights you don't (and shouldn't) have that great an idea where it's pointing, the spreading cone works well and belongs in the hipfire scenario (usually games expand the reticle as you fire to indicate this as well). In case you didn't see this, hip-fire should always have a cone of fire.

That method shouldn't be nerfed to uselessness, but as a mostly indoors/close quarters thing it has its place.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

I don't think its the COF that exists when people are hip firing which people do not like, its when they are aiming down sites. From the hip a COF or very unpredictable recoil makes sense. While aiming down sites it makes none at all.

Guns at full auto will form a broadening group over time (CoF) even when aiming down the sights - just less than hip-fire. This very fact is why people fire guns in bursts. After the first round, there is a CoF - in most games, and IRL. Period.

How does that make "no sense at all"?

[Bags]

The fun fact is you don't seem to want a SKILL based shooter, you want a shooter that lets you learn to exploit and cheat the system.

Many old school fps games did that. look at quake. the game was so boring that they legitimized exploits like strafe jumping to make the game less boring.

with tribes it was skiing.

Games have evolved to the point where they don't need retarded exploits to cover and change the fact that the game how it was designed to be played is boring.

If you think you're skilled because you can cheat the system and exploit then honestly you can go beep yourself.

Play the real game and win by its rules without cheating, then you can claim you are skilled.

I don't quite understand how Quake, UT, Gunz, Tribes; games with "Exploits" take less skill than modern FPS whose combat involves turret battling each other?

[Forsaken One]

I don't quite understand how Quake, UT, Gunz, Tribes; games with "Exploits" take less skill than modern FPS whose combat involves turret battling each other?

I have no idea what you mean by "turret battling" But this is my view of the subject.

Sometimes in games it takes pretty good reflex skill to glitch into a wall so you can shoot at others and they can't shoot back.

Where should the line be drawn of people being able to exploit and cheat just because they have reflex skill?

cheat the system via reflex skill to get a faster reload, a faster fire rate, trick the game into thinking they have more ammo, glitch something that gives health, get into walls, reduce recoil.

Its all cheating. Just some dumbass's like to bullshit that their cheating isn't cheating.

[Bags]

I have no idea what you mean by "turret battling" But this is my view of the subject.

Sometimes in games it takes pretty good reflex skill to glitch into a wall so you can shoot at others and they can't shoot back.

Where should the line be drawn of people being able to exploit and cheat just because they have reflex skill?

cheat the system via reflex skill to get a faster reload, a faster fire rate, trick the game into thinking they have more ammo, glitch something that gives health, get into walls, reduce recoil.

Its all cheating. Just some dumbass's like to bullshit that their cheating isn't cheating.

By turreting I mean you stand still and shoot at other people who stand still. So you're like a turret.

I can't think of any game that allows people to glitch into walls that wasn't fixed.

[The Kush]

I agree 1000% with op.

I stopped playing Halo because they added come fire to the dmr and took out the battle rifle. DO NOT IMPLEMENT CONE FIRE. This is really annoying.

[Forsaken One]

By turreting I mean you stand still and shoot at other people who stand still. So you're like a turret.

I can't think of any game that allows people to glitch into walls that wasn't fixed.

and CoF is the "fix" to the recoil cheat, a bit of a crappy fix maybe, but a fix non the less.

[Coreldan]

Bleh, I actually hate both. There's something for ya! :P

Nothing more obnoxious than dealing with recoil with a mouse. I'd rather deal with random spread, honestly.

I personally agree with this. Fighting horrible artificial recoil with mouse is annoying. I do a lot of shooting in real life and it really isnt the same thing in games where recoil has been done excessively.

I dont like cone of fire that much either, but I think it does represent certain things fine and forces people to do something other than full auto the entire mag.

Naturally a hybrid of both so that neither is over the top but both play role would be the best option IMO

[Kezz]

Weapons should have an inherent CoF. Tighter for long guns, looser for little ones. That's just the way physics works. Shooting an SMG at long range should have no guarantee the bullet will go where the sight is, but a sniper rifle should usually, absent windage, be pretty close.

Weapons should have recoil. It doesn't need to shift your viewpoint around, just the sights. It should be far more pronounced with bigger weapons and if the stock isn't shouldered. Hip firing a sniper rifle should miss more often than not, even first round.

CoF as implemented in PS1, for example, is a quick and dirty programming shortcut to "emulate" some of these effects within the limitations of the physics engine and the server code. Hopefully, since things have progressed in the computing field in the last decade, such hacks will not be as necessary in PS2.

But it certainly shouldn't be that the "first bullet" should go exactly where the gun is pointed.

[Rhyfelwrr]

But it certainly shouldn't be that the "first bullet" should go exactly where the gun is pointed.

In my humble opinion, the first bullet should go exactly where your pointing it because otherwise wtf? aiming to hit and you're rewarded with your first bullet with a miss leaving split second for them to react rather than seeing their shields drop down then having tor react?

Recoil ftw, CoF is too random and as someone else said; promotes luck kills, dont like fighting recoil then use shorter bursts or single fire until you get the hang of it?

[Miniman]

I too prefer the cone of Fire - it really helps you to understand how certain actions affect your accuracy, and what you can do to recover it, as well as giving you an indication of roughly the chance the shot you fired hitting. Kinda like a on the fly chart of hit chance.

[maddoggg]

Recoil over random deviation should be a rulle for every FPS game.
Recoil you can compensate for and shoot in burst,that means a skilled player can controll it.
Random deviation is just pure luck with no skill involved and luck should not be a factor in any game that have a claim to be somewhat competitive!

[Coreldan]

In my humble opinion, the first bullet should go exactly where your pointing it because otherwise wtf? aiming to hit and you're rewarded with your first bullet with a miss leaving split second for them to react rather than seeing their shields drop down then having tor react?

Recoil ftw, CoF is too random and as someone else said; promotes luck kills, dont like fighting recoil then use shorter bursts or single fire until you get the hang of it?

It's not really about luck if the CoF has been done right and you are within the appropriate range for your rifle.

In the ideal case with CoF, it should be adjusted so that while you are at the appropriate range, you wont miss at least the first hit or single shots even with CoF implemented.

The weapon does not have to be pinpoint accurate on first shot. Or the other way around, having CoF even on first hit does not promote luck kills, it promotes being at the right range for your weapon. The problem with pinpoint accurate weapons on first hits is that it'll devalue longer range rifles, when accuracy is an attribute basically every weapon has as long as you single shot.

A military grade weapon will not be shooting a single hole past 100 meters no matter how you single shot, usually not even if screwed into a bench. That's why I think CoF isn't a bad thing. Not only it actually represents the usual accuracy of a military grade weapon, but also the many variables there is with the shooter.

[Stanis]

Give us both.

As we can customise the weapons I am hoping for sidegrades that significantly adjust the feel of the weapon.

my preference is for low spread (CoF bloom), low recoil weapons.
Also supressed so the enemy doesn't hear me or detect the muzzle flash.

Usually the sacrifice I make for that is I'm using an SMG which has say signfiicantly less range and damage per shot than a rifle.

I think the ADS will give us a fairly workable model.
The gun will recoil on each shot.
hipfire = CoF / random spread.
ADS = minimal spread, slowed movement
ADS+crouch = lowest spread. no movement.



I played Blacklight for a bit of fun waiting on PS2. I must say I like their model of customisation but I doubt we'll see that complexity in Planetside.

[CutterJohn]

Recoil over random deviation should be a rulle for every FPS game.
Recoil you can compensate for and shoot in burst,that means a skilled player can controll it.
Random deviation is just pure luck with no skill involved and luck should not be a factor in any game that have a claim to be somewhat competitive!

So what about shotguns?


CoFs are there to enforce weapon balance. The devs proclaim that this here is a close range weapon, and lo, the cof is wide and its useless outside of short range. Thats the entire point.


Luck is a factor in a great many competitive games. How you handle poor roles of the dice is also a skill.

[Pepsi]

So what about shotguns?

CoFs are there to enforce weapon balance. The devs proclaim that this here is a close range weapon, and lo, the cof is wide and its useless outside of short range. Thats the entire point.

Luck is a factor in a great many competitive games. How you handle poor roles of the dice is also a skill.Well shotguns are by nature not very competitive or skillful weapons. The problem I'm seeing is that randomness should be virtually non-existent from the game mechanics and any random factors should be caused by the player. This isn't Poker, when a player dies they should always feel that it was their fault, not that they simply got a bad roll or hand. Applying "skill ceilings" with random mechanics a player can never control is the best way to kill depth in a game.

[Littleman]

Planetside 2 features certs for both accuracy (likely CoF) AND stability (likely recoil) on it's rifles/carbines/SMG's as seen in this video:E3 presentation video.

If you've played MAG on the PS3, you'd remember it's weaponry tackled CoF and recoil/kick-up with sights (CoF,) fore grips (recoil,) and skill/talent points (CoF and recoil.)

On to the actual debate: CoF is harder for skill to outright negate, and I'd rather have to deal with random, undefeatable bullet spread than my ammo hitting my target for much less damage by 30m out simply because SOE didn't want my SMG to be a medium-long range weapon, ensuring the carbine and assault rifle can have a clear advantage at longer ranges. Making it unlikely to hit a target a distance away as opposed to simply dealing less damage will show users the effective range of the weapon immediately, without needing to be told why their gun isn't killing someone even after successfully putting 40 rounds into them from across the base.

[Sabot]

I agree that it should be a hybrid... CoF sohuld be considered effective range, where the cone starts to get larger than the avarage size of a person beyond that range, and is always larger if firing from the hip or on the move... unless you're standing right next to the enemy.
And on large caliber weapons you have to deal with heavier recoil... so no weapon is OP.. just use it for what it was meant for.

And yes, the first bullet should ALWAYS go exactly where you aim... unless you're way out of range for that weapon specifically.

[Mutant]

I personally agree with this. Fighting horrible artificial recoil with mouse is annoying. I do a lot of shooting in real life and it really isnt the same thing in games where recoil has been done excessively.

I dont like cone of fire that much either, but I think it does represent certain things fine and forces people to do something other than full auto the entire mag.

Naturally a hybrid of both so that neither is over the top but both play role would be the best option IMO


A military grade weapon will not be shooting a single hole past 100 meters no matter how you single shot, usually not even if screwed into a bench. That's why I think CoF isn't a bad thing. Not only it actually represents the usual accuracy of a military grade weapon, but also the many variables there is with the shooter.



This.

I think a lot of people commenting on this thread have never discharged a firearm.

[Ivam Akorahil]

to be honest every weapon in real life has a slight cone effect, not every cartidge of ammo is identical slight variations cause slightly different velocities and angles of muzzle exit tho usualy these effects dont really play a role untill you have to shoot at stuff beyond 100 meters

basicly what the guy 2 posts above said
+ agree with the abolishment excessive recoil i ve been in the army for 4 years (germany) if you know what your doing you can allmost (!) eliminate any form of recoil with modern rifles,

[EisenKreutzer]

Recoil and CoF are two important elements of any shooter. If you make a game without them, you end up with Quake. That was in the past, this is the present.

I want guns to have both recoil (a managable difficulty element which rewards experience with firing a weapon) and CoF (an element of randomness that ensures killing is not just a matter of aiming and clicking).

[Mutant]

This is just stupid. Realism should never get in the way of proper game design, and we have a long legacy of games that inform us on how to design shooters.

Recoil and CoF are two important elements of any shooter. If you make a game without them, you end up with Quake. That was in the past, this is the present.

I want guns to have both recoil (a managable difficulty element which rewards experience with firing a weapon) and CoF (an element of randomness that ensures killing is not just a matter of aiming and clicking).

This is not a simulator, people!

I was quoting and agreeing to a post that said Recoil+CoF is best, and that Recoil+CoF approximates to the real world in a reasonable way.

[EisenKreutzer]

I was quoting and agreeing to a post that said Recoil+CoF is best, and that Recoil+CoF approximates to the real world in a reasonable way.

Mea culpa. I thought you were saying something completely different.

[TAA]

I want guns to have both recoil (a managable difficulty element which rewards experience with firing a weapon) and CoF (an element of randomness that ensures killing is not just a matter of aiming and clicking).

This is not a simulator, people!

I agree with you completely. The problem is that CoF doesnt really work like you think it would in real life.


You could illustrate this easily in BF2142. If you stood next to one of your friends and fired a full magazine into a wall, then the two of you would see two different things. You would see bullets hitting everywhere, and the bullet marks on the wall would match where you saw the bullets hitting. Your friend however would see the bullets hitting perfectly one on top of the other, with a slight upward drag due to the recoil forming a perfect line of bullet marks on the wall.

How could this be? How could you see the bullets hitting in completely different spots to your friends? The reason for this effect is that the visible location of your bullets is just an artifact. It is an illusion. What actually happens is this: when you fire the program does a calculation factoring in how close your crosshair was to the target, the CoF of the weapon, the range to the target, etc. It then rolls an imaginary die and determines if you hit or not. If you hit you see the bullet hitting the target. If you miss you see the bullet missing.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong with the above, though I am pretty sure this is how it works.


Yes it still takes skill to kill people in games with a CoF system. Players still need to be accurate, they still need to learn how each individual weapon behaves, and they need to compensate their play style to maximize their chances of getting those hits.

What CoF does however is lower the maximum skill ceiling of the game. Again this is not necessarily a bad thing. It means that someone who has been playing shooters for a couple of decades like me will hit a peak skill level with a gun very quickly, and gives other people a chance to catch up. It means that great players wont dominate the game as much as they would normally. If the game rewards individual skill too much then on a public server against less skilled players there is very little reason for sticking around with a squad - they just end up slowing those great players down.

Thinking back to Frontlines Fuel of War. That was a great game in that it didnt use any CoF, but rather a lot of random recoil in their weapons. The only problem with the massive recoil is that before you got used to it the weapons looked very unsightly and uncontrollable when firing. A new player would have been very much turned off by that. It also meant that new players died and died a lot. Again not much fun for them at the beginning.

I think a combination of both CoF and recoil is good. Its just finding the right balance that is tricky.


Edit: And yes, the first bullet should always land exactly on target, then after some time has elapsed without firing your first bullet should again land exactly on target. Every time.

[EisenKreutzer]

I'll have to take your word for that, dude. ^^

[Mutant]

Edit: And yes, the first bullet should always land exactly on target, then after some time has elapsed without firing your first bullet should again land exactly on target. Every time.

I don't think this is a good thing for all weapons to always have the 1st bullet hit exactly on target, it highly de-values long rage weapons and artificially increases shorter range weapons with high damage per hit.

The AK-47 was a prime example of this in CS. Why use the AWP sniper weapon when you could get 1 hit kills with the AK which was always accurate for the 1st bullet.



Each gun should have the CoF set so that the 1st bullet lands exactly (or close to, say within the size of a head) on target only within the weapons effective firing range. In PS2 bullet drop should play into this quite a bit too reducing the need for a CoF.

I think Recoil+bullet drop should be the main Accuracy modifiers but a little CoF has its place. All down the balancing.

[AThreatToYou]

I agree with you completely. The problem is that CoF doesnt really work like you think it would in real life.


You could illustrate this easily in BF2142. If you stood next to one of your friends and fired a full magazine into a wall, then the two of you would see two different things. You would see bullets hitting everywhere, and the bullet marks on the wall would match where you saw the bullets hitting. Your friend however would see the bullets hitting perfectly one on top of the other, with a slight upward drag due to the recoil forming a perfect line of bullet marks on the wall.

How could this be? How could you see the bullets hitting in completely different spots to your friends? The reason for this effect is that the visible location of your bullets is just an artifact. It is an illusion. What actually happens is this: when you fire the program does a calculation factoring in how close your crosshair was to the target, the CoF of the weapon, the range to the target, etc. It then rolls an imaginary die and determines if you hit or not. If you hit you see the bullet hitting the target. If you miss you see the bullet missing.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong with the above, though I am pretty sure this is how it works.



It could only work like that if weapons were hitscan and it would depend largely on how it was coded as well. IIRC, weapons in PlanetSide 2 will fire actual projectiles with collision detection being used to determine whether or not they hit.

Cone of Fire would thus fire the projectiles out in a ... cone. WYS,WYG.

[TAA]

The AK-47 was a prime example of this in CS. Why use the AWP sniper weapon when you could get 1 hit kills with the AK which was always accurate for the 1st bullet.


I figured that damage drop over distance for different weapons would take care of that problem.

[Rhyfelwrr]

A military grade weapon will not be shooting a single hole past 100 meters no matter how you single shot,

I wasn't referring to each an every time, I was saying that the first round should go where the barrel is aiming, where the rest of them go should be up the weapons vertical and recoil judder. I dont like the idea of standing 90 degrees to someone at a suitable range for the weapon and missing without reason.

I figured that damage drop over distance for different weapons would take care of that problem.

This ^ so you dont get people sniping with a smg which should be bouncing all over the place, not have an invisible cone spreading to the edges of the screen.

[foam]

i agree, visual recoil is way better.
cones of fire is just pure cheesy, and makes the game feel more amateur to me, but I guess I can understand since they are under a tight budget to get this rolling.

hopefully later if the game is a large success they'll polish it off more by adding visual recoil.

please never put in fixed spray patterns for weapons. i think it is a terrible idea.

[Accuser]

What CoF does however is lower the maximum skill ceiling of the game. Again this is not necessarily a bad thing. It means that someone who has been playing shooters for a couple of decades like me will hit a peak skill level with a gun very quickly, and gives other people a chance to catch up. It means that great players wont dominate the game as much as they would normally. If the game rewards individual skill too much then on a public server against less skilled players there is very little reason for sticking around with a squad - they just end up slowing those great players down.

Don't let it be said that I've never been swayed by an argument on a forum before. You've persuaded me that CoF should be a significant part of ADS accuracy.

[TAA]

Don't let it be said that I've never been swayed by an argument on a forum before. You've persuaded me that CoF should be a significant part of ADS accuracy.

Well, not too significant I hope! ;)

[moosepoop]

COF is from cod noob games? wtf is this bullshit?

counterstrike is COF based and battlefield 3 uses a hybrid system. planetside 1 uses cof ffs.

[Baneblade]

i feel that this can't be stressed enough. no matter what you do, whether you're t-bagging a dead guy or riding a dinosaur, the first bullet always go where pointed. ALWAYS.

Every round goes where its pointed...

CoF can be invisible to the user. The problem is CoF is too often used to simulate recoil, which is silliness since the two are completely unrelated.

CoF is bullet spread is the bullet's tendency to 'drift' off center. Recoil is completely different and has negative zero effect on CoF.

[Coreldan]

I agree with you completely. The problem is that CoF doesnt really work like you think it would in real life.


You could illustrate this easily in BF2142. If you stood next to one of your friends and fired a full magazine into a wall, then the two of you would see two different things. You would see bullets hitting everywhere, and the bullet marks on the wall would match where you saw the bullets hitting. Your friend however would see the bullets hitting perfectly one on top of the other, with a slight upward drag due to the recoil forming a perfect line of bullet marks on the wall.

How could this be? How could you see the bullets hitting in completely different spots to your friends? The reason for this effect is that the visible location of your bullets is just an artifact. It is an illusion. What actually happens is this: when you fire the program does a calculation factoring in how close your crosshair was to the target, the CoF of the weapon, the range to the target, etc. It then rolls an imaginary die and determines if you hit or not. If you hit you see the bullet hitting the target. If you miss you see the bullet missing.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong with the above, though I am pretty sure this is how it works.



I really doubt that it works like that. I'm pretty sure at least in APB the spot of bullet impact is randomized within the crosshair and it then does hitscan whether or not the target was in the randomized position. I guess different games have different way of doing CoF, what you said might be true for BF2142.

Also, even if this was the case with games with hitscan, PS2 has no hitscan and this would not be the case.

[Mutant]

Every round goes where its pointed...

CoF can be invisible to the user. The problem is CoF is too often used to simulate recoil, which is silliness since the two are completely unrelated.

CoF is bullet spread is the bullet's tendency to 'drift' off center. Recoil is completely different and has negative zero effect on CoF.

Yes, I like to think of CoF as representation of wind / environmental factors + Imperfect weapon/ammo manufacturing + no one can always aim with pinpoint accuracy over all ranges all of the time.


It would just use too much processing power to do it all with real physics, and arguable I don't want all games to by hyper realistic simulation like.
(ARMA2 does a good job at realism for those who like that sort of thing)

[wasdie]

Pure weapon recoil isn't good. You need a level of cone of fire after a certain number of rounds. This prevents the player from losing sight of their target, having to reacquire, and then shoot again. When the pace of the game is high, you cannot afford that 1-2 seconds of down time.

That's why it is used in BF3 and for the most part it works.

In ArmA 2 you have pure recoil. Trying to hit a target at more than 100 meters while spraying automatic and you lose sight of your target. This really slows down the gameplay.

Even though you're supposed to fire in controlled bursts in this game, causing somebody who fires fully auto to completely lose sight of their target will slow the game down immensely. Instead, it's best to punish their fully auto by increasing the spread of the bullets instead of forcing them to slow down by quite a bit.

Also having pure recoil while even firing in just bursts can be an issue. You still can lose sight of your target. Playing the original Red Orchestra and firing a MP40 or a PPSH is a good indication of what I'm talking about. Even in small bursts, you cannot really control that thing nor can you keep your eyes on the target. This makes players slow down much more than they should. That kind of gameplay doesn't fit Planetside 2.

The best is a mix of vertical recoil, horizontal recoil, and a cone of fire. Cone of fire only takes into effect when firing from the hip or when holding the trigger. It always compliments the recoil, but it stops people from beating the recoil. Basically, you can't learn to fire your weapon perfectly accurate 100% of the time because even if you master the recoil, you're still fighting the small CoF.

The CoF doesn't have to be massive to achieve this either. Just enough so that even a master of the weapon needs to obey some basic trigger discipline.

[CutterJohn]

Applying "skill ceilings" with random mechanics a player can never control is the best way to kill depth in a game.

Yes, but nobody has ever explained why toning down skill ceilings and 'depth' is objectively bad for a game. Sure, its bad for the hardcore competitive scene, but its good for the average player who wants a game to have fun with. Nobody wants to be casually playing a pickup game of basketball with their friends and have Michael Jordan show up and trounce them 300 to 0(Actually, most would be fine with mike doing that, but the point stands).

If the skill ceiling is too high, the game is ruined for those without the time or inclination to compete at the highest levels. There are no arenas in this game, no ladders, no leagues, where the newbies can be segregated from the domination of grandmasters. Everyone has to occupy the same game space, which means everyone has to be, to a certain degree, on the same level.

Nobody enjoys being fodder.

[MrMorton]

Bleh, I actually hate both. There's something for ya! :P

Nothing more obnoxious than dealing with recoil with a mouse. I'd rather deal with random spread, honestly.

why? recoil may be "obnoxious" (how does it do that exactly, say mean things to you when you miss?) but it is controllable, and a skilled and practiced player can control recoil. However no matter how skilled you are, you can never control bullet spread, it is random.

My reference for this is an fps game called A.V.A (alliance of valiant arms). In that game many guns have MASSIVE amounts of recoil (after 3 shots your gun is looking at the ceiling), but with a modification system, it was possible to make your gun have much less recoil at the cost of bullet spread, but NO one playing at a clan level modded for less recoil because of the above point.

Basically what I am saying is that for the casual player, it does not make much of a difference, but for the player who is actually invested in the game, a skill based system is always better than a random one.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that in my A.V.A example, there was always some bullet spread, but it was directly inverse to the level of recoil (with other factors like damage and rof considered)

[ParisTeta]

In extreme, a high skill ceiling means, that only very very good player are left.
For example WoWIIOnline, the flying game, when i first played it, i could get into the air game, be viable, it was much to learn but possible, had a lot of fun. I tried years later, and nearly everbody in the air where so good, i didn`t stand a chance, didn`t even hat battle where i could learn from defeat.

Quake games another example, even a slight difference in skill level makes match 0-10 match, and it has a high skill ceiling, newer, or casualy ones, don`t even stand a chance, even to learn (though in quake somewhat easier, getting Itme timer right etc.).

Back to CoF vs Recoil:
CoF is ok, as long as it makes sense and dosn`t say, "you rolled a 1, that why you die" aka the RNG didn`t let hit the target, though you did most things right.
If you do everyhing right, leading, bullet drop, the difference of a CoF for a certain weapon, in regards to it`s range, should be the difference of half a man, aka you aim center body, it may hit arms/legs/head. You aim for the head, you may hit arms/shoulder or shoot above. You get the idea.

Recoil is actually a good tool to let CoF not go out of hand, it adds per shot, is semi controable and is dealable (you know weapon goes up and a little to the right). Also recoil makes weapon feel better.

Yes to both IF carefully implanted.

For PS2 in balance it begs the question for weapon balance:
VS: If no bullet drop is the advantage, and you get lower damage at range for it, but CoF/Recoil is so bad, that this is no use, you end up with a worse gun.

[wasdie]

Yes, but nobody has ever explained why toning down skill ceilings and 'depth' is objectively bad for a game. Sure, its bad for the hardcore competitive scene, but its good for the average player who wants a game to have fun with. Nobody wants to be casually playing a pickup game of basketball with their friends and have Michael Jordan show up and trounce them 300 to 0(Actually, most would be fine with mike doing that, but the point stands).

If the skill ceiling is too high, the game is ruined for those without the time or inclination to compete at the highest levels. There are no arenas in this game, no ladders, no leagues, where the newbies can be segregated from the domination of grandmasters. Everyone has to occupy the same game space, which means everyone has to be, to a certain degree, on the same level.

Nobody enjoys being fodder.

People fail to realize that Planetside is not a competitive game like Quake or CS. It's a game about massive battles, combined arms, and lots and lots of teamwork. The core of the game is built to support this.

This is why there are "skill ceilings". It forces players to work together to be triumphant, not just be extremely skilled at the game.

But even though people are talking about "skill ceilings", I can still find extremely skilled players at CoD and BF3 that would destroy anybody complaining about "skill ceilings". It makes no sense. Those games don't have "skill ceilings", instead they require a different skill set than the old arena shooters or tactical shooters.

That doesn't make them a bunch of terrible gamers like people here seem to think. This makes them very skilled at this kind of shooter.

[Noxey]

Recoil just gets on my tits, I hate CS style combat where you pretty much aim at the other guys knees and hope you luck a head shot before he does.

The most balanced and competitive fps game to date (quake3/live) has no recoil or COF, where you aim is where you hit, and that's how it should be.

[wasdie]

Recoil just gets on my tits, I hate CS style combat where you pretty much aim at the other guys knees and hope you luck a head shot before he does.

The most balanced and competitive fps game to date (quake3/live) has no recoil or COF, where you aim is where you hit, and that's how it should be.

For an arena shooter sure. This isn't an arena shooter at all.

[SFJake]

For an arena shooter sure. This isn't an arena shooter at all.

I think people are scared of this for no reason. I have not seen many games with perfect aim. But Renegade did. It had pretty massive battles for its time with games with 60 to even a 100 players, and every weapons in the game was accurate at any and all distances.

Strange how that did make anyone so powerful it unbalanced the game (with ONE exception, snipers).

I get that this is an even bigger game with more people. But that perfect aim wouldn't work is a myth. There are some things that need limits (perfect, long distance sniper is really the worst), believe it or not, perfect aim even in a game like planetside 2, isn't unachievable at ALL, if it was their goal.

It would need some tweaking, there are some rules that go with this kind of aiming, but I don't see why you think this is "arena" only.

If anything, both recoils AND cones of fire are bad, overused mechanics that have yet to actually improve any game.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

People fail to realize that Planetside is not a competitive game like Quake or CS. It's a game about massive battles, combined arms, and lots and lots of teamwork. The core of the game is built to support this.

This is why there are "skill ceilings". It forces players to work together to be triumphant, not just be extremely skilled at the game.

But even though people are talking about "skill ceilings", I can still find extremely skilled players at CoD and BF3 that would destroy anybody complaining about "skill ceilings". It makes no sense. Those games don't have "skill ceilings", instead they require a different skill set than the old arena shooters or tactical shooters.

That doesn't make them a bunch of terrible gamers like people here seem to think. This makes them very skilled at this kind of shooter.

100% My favorite forum post of all time. Not being sarcastic. Thumbs up.

[ThermalReaper]

As long as it isn't a bastard hybrid like Alliance of valiant arms, I support recoil on hip/shoulder fire.

[wasdie]

I think people are scared of this for no reason. I have not seen many games with perfect aim. But Renegade did. It had pretty massive battles for its time with games with 60 to even a 100 players, and every weapons in the game was accurate at any and all distances.

Strange how that did make anyone so powerful it unbalanced the game (with ONE exception, snipers).

I get that this is an even bigger game with more people. But that perfect aim wouldn't work is a myth. There are some things that need limits (perfect, long distance sniper is really the worst), believe it or not, perfect aim even in a game like planetside 2, isn't unachievable at ALL, if it was their goal.

It would need some tweaking, there are some rules that go with this kind of aiming, but I don't see why you think this is "arena" only.

If anything, both recoils AND cones of fire are bad, overused mechanics that have yet to actually improve any game.

I would say that recoil makes the gunplay in Counterstrike as fun and as rewarding as it is.

You really seem to be stuck in that Quake 3 mentality. You should just stick to Shootmania then.

[YaJackWagon]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Battlefield 2142 had the best gunplay of any FPS (that tries to go for even the slightest amount of realism) I've played to date. Copy that and the infantry game will be fine.



A fair amount of recoil that seemed difficult to counter with your mouse. Burst fire and single shot were always more rewarding at medium range than just opening up. Unlike BC/BF3/CoD
Very little CoF when ADS, but enough to make sure the SMGs didn't breach into the ARs, and the assault rifles didn't breach into the snipers, and enough on the LMGs to make sure they weren't better at twitch than the SMGs and ARs. Everything except the SMGs was damn near useless at hipfire. Unlike BC/BF3/CoD

TTK might also have had something to do with this, but nevertheless.


Recoil should be the dominating factor, but a slight amount of CoF on various weapons to prevent this from becoming BFBC2 where tap-firing gave you 100% accurate laser guns.

[GTGD]

Recoil is kind of broken, because you will inevitably have weapons that are stronger or have a faster ROF, or are more accurate with the tradeoff of higher recoil. This weapon is legitimately broken, and will only have the illusion of balance because of all the noobs who won't bother to learn it.

Whoever asked for preset spray patterns: congratulations, that may be the dumbest idea here. Why would you ever suggest inviting macro-friendly bullshit into a free-to-play game? That's like begging for warping macros to make a return.

Overall: COF and recoil >>> just COF >>> just recoil in terms of weapon balance. But not the shitty "recoil" like in BF or CoD. In those games you can see the gun jumping around but the crosshairs are still focused on where you're aiming, and not moving. That makes no sense and just gives an illusion of accuracy. Get Day of Defeat style recoil in there, where the crosshair moves upward. In this system, players will be rewarded for their aim because they will know where the barrel of the gun is pointing and won't be disoriented.

[Sirisian]

I wrote a rather lengthy section on my site discussion the pros and cons of a recoil and cone of fire system (http://sirisian.com/planetside2/#Complexity-Cone_of_Fire_CoF_and_Recoil). Recoil is poor at modeling a weapon's accuracy and is usually preferred by people who view muscle memory as the most important part of shooting.

Cone of fire can properly differentiate weapon properties and easily account for base accuracy values and accuracy modifiers from different state changes such as crouching and ADS. It is preferred by players who view skill as getting into the correct locations and controlling a CoF bloom to correctly land shots.

Both use a random number generation system, but CoF tends to be implemented more deterministically so players can easily adjust to different weapons for how they model the burst firing CoF modifiers and other properties. Recoil systems try this with very deterministic camera kick, but it fails to differentiate weapons and when using ADS all weapons in games tend to feel identical. In the end CoF promotes a much higher level of skill by allowing state changes to really matter while allowing mechanisms for non-ADS to be accurate and ADS to be an accuracy modifier.

I prefer not using ADS for short to medium range combat. Players that are used to modern FPS games are more familiar with being forced to use ADS to make any shot. With a proper CoF that is generally tight players will equip scopes and such to their rifle to take longer shots using ADS with a delay for the animation and use it properly.

[Buren]

Recoil doesn't need to give you motion sickness, and it doesn't need to be counteracted by skill.

A properly enacted system of recoil will make you shoot where your reticle is actually pointing without jerking the screen around in a distracting way. You're more likely to get motion sickness from the screen bob while sprinting.

Additionally, just because you get skilled with a gun doesn't mean you can perfectly counteract recoil. Not in the real world, not in any (good) recoil-based shooter.

I don't want guns to be laser beams. I want guns to be appropriately inaccurate at full auto - I just want to know where my inaccurate shots are going while I'm shooting. Doesn't seem like too much to ask in a modern shooter.

[Rumblepit]

from what i heard this game will be a cof recoil hybrid. you will be able to mod weapons they you want them to shoot. you want no recoil???? then you increase rof and decrease damage. you dont want cof???? decrease rate of fire and increase damage.

[morf]

In this thread:

Really bad players complain about recoil.

Drop the charade guys and quit acting like the reason you hate recoil is anything other than you being butthurt due to getting shot in the face 1200 times in a row in recoil games.

Anti-recoilers in this very thread have flat out stated that RNG should be injected into the game to make it fair for the bads and drool cup jockeys. I submit that this forum has at least 8 times more recoil haters per capita than anywhere else on the internet. It's the same old witch hunt perpetuated by the same old people on this forum who also raged against:

Squad spawn
Kill cams
Quick knife
Optional cockpit view
Hitboxes
Classes
Headshots (yeah, the 15 year old mechanic that every game but planetside 1 has - in the poll people actually voted like 2-1 against headshots)
Iron sights
And many more...

Look if you guys want to play planetside 1 so much, the servers are up. Go play.

If you want CoF you can use it. Fire from the hip. I'll stick with my site+recoil.

[james]

COF is horrible, if you sights are on target you should hit the target, it just makes the game more about lucy and twitch over skill. But please get real for a second if this a shooter, your charter would be a trained solider, Soldiers go threw a crap ton of training.

[Sirisian]

Anti-recoilers in this very thread have flat out stated that RNG should be injected
Do you know how recoil works? It generates a random number and pushes your camera/reticule up. Anyone with the slightest muscle memory can correct for it. The reason many of us that prefer CoF is because we are above the skill level for recoil based systems to work. Like I said before it makes all guns 100% accurate and feel the same when using ADS. It really destroys weapon properties and makes upgrading accuracy on a gun a pointless endeavor since no amount of recoil will mess up a person who has trained muscle memory skills. It also makes crouching pointless and dumbs down player choices.

Go play any modern FPS with a recoil based system and you'll see people using ADS and strafing left and right trivially correcting for any recoil. It removes the tactical choice to crouch and with it usually dumbs down non-ADS combat to a pure ADS system.

COF is horrible, if you sights are on target you should hit the target, it just makes the game more about lucy and twitch over skill. But please get real for a second if this a shooter, your charter would be a trained solider, Soldiers go threw a crap ton of training.
If your sights are on the player and the CoF is low then your in the proper range for that weapon. If you need to then you can crouch or use ADS to decrease the accuracy. This promotes skilled gameplay allowing players to make choices that affect their weapon properties. Recoil systems do not model these choices well at all with weapon properties.

[EisenKreutzer]

This has gone too far. We need beta as soon as possible.

[Badjuju]

Guns at full auto will form a broadening group over time (CoF) even when aiming down the sights - just less than hip-fire. This very fact is why people fire guns in bursts. After the first round, there is a CoF - in most games, and IRL. Period.

How does that make "no sense at all"?

When aiming from the hip you have little control over where your gun bounces. When firing from the shoulder you have substantially more control. The kick from the gun is directed upwards for the most part with slight bullet deviation from it bouncing. This is what we call recoil. COF mechanics, as seen in PS1, causes bullets to randomly deviate in a widening circuference in all directions. This does not happen in the real world if you are holding a gun properly. "Period" lol. People burst fire to control recoil. Im sure most developers use some degree of a COF mechanic or something similar when developing recoil mechanics, however a strait COF mechanic is simply an outdated mechanic attempting to emulate recoil IMO. I was in the military and have put countless rounds down range. COF mechanics are not any where near as realistic as recoil mechanics. More importantly, COF mechanics are what they are, purely random bullet deviation. The only thing you can do is burst fire, which I dont consider a skill. With good recoil mechancis (not COD style), you can strive to fight the recoil to some degree, just as you would in real life. This adds another element of skill, making the game more competitive. Not to say this trying to be as CS strike game or anything as some one pointed out. But we are competing and I think its important to incorporating elements of the game where people are rewarded for they handle them. Of course burst shooting is necessary at times depending on the situation you are in just the same with COF, if the mechanics are done right. I am not saying that recoil does not or should not incorporate any COF mechanics. I just do not think COF should be the major mechanic. They simply do not feel like good gun mechanics to me. An example would be BF3 gun mechanics over COD. How the game feels is a big part of the game experience, along with the massive scale, and team play required. Just my opinion though.

[Sirisian]

Im sure most developers use some degree of a COF mechanic or something similar when developing recoil mechanics, however a strait COF mechanic is simply an outdated mechanic attempting to emulate recoil IMO.
I think you hit on a good point about emulating recoil. It's actually not the point of CoF to emulate recoil. I view recoil as a failed attempt towards realism by trying to model a gun's weapon kick. When it translates to a mouse and keyboard it ends up being woefully inadequate from a gameplay perspective. It's not like holding a real gun that kicks and spraying bullets. With a mouse correcting for this is a simple adjustment that players get used to within a few minutes of playing. The CoF system is a solution that fixes the recoil system by preserving weapon properties and moving skill into other choices. This is what other people in this thread have tried to illustrate, but the pro-recoil people hold onto the idea that because recoil tries to model real weapon kick it somehow is better for gameplay. That has never been the case, and seeking higher realism via a recoil system is actively harming gameplay and weapon variety.

[Blackwolf]

By turreting I mean you stand still and shoot at other people who stand still. So you're like a turret.

I can't think of any game that allows people to glitch into walls that wasn't fixed.

I think he was refering to the fact that skiing in Tribes was originally a bug that they just left in because it was cool. And other similar scenarios (deci-swapping from PS1 would be a good example, and 3rdPoV wall humping).

and CoF is the "fix" to the recoil cheat, a bit of a crappy fix maybe, but a fix non the less.

Recoil isn't a cheat to begin with. When you fire an automatic weapon you have an ability to maintain some control over the recoil for it by forcing the barrel to stay downward or applying force against it's recoil. People firing in full auto aren't just letting their weapons blaze away however they want, and weapons that are in full auto won't shoot in excessively random chaotic patterns, many will walk their way up the target in a somewhat predictable fashion.

In my humble opinion, the first bullet should go exactly where your pointing it because otherwise wtf? aiming to hit and you're rewarded with your first bullet with a miss leaving split second for them to react rather than seeing their shields drop down then having tor react?

Recoil ftw, CoF is too random and as someone else said; promotes luck kills, dont like fighting recoil then use shorter bursts or single fire until you get the hang of it?

Grab a pistol, aim at a tin can 10 yards away, and shoot. Did the bullet go exactly where you aimed it? Physics aren't perfect (well actually, it is) and the real world doesn't revolve around hitscan mechanics to determine whether or not you hit the can. The truth is, based on the weapon you are firing, you DON'T know where that bullet is going to go. You can estimate based on wind, distance, and your own sights. But you don't know for certain where that bullet is going to go no matter how long you aim.

I agree that it should be a hybrid... CoF sohuld be considered effective range, where the cone starts to get larger than the avarage size of a person beyond that range, and is always larger if firing from the hip or on the move... unless you're standing right next to the enemy.
And on large caliber weapons you have to deal with heavier recoil... so no weapon is OP.. just use it for what it was meant for.

And yes, the first bullet should ALWAYS go exactly where you aim... unless you're way out of range for that weapon specifically.

I think the hybrid should be slightly different actually.

CoF should represent the situation you are in, whether your moving or not, jumping or not, crouched, or whatever. CoF is more a representation of the stability of your body keeping that gun aimed properly and shouldn't change based on fire, that's where recoil comes into play.

When you fire, the gun sights should move in a somewhat predictable pattern based on the weapon. The screen should move at a slower rate, a smother transition from where you were aiming to where you are rather then the common earthquake shake you might see in various games. However the CoF shouldn't change at all, again it's a basic representation of the character's ability to hold the weapon and predict the bullet's general path of travel.

Obviously firing from hip should generate a wider CoF to start, but the recoil should be exactly the same as above. Predictable patterns that can be somewhat compensated by a player. The only difference in this instance is that the screen shouldn't adjust at all, the CoF should just walk it's way up the screen and then drop back down to center screen once you stop shooting.

Players should be able to reduce CoF by certifications, but not the recoil. Recoil should be adjusted directly through sidegrades and partially compensated by mouse movement (decreasing mouse sensitivity while firing a weapon may solve the problem of players being able to completely eliminate recoil by drawing the mouse downward).

That's my take on how a hybrid system SHOULD function.

[SpcFarlen]

This has gone too far. We need beta as soon as possible.

I agree. I see where both are good and where both are bad. But as of now we dont really know how it is. From what ive seen in videos, it isnt bad though. Beta now :cry:

[pengalor]

Recoil is kind of broken, because you will inevitably have weapons that are stronger or have a faster ROF, or are more accurate with the tradeoff of higher recoil. This weapon is legitimately broken, and will only have the illusion of balance because of all the noobs who won't bother to learn it.

Whoever asked for preset spray patterns: congratulations, that may be the dumbest idea here. Why would you ever suggest inviting macro-friendly bullshit into a free-to-play game? That's like begging for warping macros to make a return.

Overall: COF and recoil >>> just COF >>> just recoil in terms of weapon balance. But not the shitty "recoil" like in BF or CoD. In those games you can see the gun jumping around but the crosshairs are still focused on where you're aiming, and not moving. That makes no sense and just gives an illusion of accuracy. Get Day of Defeat style recoil in there, where the crosshair moves upward. In this system, players will be rewarded for their aim because they will know where the barrel of the gun is pointing and won't be disoriented.

Huh? Have you even played a game with proper recoil? I've never seen a game with a gun that had high-damage AND high ROF AND high recoil. Ever. Besides, if the gun ACTUALLY has high recoil then in order to use it effectively you have to ignore half of the upside of the weapon, the high-ROF. Otherwise your aim is just going to shoot straight into the sky. A good representation of recoil and damage done well is the Bauer rifle in BF2142. It had a medium rate of fire, high damage and high recoil. You could burst in close range but for the most part the best way to use it was to switch on semi-auto and fire from long range to take advantage of it's strengths. Nobody used it because it required skill to use. People mostly stuck with what people always go with in shooters: low recoil, high-ROF bullet hoses (ie the Voss).

[Badjuju]

I think you hit on a good point about emulating recoil. It's actually not the point of CoF to emulate recoil. I view recoil as a failed attempt towards realism by trying to model a gun's weapon kick. When it translates to a mouse and keyboard it ends up being woefully inadequate from a gameplay perspective. It's not like holding a real gun that kicks and spraying bullets. With a mouse correcting for this is a simple adjustment that players get used to within a few minutes of playing. The CoF system is a solution that fixes the recoil system by preserving weapon properties and moving skill into other choices. This is what other people in this thread have tried to illustrate, but the pro-recoil people hold onto the idea that because recoil tries to model real weapon kick it somehow is better for gameplay. That has never been the case, and seeking higher realism via a recoil system is actively harming gameplay and weapon variety.

Like I said I am not against using CoF mechanics in Recoil mechanics. However, mechanics that are strait COF, as found in PS1 just feel terrible and too random for me. There are games, COD being the best example, that have done a poor job with recoil mechanics which can be completely overcome. In this scenario I agree with you 100% that it is bad for game play. I disagree however if you are proposing that mechanics as seen in PS1 make for good gameplay. I believe recoil mechanics can be done right, with bullet deviation, and an aspect where you have to keep your gun under control. What I would prefer over COF would be recoil mechanics which are more unpredictable, bouncing your gun randomly up to the right and left in a way you cannot predict. This way you have varying degree of difficulties with different guns during sustained fire, however your not entirely helpless to control where your next bullet will go. I guess the major difference is that with COF, there is no telling which direction your next bullet will go, taking the outcome of a firefigh out of your hands to some degree. With recoil, your gun may start getting a little out of control and bounce off to the right. You can see exactly where that shot is going and correct. Some times you may be able to pull the weapon back down, others you may have to stop firing and get your gun pointed where it needs to be. I would imagine it would be a very hard thing to balance and get right, probably requiring a mix of the two to get it right. I may just be overly concerned with with COF as well since I have been playing allot of PS1 lately. The randomness of many of the shots in that game are just out of control. Not that I do not love the game, I would just expect much better shooting mechanics in a modern game. From one I have seen, it seems like they are doing a good job with the shooting mechanics, however they are going about it.

[Tvayda]

Simple (but not really since real physics = a buttload of coding I guess) way to fix this since both Recoil and CoF are needed. Also, WALL OF TEXT!

Recoil for when you are crouching/prone (if that's available) and aiming down the sights with very small COF changes if you fire said weapon faster than X bullets per Z time. Which of course would be different per weapon and attachments etc. Because no matter how stable you are, unless the weapon is mounted to something so that it will not move unless you want it to, the bullets WILL travel slightly different paths.

CoF AND Recoil if you are aiming from the hip, especially full auto because that is realistic. Bullets would be flying every which way due to the decreased stability and lack of precise aiming as well as the natural upward motion. Even if you aren't using full auto from the hip, you would still have some recoil, it is an inevitable part of firing a personal firearm (read anything carried by a single person), and you would still have some CoF due to you not really aiming at what you are firing at.

Another way to fix the, "this is broken due to skill" (really, when did being skillful be considered breaking something? see story at end of post for what I'm talking about in this paragraph) would be to lessen damage of types of bullets past Y distance, depending on armor/etc. This is attributed to the lost of velocity encountered over great distances and the friction caused by the atmosphere. So s SMG would do little to no damage to someone 1000 meters away (just an example and since PS uses metric units) but still do full damage to someone 100 meters away whereas a semi-auto sniper could do full damage to a person at 1000 meters and at 100 meters but because of the way the weapon fires the trade off would be in favor of the SMG at the closer range. This can be explained that if a sniper round hits someone that isn't INSANELY far away it will still punch through their armor, but if a SMG round hits someone the same distance away, nothing because their armor was able to deflect the shot without being compromised or damaged. Like I said, up close this is still balanced if done right because a target can move more and will be harder to get a bead on with the sniper rifle even by an experienced marksman and firing from the hip with a sniper rifle is terribly inaccurate yet the SMG will be able to punch through armor even if the person is going with a "spray and pray" tactic. They may not get hit much, but they will get hit enough to either want to get out of the incoming fire or stop and fire back for increased accuracy, at which point the guy with the SMG can aim as well and continue to fire, albeit with the recoil encountered from full auto, even in while aiming down the sights.

Granted, I know this is a GAME and not a simulation, but if people are going for more realistic gun-play this could be a starting point. I mean, they already have bullet drop in PS2 (minus the energy weapons but they have that covered), now imagine if they put all the physics of actually firing a weapon into a game. Or even just the ones I mentioned, much more realistic, much more dependent on skill rather than luck but not completely devoid of said luck because lucky shots do happen.

Experience: Expert marksman with M16 and M9 in the USAF. (not that this really matters when discussing video game shooting mechanics, but just so it doesn't sound like I'm talking completely out of my ass)

Story: One of the longest confirmed kills was due to a military sniper using Kentucky windage to fire like 48 degrees up and like over 30 degrees off of his target, he was stable and only fired once, but he was able to kill his target with that shot. If you learned your weapon well enough and only fired one bullet from a super stable position you should be able to hit your target most of the time (discounting winds) so long as that person was within the maximum lethal range of said weapon. If you were still in the same position but fired your weapon as fast as possible, you would most likely miss with some shots due to recoil and the fact you are trying to counter said recoil as well as bullet spread. Now up close, a auto or semi auto weapon fired continuously from the hip will have a much greater chance to miss your target. Even one fired cautiously from the hip will miss more because you are not actively aiming, just aiming in the general direction.

And this post is now long enough to post :P

EDIT: I really need to learn to spell-check...

[Sirisian]

However, mechanics that are strait COF, as found in PS1 just feel terrible and too random for me.
Too random? They are deadly accurate if you burst fire and control your bloom. If you are at close range you can unload in full auto without having to care. I think with a proper ADS CoF modifier your complaint would go away. It's only "random" if you make the choice of firing at a target when you know the bullet might not hit because of the weapon properties. This same idea can't be modeled in a recoil based system since players will override the weapon properties even if they have to single shot a target rapidly correcting for the mouse jump.
There are games, COD being the best example, that have done a poor job with recoil mechanics which can be completely overcome. In this scenario I agree with you 100% that it is bad for game play.
Unless your suggesting the player can't instantly move their cursor back and are somehow delayed then all recoil based systems are identical from what I've seen in every game. Like I said, I have no problem memorizing exactly how to negate the recoil in games like CoD and BF. Take BF3. You can figure out how to negate their recoil within 10 seconds of playing. This doesn't promote skill at all with a weapon and makes them all feel nearly identical.

Do you have a game in mind that does this well?

What I would prefer over COF would be recoil mechanics which are more unpredictable, bouncing your gun randomly up to the right and left in a way you cannot predict.
CoF solves this by making the area a perfect circle giving the players a statistical feeling where the bullet is going to land. You can't override the weapon properties, but you can change them by crouching or switching to ADS to steady your shot. As I mentioned before though I believe we need an accurate non-ADS mode for close to medium range shots or to look over cover. Having to ADS and use a scope at close range is a pointless endeavor that recoil systems seem to really promote.

I guess the major difference is that with COF, there is no telling which direction your next bullet will go, taking the outcome of a firefigh out of your hands to some degree.
You can crouch and use ADS as mentioned. You can also stop moving to let the CoF shrink to make a steadier shot. In recoil based systems they fail to take into account any movement or states and allow players to spray deadly accurate rounds with no positional skill involved. So in actuality recoil dumbs down the outcome of a firefight by allowing players to instantly land shots with no thoughts to any other choices.

I may just be overly concerned with with COF as well since I have been playing allot of PS1 lately. The randomness of many of the shots in that game are just out of control.
Yeah this is because the only choice was to crouch to get a better accuracy modifier. It was mentioned years ago. With ADS we have the ability to add that extra level of choice to increase the ranged accuracy. I use the Punisher a lot in PS1 and have always felt that gun had one of the best feeling to it. It only bloomed after the 3rd shot making it deadly accurate. I'm not sure how you were using weapons that made them inaccurate? Possibly strafing to the left and right and spraying at far targets? If so then you didn't understand them. Like my friend when using the sniper was trying to mouse over targets and clicking on them. You need to lead a target and let the CoF drop as you stabilize your shot and then shoot. These kind of decisions make CoF a far more skilled platform for weapons.

A hybrid approach will also never work well. It just continues to promote the idea that weapon properties should be overridden which simplifies all gun combat. If I see someone with a gun I want to know if I shoot them at least once I can suppress them while I take cover as they correct for their CoF burst. (I love suppression via taking damage by the way which CoF models well).

[Badjuju]

Yeah this is because the only choice was to crouch to get a better accuracy modifier. It was mentioned years ago. With ADS we have the ability to add that extra level of choice to increase the ranged accuracy. I use the Punisher a lot in PS1 and have always felt that gun had one of the best feeling to it. It only bloomed after the 3rd shot making it deadly accurate. I'm not sure how you were using weapons that made them inaccurate? Possibly strafing to the left and right and spraying at far targets? If so then you didn't understand them. Like my friend when using the sniper was trying to mouse over targets and clicking on them. You need to lead a target and let the CoF drop as you stabilize your shot and then shoot. These kind of decisions make CoF a far more skilled platform for weapons.


The Punisher is also one of my favorite guns from from PS1 :D. I didn't have any issues with being accurate, I shoot very will in the game. I just disliked how the bloom mechanics worked. You would be firing and getting consistently a little less accurate, and then your bloom with explode and a shot would launch in some ridiculous direction. Obviously the solution is to burst fire, but I never liked the degree the bloom jumped on the 4th shot as you mentioned above. Ive always been fan of burst firing ranged shots at people so I felt comfortable, I just found it to be a bit silly to me. Again like I said before I may just be overly concerned and am looking at COF at its extreme. Watching some of the PS2 game play again it seems that they are using typical bloom mechanics of FPS shooters today, which I was considering as part of recoil mechanics. I think I just had the image of the outrageous blooms you could see in PS1 and pictured that at the end of my rifle as I was aiming down site. I am big on accuracy so I think this is where my concerns stemmed from. I see your point, well argued. I do hope there is some degree of recoil though. For me it really helps the feel of the game, makes the weapons feel like they have some power to them, and making it more immersive for me.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

The same falls under things like recoil. It has high power but balanced by high recoil and yet being skilled can make the recoil at least less then what it was? You just destroyed the balanced of the weapon and made it overpowered.

I agree with a lot of your sentiment except this, and the reason being "EVERYONE can do it". I am using recoil as an example, not particularly arguing for or against it (it is how it is in the game at this point, arguing is futile) It's not like YOU are the ONLY person who can work to control recoil. Everyone can, and thus everyone is on a level field. If someone is too lazy to control it, or cannot get the hang of it, then that is their problem.

But then, I tend to strongly resist artificial balancing, because the objective of it all is geared towards making "all players equal, no matter how much they suck". Whether you use CoF, recoil, or any other "balance" better players will always be better, so it's kind of a mislead to worry overmuch about "balance".

Plus, it's very subjective. What one person considers "balanced", another person does not, or considers "overpowered" or "underpowered". What one person can use effectively, another cannot. That is the case with everything. Many of the mechanics, as I said, are geared towards "making everyone equal", and it's simply never going to happen.

The only time "balance", imo, is a concern, is if it's two items of approximate similar power. For example, an AR-15 and an AK-47. Both are low-to-mid caliber rifles of approximate power (although one is a little more accurate, and the other a little more durable, they are, in essence, of similar function/capability). If however, you could use your AK-47 to do something it should NOT, like solo a tank, and especially if the other CANNOT, THEN something needs to be altered.

As long as all players have the same basic capabilities, that is, if the shoe was reversed either player has the potential to do/perform just as well, and both weapons are approximately ballparkish of each other on capability, then things are "balanced". Balance means "not weighted in favor of one way or the other" not "I don't like this particular mechanic or method" or "I can't do this properly". Unfortunately, in 95% of "balance" arguments I see, it's usually the "I don't like this" or "I can't handle this" folks, rather than something ACTUALLY being wrong with item in question. Not always. But very often.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

This has gone too far. We need beta as soon as possible.

Heard that!

[Forsaken One]

I agree with a lot of your sentiment except this, and the reason being "EVERYONE can do it". I am using recoil as an example, not particularly arguing for or against it (it is how it is in the game at this point, arguing is futile) It's not like YOU are the ONLY person who can work to control recoil. Everyone can, and thus everyone is on a level field. If someone is too lazy to control it, or cannot get the hang of it, then that is their problem.

EVERYONE can use the wall/texture glitch to glitch into the wall. EVERYONE can download a aimbot, EVERYONE can glitch their gun to have infinite ammo, EVERYONE can glitch the health pickups to keep refreshing on them to give them infinite health.

If someone is too lazy to download it or use them, or cannot get the hang of it, then that is their problem.

See how much water the EVERYONE can do it arguments hold? Bypassing recoil is still cheating the system.

I will agree with some people in this thread thro. If its a hybrid system BF2142 did it right. Honestly its funny how BF2142 did so much "modern stuff" right that it honestly is screwed up that it was made by the same people who made terrible games like BF2 and pretty much any other battlefield game.

.My reference for this is an fps game called A.V.A (alliance of valiant arms). In that game many guns have MASSIVE amounts of recoil (after 3 shots your gun is looking at the ceiling), but with a modification system, it was possible to make your gun have much less recoil at the cost of bullet spread, but NO one playing at a clan level modded for less recoil because of the above point.

Because you can cheat the system to get rid of or reduce recoil. That's like saying if the FPS gave you a option to play with a built in aimbot or play where you had to aim, I wonder what people would pick.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

EVERYONE can use the wall/texture glitch to glitch into the wall. EVERYONE can download a aimbot, EVERYONE can glitch their gun to have infinite ammo, EVERYONE can glitch the health pickups to keep refreshing on them to give them infinite health.

The point is, these are NOT intentionally designed. Yes, anyone can cheat. So what? Taking what I said, and deliberately applying it some extreme example that has nothing to do with what I said, is pointless. If you want to be a douchebag and twist what people say, or drag in extreme, unrelated concepts, then yes, you can make it apply/not apply to nearly anything.

Because you can cheat the system to get rid of or reduce recoil. That's like saying if the FPS gave you a option to play with a built in aimbot or play where you had to aim, I wonder what people would pick.

Making a conscious effort to control recoil is not anything like using an "aimbot" (sigh) It's not "bypassing" a mechanic. The mechanic is still there... a person is simply taking it into consideration while playing. If one person is, and the other isn't, that's their damn problem. Once again, you are strongly twisting something to make it apply to something it does not. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not even remotely based on logic. Saying this is like saying that playing an RPG with elemental damage and switching from a fire damage weapon to an ice damage weapon for greater effectiveness is "bypassing" the game mechanic of the opponents fire resistance.




Whatever... I'm tired of arguing on this forum. It's all irrelevant, anyway. Damn... we need beta.

[Forsaken One]

we need beta.

We do.

As for the other stuff. All you're doing is saying "I favor this form of cheating the system, there for it is not cheating. Also stealing a bunch of candybars is not like stealing a video game system, So don't take it to the extreme and let me steal."

Logic doesn't favor one form of cheating over another just because you might enjoy cheating in that way my friend.

I would be ok with recoil however if it was NOT moddable and had NOTHING to do with a weapon or objects balance through.

But DO NOT put bullshit into a game that is meant to be a balance factor of something then let people counter or cheat the system to reduce or remove what is suppose to be a balancing factor.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

We do.

As for the other stuff. All you're doing is saying "I favor this form of cheating the system, there for it is not cheating. Also stealing a bunch of candybars is not like stealing a video game system, So don't take it to the extreme and let me steal."

Logic doesn't favor one form of cheating over another just because you might enjoy cheating in that way my friend.

I would be ok with recoil however if it was NOT moddable and had NOTHING to do with a weapon or objects balance through.

But DO NOT put bullshit into a game that is meant to be a balance factor of something then let people counter or cheat the system to reduce or remove what is suppose to be a balancing factor.

I already said I don't like artificial balancing, like CoF, or this magical, uncontrollable "recoil" you speak of. As for it being moddable... I agree with that. I hate how everybody alters their crap from recoil as you say, to scope drift, to whatever...

I still disagree that "compensating" for something is the same as "cheating". They are not mutually inclusive concepts.

-edit

My point on recoil, I suppose, is this :

Recoil is not a "balance" or "game mechanic" it is a side effect of the normal operations of a conventional firearm. ALL guns have it. You can choose to compensate for it or not, but regarding it as a "balance mechanic" by either developers, or players... Is ridiculously silly. It's a gun. It recoils. That's all there is too it.

[Forsaken One]

I still disagree that "compensating" for something is the same as "cheating". They are not mutually inclusive concepts.

Well "slight of handing" someones wallet isn't the same as "mugging" them ether. :)

Edit: A game adding recoil just to add recoil most likely won't happen anymore through. If it was not added for a balancing factor it would serve no point as you may as well not have anything and just let people run around with quake rail guns. lol

[Flaropri]

All you're doing is saying "I favor this form of cheating the system, there for it is not cheating. Also stealing a bunch of candybars is not like stealing a video game system, So don't take it to the extreme and let me steal."

Do you consider it cheating to aim? To adjust for things like Bullet Drop? To use Burst Fire instead of Full Auto to control CoF Bloom for each weapon? In real life, if someone controls/adjusts for their recoil are they "cheating"?

"How dare you use the controls of the game to accomplish something!"


I understand being concerned about a mod or 3rd party program, but that's something that needs to be dealt with by tech security and GMs. If people are using 3rd party programs for aim assist that is very, very different from manually adjusting with in-game controls.

[morf]

Do you know how recoil works? It generates a random number and pushes your camera/reticule up. Anyone with the slightest muscle memory can correct for it.

ran·dom   [ran-duhm]
adjective
1.
proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.

2.
Statistics . of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.

OH LOOK AT ME GUISE MY MUSCLES ARE REMEMBERING RANDOM NUMBERS

The reason many of us that prefer CoF is because we are above the skill level for recoil based systems to work.

NO U AREN'T LOLOLOLOL

But in all seriousness, if you think CoF has a higher skill ceiling than ads+recoil, you're just plain retarded. Both systems involve random numbers, but only recoil rewards a skilled player who knows how to deal with it. And I don't want to hear any crap about now you crouch and let go of the button every 3-5 seconds... That's not skill.


Go play any modern FPS with a recoil based system and you'll see people using ADS and strafing left and right trivially correcting for any recoil. It removes the tactical choice to crouch and with it usually dumbs down non-ADS combat to a pure ADS system.



Different guns have different recoil, smg's and carbines more so than AR's. I have played a ton of recoil based fps, and am very proficient. You, on the other hand, don't seem to understand how they work.

[Buggsy]

The only difference between recoil and COF is that recoil makes the entire screen shake and gives me a headache; but both function exactly the same.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Well "slight of handing" someones wallet isn't the same as "mugging" them ether. :)

True.


Edit: A game adding recoil just to add recoil most likely won't happen anymore through.

Subjective. Depends on the game. More "simulator" minded games will, because they are a part of the normal operation of firearms. Games with firearms -/= game with recoil.


If it was not added for a balancing factor it would serve no point as you may as well not have anything and just let people run around with quake rail guns. lol

Untrue. As I mentioned. It is a part of firearms operation. It has nothing to do with "balance", although I agree that developers try to use it FOR balance. Rail gun has recoil, too, for that matter. It does not kick up as a normal firearm does, but the process of magnetic force results in equal force being applied in both directions (on the slug, and on the weapon itself). This is why early rail guns pioneered by the Germans in 1940 tended to self-destruct in dramatic fashion.


1234

[Forsaken One]

Do you consider it cheating to aim? To adjust for things like Bullet Drop? To use Burst Fire instead of Full Auto to control CoF Bloom for each weapon? In real life, if someone controls/adjusts for their recoil are they "cheating"?

BIG difference in controlling CoF and controlling recoil.
CoF you have to control yourself, be skilled, calm of mind, and adapt to how the game wants you to play. CoF will always make you adapt, always mentally be on your guard. There is also no annoying mouse spasms needed

Recoil, not only is a pretty much pure muscle memory thing. (calm of mind or any mental thinking not needed here.) But you can pretty much defy the game and make it like recoil doesn't even exist after a while. making recoil almost purely just a annoying and retarded enter the game barrier thing with no real substance.

Also comparing adjusting real life recoil to a games is silly. In a game its just annoying movement with a mouse. In real life your view doesn't magically keep shooting upward when you fire a gun. As well as other things.

1234

I meant this not a real railgun =p http://quake.wikia.com/wiki/Railgun_%28Q3%29

[Flaropri]

BIG difference in controlling CoF and controlling recoil.
CoF you have to control yourself, be skilled, calm of mind, and adapt to how the game wants you to play. CoF will always make you adapt, always mentally be on your guard. There is also no annoying mouse spasms needed

Honestly I don't think there's much difference between habitually controlling your fire to reduce bloom vs. habitually adjusting for recoil. Both take presence of mind to learn (if not necessarily skill), both become habit.

In fact, the habit for recoil in current games tends to require more presence of mind if you often use different weapons, since recoil has more variation (obviously, this CAN be true of bloom as well).

Also comparing adjusting real life recoil to a games is silly. In a game its just annoying movement with a mouse. In real life your view doesn't magically keep shooting upward when you fire a gun. As well as other things.

Yes, one involves more muscles (or at least more muscle power) but otherwise it's still adjusting the position of your hand in response to recoil. Whether your view changes or not* doesn't make a difference of whether one is "fair" and the other "isn't."

*(Which it will, actually, if the kick is strong enough, but your real body tends to automatically adjust and your eyes aren't married to the tip of your gun like in a game, so it's not as noticeable.)



I'm not against CoF or (limited) Bloom, but I just get flabbergasted when someone calls adjusting (with in-game controls) for a mechanic CHEATING.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

@Forsaken

1234 was just because I had to put 4 characters in :) Apparently, nothing in quotes counts :) And yeah, I know you didn't mean a REAL railgun, I just thought of how it also has that effect. Sort of.

Anyway... yeah... Beta... We needs it. It's our precious.

[Forsaken One]

Flar you forget that CoF also adds a lot more to a game then recoil does.
With pure recoil alone you can snipe people with a pistol, hell even a SMG if you pull down on the mouse right.
But with pure CoF alone you can make every gun really different, give every gun a effective range and every gun the ability to be controlled without making a game lame.

You also can't get rid of CoF. however you can pretty much learn to get rid of recoil, making it pointless to have placed in the game to begin with other then a pure annoyance.

[goneglockin]

Nobody wants to be casually playing a pickup game of basketball with their friends and have Michael Jordan show up and trounce them 300 to 0(Actually, most would be fine with mike doing that, but the point stands).

Nobody enjoys being fodder.

Nobody also wants to play a pickup game of basketball where an autistic child shows up and your friends give you dirty looks when you steal the ball from him.

My point is, there is a fine line between balancing things, and making a such a joke out of an activity that you're not even really playing anymore.

You don't enjoy being fodder? Too bad, go play StarCraft. PS1 players getting farmed by vehicles didn't enjoy getting farmed? Too bad, go get vehices... Hey wait, come back, stop unsubscribing!

[vVRedOctoberVv]

@Forsaken One

Well, in part you're correct there. But that is because developers tend to not model ballistics accurately. Pistols, for a variety of reasons are not accurate beyond about 50m. You CAN shoot something farther than that of course, potentially HUNDREDS of meters away, BUT:

Lower velocity, heavier rounds that drop more beyond short range.

Low mass of the weapon resulting in a more difficult to control kick/recoil. Not that it's "more" than a rifle, but the reduced mass of the weapon means what kick there is, is exaggerated.

Other things, too.

Point is, if you carefully aim, you can hit accurately at closer range. Farther out, you have to compensate for the drop in speed and elevation. At longer ranges, even the velocity of the weapon being sufficient to HURT someone becomes an issue. It is, on paper, a "small" thing to compensate for. In fact, training can greatly reduce, or even eliminate this issue.

That said, I don't see how something a person can train for, compensate for, etc, can be bad, whereas something you have NO control over whatsoever, because it is by its nature arbitrary, is good. To me, the more we can put things in the hands of players, encouraging them to LEARN to play, is good. It's not "complicated" or "steep learning curve". In all honesty, it's simply that it's "different" from what people are accustomed to, and requires a different manner of thought. An onscreen reticule is simpler for most people to comprehend. It doesn't require thinking about these concepts, and therefore is more "casual friendly".


I'm not saying to "put this in a game". I'm just saying, the way guns are modeled, is rarely anything like how a gun functions. The ranges and manners in which guns are used in games, is rarely anything like what they are normally.


None of this is surprising though. Most of the "gun knowledge" people have in general is unreliable in the first place. For example, I remember a Stephen King book that described a guy dual-wielding M-16s and how the "recoils was uncontrollable, twisting him around in the room".... A .223 does not have appreciable recoil, #1... #2 I don't see why "dual-wielding M-16s" would make you twist one direction or another, even if they did. Push you back maybe... Or jerk back and forth... Anyway, you see my point. And he is an author I've heard before as being "very researched" on many of the topics he writes about, but then on guns he's clearly zilch, at least at that time.

Nobody also wants to play a pickup game of basketball where an autistic child shows up and your friends give you dirty looks when you steal the ball from him.

My point is, there is a fine line between balancing things, and making a such a joke out of an activity that you're not even really playing anymore.

You don't enjoy being fodder? Too bad, go play StarCraft. PS1 players getting farmed by vehicles didn't enjoy getting farmed? Too bad, go get vehices... Hey wait, come back, stop unsubscribing!

This is the unfortunate reality. It's easier to complain or unsubscribe than it is to think or learn...

[Sirisian]

But in all seriousness, if you think recoil has a higher skill ceiling than ads+CoF, you're just plain retarded. Both systems involve random numbers, but only CoF rewards a skilled player who knows how to deal with it. And I don't want to hear any crap about now you move your mouse and let go of the button every 3-5 seconds... That's not skill.
Fixed that for you. Were you being sarcastic already? If so nevermind.

It's like you didn't know that controlling your CoF in the middle of a heated battle was the same thing as controlling your camera shake. The only difference is, and I sound like a broken record when I say this, is I hate the concept of overriding weapon properties. CoF is a way to allow skill without accidentally making all weapons feel identical.

[QuadJunky]

Something other than PS1 COF is all I want.

I should be able to crouch at say 15 feet away from someone and shoot an outline of there body on the wall(within reason) without a random bullet going retarded and coming out of the barrel crocked and tagging them.

[morf]

CoF is a way to allow skill without accidentally making all weapons feel identical.

Different weapon, different recoil.

CoF is the same thing except you can't compensate for it. End result is 2 d-bags with identical guns crouching 30 yards from each other and praying to the RNG gods. With recoil the player with the skill to control the weapon has an advantage - and that's how it should be.

[Jeepo]

Strong recoil on weapons, no random cones please!

[vVRedOctoberVv]

CoF is a way to allow skill without accidentally making all weapons feel identical.

Thing is, though... All guns ARE basically identical, from a 150mm howitzer, to a 9mm Glock. They all function EXACTLY the same. Also, recoil is not random. A 122 grain 7.62x39mm round emits a given amount of energy when fired. Going back to my statement that guns are not modeled anything like they actually are. All the term 'gun' is in most games is a loose (very) reference point.

[Ramladu]

Gunplay wise, Counter-Strike will always be my favorite model. There's recoil you can mitigate with practice, but the cone of fire expands as you shoot as well. SMGs and shotguns have a larger cone of fire but less recoil, assault rifles are deadly accurate for the first 2-3 bullets but quickly go out of control if you hold down the trigger. Sniper rifles are stupid overpowered in CS, which tends to overshadow the brilliant weapon mechanics for the automatic weapons, shotguns and pistols.

If you ported the exact same system (minus snipers) into PS2, but with a longer TTK, less jittery movement and projectile weapons (as opposed to hitscan), people would love it. I have a feeling their hiring of Jimmy Whisenhunt, along with Higby's love of eSports, would indicate they feel somewhat similar.

[SFJake]

Gunplay wise, Counter-Strike will always be my favorite model.

I feel exactly the opposite. Its downright the single worst feeling shooter I've ever had the pleasure to try.

I see no reason whatsoever to try and focus on that "skillful" gunplay that is so incredibly tedious. Its basically a mean to add skill depths to a game that has none without it.

Its horrible, would absolutely kill this game if they handled like that.

And believe it or not, most people seem games as games. This isn't a sport, even less so than something like Counter-Strike. People don't want to have to train their aim for 50 hours before they get decent at it: which is what CS was. I NEVER got decent at it. It was awful. What a sad experience. I wish I could just play it, I never did, I just got pissed by the shooting for hours on end. Yeah, so much fun. Not.

I seriously, SERIOUSLY hope this isn't ever, ever considered. If it was at least was intended to be a competitive realistic shooter, fine, but its not. Its a team based shooter. Stop putting so much focus on overcoming weapon limitations with skills and just get better at other things than shooting.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

I seriously, SERIOUSLY hope this isn't ever, ever considered. If it was at least was intended to be a competitive realistic shooter, fine, but its not. Its a team based shooter. Stop putting so much focus on overcoming weapon limitations with skills and just get better at other things than shooting.

Considering it's a shooter, that's a debatable viewpoint, to say the least. Conversely, we can say "Well, it sounds like you just sucked. Why don't you get better at shooting?" Again, it's subjective. And as I said, CoF is easier for casual people to deal with, because it's kind of like all the things involved in shooting done abstractly and taking a lot of the control away from you. That's fine you're casual, nothing wrong with that. Neither is there anything wrong with having to think about what you're doing, and learning to do it well, and us liking THAT approach. We prefer to do it ourselves, rather than have the computer do it for us, in essence. Some people can't handle that, others can.

It's moot, because the game is what it is.

[Sirisian]

CoF is the same thing except you can't compensate for it. End result is 2 d-bags with identical guns crouching 30 yards from each other and praying to the RNG gods. With recoil the player with the skill to control the weapon has an advantage - and that's how it should be.
If both players can control the CoF the exact same sure and are in both a crouched position using ADS with the same sidegrades. One person might get a little antsy and fire too soon and kick up their CoF or they might hit the other player causing the enemy's CoF to spike just enough so they have to head for cover. There's a level of chaos people overlook in CoF systems that creates a very skillful system.

Your "the more skilled player will always win" model holds under CoF. A game like Planetside has many choices. Moving to different cover or luring the enemy in to try something else are always valid options. Not to mention the number of abilities and utilities players can use. I guess we're assuming a solo atmosphere? If so it still holds. I don't know why you're trying to make recoil look so skillful. All you do is shoot and move your mouse. Like I said before I don't believe basic muscle memory is a form of skill and a game like Planetside should encourage tactical forms of skills. Using grenades when they need to be, switching weapons and positions and knowing when not to fire with your gun and move into a better position before giving up your position. (Especially in the darkness).

I guess since they're trying to target casual players, a recoil system is a little easier for new players to grasp, but the skill cap is so low that it's a bit disheartening that we won't have huge skill gaps like in Planetside 1.

[XxAxMayxX]

I want to see recoil cone of fire just doesn't feal right. Also you can manage recoil but cone of fire is something the computer does. Given it is sort of predictable but it doesn't ever feal natural.

[TheDAWinz]

I want to see recoil cone of fire just doesn't feal right. Also you can manage recoil but cone of fire is something the computer does. Given it is sort of predictable but it doesn't ever feal natural.

I agree with recoil, but OP is wrong about how COD and BF do it, they are COF, ARMA is more of a system to emulate.

[TtD]

Someone was asking about a high recoil, high damage, high rate of fire gun example. You'd want to look at the M60 in default Soldier of Fortune 2, a game that had slower TTK and high recoil compared to more modern FPS. Pretty much the perfect example of a high learning curve gun, massive per bullet damage, large vertical recoil, randomised horizontal recoil per shot (giving you essentially a 30 degree triangle of recoil upwards), small COF on every bullet, enough to cause the occassional miss at greater than 20yds if not aiming centre mass. If you could mitigate the recoil using two shot bursts it raised the gun to balance with the rest of the weapons (and it dominated at 5-10yds in the hands of a master user), if you just spammed it you'd miss pretty much every shot after the 3rd (on a gun that needed five-six hits to kill), and end up staring at the ceiling. It wasn't a game breaker, it wasn't useless as a gun, just had a very unique handling methodology that the designers had balanced for and a small range where it was designed to be the superior gun. They balanced it to be a real terror in the hands of a specialist, yet still gave it enough floor that anyone could pick it up and contribute 10-20 kills in a map, force a chokepoint or two with CQ spam, and help the team).

Recoil in and of itself is a key part of any fluid firing mechanic, but only if properly implemented, and balanced to account for mitigation by the playerbase. It should be a combination of vertical and horizontal recoil unique to each weapon (both can either be fixed, random, or a combination of each), and present enough to change approach based on weapon equipped. COF meanwhile should be a minor factor, there to add weapon character, and punish those that aim closer to the edges of a target (firing centre mass should always be rewarded in infantry fights, especially with SMGs). It should be very minor on high accuracy weapons on first shot, and should increase on subsequent bullets dependant on weapon type and accuracy. The issue with COF arrises only when it is overused to compensate for lack of other mechanics (e.g. in PS1). A random spread in all directions, on all weapons, doesn't differentiate weapons enough within a subsection (i.e. all assault rifles are essentially the same gun), and it forces the designer into a limited pallet of gun design. There is a need for other mechanics on top of COF to truly produce a vibrant experience.

COF sets the skill floor, it's a competence check to ensure players aim centre target, and don't just hold down the fire button, much as damage drop off is a competence check to ensure a player picks their battlefield sensibly. Recoil when properly used is there to define a weapon, and add a skill curve to a weapon, it's in the same category as bullet drop. Neither on it's own is a fix all solution, neither however is a game breaker when used as part of a rich mix. I'd agree with you btw that more recent CoD games and BF3 badly implemented recoil, and for the most part BF:BC2 was also awful (though the F2000 had some character as a gun). You're being a little unfair to the early CoD games though (1 and 2), that had far greater weapon distinction in terms of recoil/range/COF, etc... Both were open to a large player base, and games were balanced enough that teams rarely dominated (at least in 32vs32), yet there was a high enough skill ceiling that one talented monster could partially shift a battlefield without deciding the final result. An ideal FPS creates a battlefield where a squad needs to co-operate to achieve it's objectives, but where a skilled pointman/medic/sniper will be able to increase the probability of a squads success. Poorly implemented COF negates this, and so does poorly implemented recoil mechanics.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

@TtD

Whole problem with that example starts with:

"M60----5-10 yds, 20 yds"

GUNS NEEDS MOAR ROOM! RAWR! I hate "long range gun" means "I can shoot across this patio deck with it" :)

[OutlawDr]

@TtD

Whole problem with that example starts with:

"M60----5-10 yds, 20 yds"

GUNS NEEDS MOAR ROOM! RAWR! I hate "long range gun" means "I can shoot across this patio deck with it" :)

Range for infantry weapons (minus the sniper) is one of my biggest worries about PS2. In the latest streams with higby, him trying to engage anything past 30-50 meters seemed pointless :\

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Yeah, but Higgie sucks :) Too many hours behind the code screen, not enough hours behind his rifle :D Still, yeah.... Worry not! If your gun runs out of ammo, pick up a nearby rock! DPS is reduced, but it's balanced with a slight range increase!

[TtD]

@TtD

Whole problem with that example starts with:

"M60----5-10 yds, 20 yds"

GUNS NEEDS MOAR ROOM! RAWR! I hate "long range gun" means "I can shoot across this patio deck with it" :)

The M60 was a close range gun in a game that had maps ranging between double and five times the size of your average CoD map, with plenty of CQC. It was a gun balanced to the game to dominate at short ranges just above that of the shotguns, but you'd maybe be effective up to about 60yds if you got the jump on someone and feathered the trigger. If you wanted range on your gun, you picked up the sniper rifle, or grabbed an AK/m4. Was merely an example specific to the characteristics given (high recoil/ROF/damage).

I'm trying to think of a range'd comparable in any FPS that could be considered balanced, but given how game breaking such would be (being high rated in all four main weapon variables outside COF) it's a short list. Probably the garand in CoD2 would be the only close thing, and that was balanced with a small clip. It was still considered an OP gun.

[SFJake]

Considering it's a shooter, that's a debatable viewpoint, to say the least. Conversely, we can say "Well, it sounds like you just sucked. Why don't you get better at shooting?" Again, it's subjective. And as I said, CoF is easier for casual people to deal with, because it's kind of like all the things involved in shooting done abstractly and taking a lot of the control away from you. That's fine you're casual, nothing wrong with that. Neither is there anything wrong with having to think about what you're doing, and learning to do it well, and us liking THAT approach. We prefer to do it ourselves, rather than have the computer do it for us, in essence. Some people can't handle that, others can.

It's moot, because the game is what it is.

All I can say is that I don't agree at all.

A shooter is about shooting - shooting is the core mechanic of the game and isn't expected to be that complicated. I expect, especially after playing other shooters, to jump in this game, aim with my mouse, and thats my aim. Not to require hours of training and "getting the handle of a recoil mechanic" just so I can shoot normally.

Its like putting batons in my bycicle wheels. Its like a RTS like StarCraft that limits your selection of units to one. Or an exagerated example: everytime you select a Marine, you have to press an additional, predefined key.

Thats skill right? You have to know it, and press it, and so a normal guy that just started would not even be able to properly select his unit and get owned.


Recoil is EXACTLY that to me. Its an annoying thing to deal with (incredibly so, with a mouse, its actually less of a pain with a stick). This isn't real life, and I sure as hell ain't holding a gun in my hands. Why does the computer need to fake recoil in such a painful manner and have me get over this ridiculous hurdle just to... shoot?

Its a shooter, I want to shoot. Not to go through a thousand hoops to shoot. Shooting is naturally hard because people move around, the precision required to hit the right spot, and even the leading of bullets.

Recoil is nothing but a huge pain in the ass at the top of everything to discourage the less dedicated players. Thats literally all it is. I should not have to play for 10 hours with a weapon to know how to shoot something immobile with it. Like I shouldn't have to play a platformer for 10 hours to know how to jump and run.

I don't know what to say. I just cannot agree or even see the positive sides of recoil.

[goneglockin]

Make whatever system you want, I will find a way to bend the rules. I have been balls deep into these games since they have existed. I have ripped their guts out, tinkered with them, built their models and maps over again- For like the past 20 years now.

But what do I know?

I know that the more dollars that came into this genre, the more players, the more rules kept popping up. My all time favorite is walking off a wall or roof in BF and watching your CoF bloom instantly to an unusable level. God forbid you literally get the drop on somebody and actually be able to shoot them on the way down. In 2142 I think you couldn't even shoot while falling, your trigger actually locked and there was this 1 second delay after you hit the ground before you could shoot again...

Every single crippling rule has a purpose- and that is to make an FPS game something people of all ages or background can enjoy so that fuckwit publishers and devs can make more money.

I say fuck that, let em learn the hard way like everyone else had to. And if you can't get it, don't play. Does this self esteem movement bullshit where no one loses have to extend into every facet of our society?

Well don't worry. I will be there to bend those rules as much as possible to play FPS games the way they were meant to be played and humiliate you. I will run around circle staffing and hipshooting with a 12 guage shotty and slugs in BFBC2. I will set the range on my PK rockets to explode over your head while on the move in 2142 without the time to dignify your crouch burst fire. I will run circuits on a CoD map using the AKS with rapid fire and grip to make quick, sloppy work of you.

I will move. I will not use ADS. I will find a way to make it work and when I do, it will piss you right the fuck off and I will be glad to give you a taste of what these games are really supposed to be like.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

I say fuck that, let em learn the hard way like everyone else had to. And if you can't get it, don't play. Does this self esteem movement bullshit where no one loses have to extend into every facet of our society?

Damn, dude. I never thought about it, but you're right. I've described it as "I WIN" syndrome, similar concept. But you are spot on. That is exactly what it is. Not just games, and I'm not talking about a specific mechanic, just in general. It's the "no one left behind" attitude. Damn.... that's discouraging.

[SFJake]

Its just an excuse. A myth, even.

[Novice bot]

I can't believe people are asking "Why does games have recoil / cone of fire".

Hello? Ever played a game where there is no recoil? Everyone just empties their clips. whomever got the most to the head wins. The fights usually end by 29/30.

God fucking pointless. Same applies to cone of fire, just firing from your hip to 150 meters in the head of that sniper that's hiding in the bushes just makes me so annoyed, especially if someone says "its a skill based game." Whats skill based in that the game is primary focused on going "down" the iron sights, but then you can just fire from the hip without a penalty? I dont mind if when using iron sights, cone of fire wouldnt exist, neither it should. Cone of fire is a good balance mechanic for firing from the hip.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Cone of fire is a good balance mechanic for firing from the hip.

I do agree 100% with this. Iron sights should be normal. By normal I mean like it would be aiming an actual rifle. By aiming an actual rifle I mean... Sorry, too many political debates on TV lately...

[lawnmower]

I would prefer recoil over CoF. CoF is a cheap way to emulate recoil without giving any skill to the weapon's user besides getting closer (if you can call that skill).
good games dont make it like that

Yes, but nobody has ever explained why toning down skill ceilings and 'depth' is objectively bad for a game. Sure, its bad for the hardcore competitive scene, but its good for the average player who wants a game to have fun with. Nobody wants to be casually playing a pickup game of basketball with their friends and have Michael Jordan show up and trounce them 300 to 0(Actually, most would be fine with mike doing that, but the point stands).

If the skill ceiling is too high, the game is ruined for those without the time or inclination to compete at the highest levels. There are no arenas in this game, no ladders, no leagues, where the newbies can be segregated from the domination of grandmasters. Everyone has to occupy the same game space, which means everyone has to be, to a certain degree, on the same level.

Nobody enjoys being fodder.
this is not what a skill ceiling is. the skill ceiling is approximately the best possible way to play a game at. somewhere that no human has come close to in any game such as PS or harder, so its not because of the skill ceiling that potentially hurt bad players.


But even though people are talking about "skill ceilings", I can still find extremely skilled players at CoD and BF3 that would destroy anybody complaining about "skill ceilings". It makes no sense. Those games don't have "skill ceilings", instead they require a different skill set than the old arena shooters or tactical shooters.

That doesn't make them a bunch of terrible gamers like people here seem to think. This makes them very skilled at this kind of shooter.
no, those gamers has amongst the lowest average skill

We do.

As for the other stuff. All you're doing is saying "I favor this form of cheating the system, there for it is not cheating. Also stealing a bunch of candybars is not like stealing a video game system, So don't take it to the extreme and let me steal."
its not cheating and like nobody has ever called it cheating. you need to stop monkeying around or find some actual sources, this is truly insane


if you think CoF has a higher skill ceiling than ads+recoil, you're just plain retarded.
source?

And I don't want to hear any crap about now you crouch and let go of the button every 3-5 seconds... That's not skill.
you dont seem to understand how this mechanic could work


Honestly I don't think there's much difference between habitually controlling your fire to reduce bloom vs. habitually adjusting for recoil. Both take presence of mind to learn (if not necessarily skill), both become habit.
cof is something you need to be a little bit aware of, it has different effects at all sorts of different ranges and is dependant on how much health you judge your opponent to have left.
as far as i can see, these or other things doesent come into effect with recoil as the only thing youre ever trying to do is compensate as well as possible.

[Dloan]

Range for infantry weapons (minus the sniper) is one of my biggest worries about PS2. In the latest streams with higby, him trying to engage anything past 30-50 meters seemed pointless :\

I admit having to suppress a shudder when I heard that damage degradation would be applied to Vanu weapons :doh:.

[Aldaris]

Make whatever system you want, I will find a way to bend the rules. I have been balls deep into these games since they have existed. I have ripped their guts out, tinkered with them, built their models and maps over again- For like the past 20 years now.

But what do I know?

I know that the more dollars that came into this genre, the more players, the more rules kept popping up. My all time favorite is walking off a wall or roof in BF and watching your CoF bloom instantly to an unusable level. God forbid you literally get the drop on somebody and actually be able to shoot them on the way down. In 2142 I think you couldn't even shoot while falling, your trigger actually locked and there was this 1 second delay after you hit the ground before you could shoot again...

Every single crippling rule has a purpose- and that is to make an FPS game something people of all ages or background can enjoy so that fuckwit publishers and devs can make more money.

I say fuck that, let em learn the hard way like everyone else had to. And if you can't get it, don't play. Does this self esteem movement bullshit where no one loses have to extend into every facet of our society?

Well don't worry. I will be there to bend those rules as much as possible to play FPS games the way they were meant to be played and humiliate you. I will run around circle staffing and hipshooting with a 12 guage shotty and slugs in BFBC2. I will set the range on my PK rockets to explode over your head while on the move in 2142 without the time to dignify your crouch burst fire. I will run circuits on a CoD map using the AKS with rapid fire and grip to make quick, sloppy work of you.

I will move. I will not use ADS. I will find a way to make it work and when I do, it will piss you right the fuck off and I will be glad to give you a taste of what these games are really supposed to be like.

Yeah, no. These 'rules' as you call them have nothing to do with making more money and more to do with trying to be different and do something new (back when they were new). God forbid that a developer be different. If we had things your way nothing would ever have changed from Quake with pinpoint perfect accuracy all the time.

Your entire post comes across as a small child crying that things aren't the way he wants them and throwing his toys out of the pram when he doesn't receive what he wants. Does this self entitlement movement bullshit where everything must be the way you want them to extend into every facet of our society? When you make your own game you can say what a game is supposed to be like, otherwise it's the developers choice. Don't get it? Don't play.

[wasdie]

no, those gamers has amongst the lowest average skill


No they don't, but I'll let you live in ignorance.

If you have to resort to telling the person kicking your ass that you would beat them in another game that takes "skill", you're completely ignoring the fact that the game you're getting your ass whipped on takes a whole set of skills you clearly don't have.

[Kashis]

i agree with OP. i HATE the random-spread idea, and i think that proper recoil would add to the realism.
Have you ever ran with a rifle then raised to fire it? Most people won't hit dead center. the generally fire within a COF. Especially hip fired.

You want realism go COF. It has recoil bloom built into it. I have fired thousands of rounds in stress and non stress environments. COF is as close to realism you can get. Even a veteran marksman can't put 30 rounds on top of each other. there is always a grouping... AKA COF.

I rarely get aggravated but this is just a thread on stupid pills if you think COF is a bad idea or that it should be substituted. :blowup:

[Simokon]

Have you ever ran with a rifle then raised to fire it? Most people won't hit dead center. the generally fire within a COF. Especially hip fired.

You want realism go COF. It has recoil bloom built into it. I have fired thousands of rounds in stress and non stress environments. COF is as close to realism you can get. Even a veteran marksman can't put 30 rounds on top of each other. there is always a grouping... AKA COF.

I rarely get aggravated but this is just a thread on stupid pills if you think COF is a bad idea or that it should be substituted. :blowup:

Take your first hand knowledge on a subject and get out, this is the internet! :p

[Infektion]

RECOILED COF!!!! w0ooot! :rofl:

[Arkanor]

Have you ever ran with a rifle then raised to fire it? Most people won't hit dead center. the generally fire within a COF. Especially hip fired.


Yes I have, and expected inaccuracy can be seen by the fact that your sights are not centered perfectly over the target. If they are, I'm going to fire and expect to hit.

[vasito]

Its called random deviation

[Flaropri]

Cone of Fire is good for two things:

1. Artificial balancing (forcing low/high accuracy at different ranges via rng).

2. It can work as a poor-man's simulation for minor muscle-twitches, wind, poor rifling, poor sights, etc.


Recoil is also good for a few things.

1. Artificial balancing (can be compensated for, but that requires skill and experience to do so properly, along with bullet drop).

2. Simulating recoil and the effects thereof (rather obvious I know). While both CoF and Recoil can provide a simulation of realism recoil can do a better job and gives weapons (literally) more "oomph."


They are both separate, and both have their uses. Both can be modified in different ways, CoF can have Bloom, Recoil can have varying directions, strengths, be tied to view or not, etc.

Nothing really stops both from being used, though obviously if over done people will lose more and more accuracy, which could discourage people from playing. I mean, if they wanted to shoot a weapon and hit something 10m away at a 90 degree angle from what they were aiming at they'd be playing Mount and Blade With Fire and Sword (or Napoleonic Wars).


Without realistic bullet physics, I think at least some CoF should be in the game, and some bloom (especially for Hip Fire), but I still like Recoil (at least with ADS and if well done with Hip Fire). I also think that Weapon Sway (different for the weapon) can help reduce the need for CoF in ADS as well, by simulating the same things, but even then I don't think CoF should be removed entirely.

[Blackwolf]

I already said I don't like artificial balancing, like CoF, or this magical, uncontrollable "recoil" you speak of. As for it being moddable... I agree with that. I hate how everybody alters their crap from recoil as you say, to scope drift, to whatever...

I still disagree that "compensating" for something is the same as "cheating". They are not mutually inclusive concepts.

-edit

My point on recoil, I suppose, is this :

Recoil is not a "balance" or "game mechanic" it is a side effect of the normal operations of a conventional firearm. ALL guns have it. You can choose to compensate for it or not, but regarding it as a "balance mechanic" by either developers, or players... Is ridiculously silly. It's a gun. It recoils. That's all there is too it.

Recoil is a balancing tool that is used in place of some other more bizarre reasoning to simulate reality. In the real world it is a problem, in a game it isn't much of a problem because you could make the game without simulating it at all. But it's placed there as a means of balance between weapons.

You are right though, all guns have it. We need to keep in mind that recoil is a mechanic placed in the game as a means to balance WEAPONS, not players. Players overcoming the challenges presented to them by the game is what skill is all about.

I can appreciate CoF and it's effects on the game, but I think CoF by itself isn't a good representation of realistic movement. I think both CoF and Recoil have their place whether you are ADS, crouched, standing, running, or jumping. The two systems aren't mutually exclusive and, to me, they represent two completely different aspects of aiming and firing a weapon.

[goneglockin]

Yeah, no. These 'rules' as you call them have nothing to do with making more money and more to do with trying to be different ...

I forgot that at the end of the day, multi-million dollar companies have the same aspirations as an emo highschool student; the need to be different.

Recent CoD games are selling more copies in their first week than every shooter of the entire 1990s sold period. Doesn't it ever make you wonder where the fuck all these assholes screaming "take my money," came from?

1. Xbox
2. Lowered entry barrier

How far is it gonna go? How long before my 60 year old mother is playing Call of Duty 17, made in partnership with zynga, and the PC version is a port from the Android app version, not the other way around?

Don't you have a frame of reference or are you just some wet behind the ears kid? Don't you see what they did there?

They don't want games to be different, they want to make one game that everyone plays. They aren't interested in rich diverse genres and catering to niche markets, they want a game that every person who breathes air and maintains a body temperature somewher roughly in the 90s will give them money for. Not only do they make more money by broadening their market share, but they make more money by lowering their development costs.

It's not about being different, it's about the exact opposite. It's about homogenizing games and the development process to maximize market share, minimize costs, and beating hollywood box office records with game sales of a single title.

That's where gaming is going, and if you don't think FPS has been molested it's share like everything else- there's not a phone book in this country thick enough I need to hit you over the head with.

[Justaman]

I think having recoil over cone of fire, when using iron sights, would be awesome. It would really add to the feel of the game.

[Aldaris]

I forgot that at the end of the day, multi-million dollar companies have the same aspirations as an emo highschool student; the need to be different.

Recent CoD games are selling more copies in their first week than every shooter of the entire 1990s sold period. Doesn't it ever make you wonder where the fuck all these assholes screaming "take my money," came from?

1. Xbox
2. Lowered entry barrier

How far is it gonna go? How long before my 60 year old mother is playing Call of Duty 17, made in partnership with zynga, and the PC version is a port from the Android app version, not the other way around?

Don't you have a frame of reference or are you just some wet behind the ears kid? Don't you see what they did there?

They don't want games to be different, they want to make one game that everyone plays. They aren't interested in rich diverse genres and catering to niche markets, they want a game that every person who breathes air and maintains a body temperature somewher roughly in the 90s will give them money for. Not only do they make more money by broadening their market share, but they make more money by lowering their development costs.

It's not about being different, it's about the exact opposite. It's about homogenizing games and the development process to maximize market share, minimize costs, and beating hollywood box office records with game sales of a single title.

That's where gaming is going, and if you don't think FPS has been molested it's share like everything else- there's not a phone book in this country thick enough I need to hit you over the head with.
Gee, I could show you plenty of games which are being different that are pulling plenty of money because they're different. CoD sales are slowing down because it's getting boring and samey. Simple logic dicates that as not every game is the same they must be trying to be different. Simple logic dicates that as not every game is simple point and shoot like Quake then they're not just catering to the lowest common denominator.

They do have aspirations to be different because every time a new game come out, their PR screams "Look how different we are than our competitor".

This is going completely off the point I was trying to make. Developers make their own choices and unless you're involved in the developement process, or somehow have telepathy, you don't know their reasons. I doubt crosshair blooms on the like were orignally added to catering to idiots, it was originally added for something different and a sense of realism.

[Blackwolf]

They do have aspirations to be different because every time a new game come out, their PR screams "Look how different we are than our competitor".


They point out their differences because they are cookie cutter copy cats who make 2 or 4 changes which is about the extent of the risk they are willing to make.

If you want a game that is truly different, you have to play Indie games. And while they have awesome unique and interesting ways of doing stuff, they tend not to make as much money as the mainstream.

[Remzsz]

I want DoD recoil, makes all the guns feel really different.

[wasdie]

I forgot that at the end of the day, multi-million dollar companies have the same aspirations as an emo highschool student; the need to be different.

Recent CoD games are selling more copies in their first week than every shooter of the entire 1990s sold period. Doesn't it ever make you wonder where the fuck all these assholes screaming "take my money," came from?

1. Xbox
2. Lowered entry barrier

How far is it gonna go? How long before my 60 year old mother is playing Call of Duty 17, made in partnership with zynga, and the PC version is a port from the Android app version, not the other way around?

Don't you have a frame of reference or are you just some wet behind the ears kid? Don't you see what they did there?

They don't want games to be different, they want to make one game that everyone plays. They aren't interested in rich diverse genres and catering to niche markets, they want a game that every person who breathes air and maintains a body temperature somewher roughly in the 90s will give them money for. Not only do they make more money by broadening their market share, but they make more money by lowering their development costs.

It's not about being different, it's about the exact opposite. It's about homogenizing games and the development process to maximize market share, minimize costs, and beating hollywood box office records with game sales of a single title.

That's where gaming is going, and if you don't think FPS has been molested it's share like everything else- there's not a phone book in this country thick enough I need to hit you over the head with.
What you're understanding is that nothing about Planetside 2 in general can be niche. There's way to much riding on it for it to bomb. F2P means it has to adapt the standards people are used to otherwise they won't play it. If people don't play it, the game cannot create revenue.

A small, niche audience cannot support an AAA quality F2P game. Simple as that.

As for the rest of what you've said, people have said gaming has been dumbed down since the late 80s. Guess what, they are wrong. Games no longer have the frustrating elements they did that people here consider to be "hardcore" or "niche". They are much more streamlined affairs that put the focus on playing and having fun.

There are a very wide range of FPSs out there today that cater to all audiences. Shootmaina and Nexiuz are both new FPSs that cater to the arena shooting fans. Call of Duty and Battlefield are the most popular, catering to the widest variety of gamers. ArmA 3 and Red Orchestra 2 are catering to those who want a sim. There are a lot of games that meet halfway too.

In every single one of these games, the developers have dumped a lot of the old gamey mechanics that were just frustrating and put the focus on the playing of the game. No more inventory management (unless it's applicable), no more backtracking, no more finding keys to open doors, no more stopping to solve a stupid puzzle, no more gameplay mechanics that were implement to make up for the lack of tech.

High TTKs were a product of not being able to render enough dudes on the screen. Now we have low TTKs because we can render literally thousands of dudes on the screen to blow away.

Things have changed for the better. If games are all becoming samey, why is the new Tribes game so successful? By your logic, it should have failed. Even more-so, why the hell is DayZ about to hit 1 million players and skyrocket the sales of ArmA 2 OA? Then there are games like Bioshock, STALKER, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, Killing Floor... I could keep going. All of these are new games that have come out within this generation of gaming that do not follow the COD/BF mentality. They implement different gameplay mechanics borrowed from games that came before while expanding upon them and using them in different ways.

Generalizing isn't smart. Thinking all gaming is just getting dumber and dumber is an indication you aren't look at the bigger picture.

[Rago]

Every Game Plays Different, i say.

[Aldaris]

High TTKs were a product of not being able to render enough dudes on the screen. Now we have low TTKs because we can render literally thousands of dudes on the screen to blow away.
Something to back that up? The PS1 could render hundreds of people and yet had high TTK. TTK is simply a number that the developer aims for their gameplay. Counter-strike has higher TTK than the CoDs and could render the same amount of people. Likewise with Halo but than has an even higher TTK.

[Revanmug]

Something to back that up? The PS1 could render hundreds of people and yet had high TTK. TTK is simply a number that the developer aims for their gameplay. Counter-strike has higher TTK than the CoDs and could render the same amount of people. Likewise with Halo but than has an even higher TTK.

wat?! I guess there is a lot of different CS and COD because both had around the same low ttk.

[ArmedZealot]

High TTKs were a product of not being able to render enough dudes on the screen. Now we have low TTKs because we can render literally thousands of dudes on the screen to blow away.

Something to back that up? The PS1 could render hundreds of people and yet had high TTK. TTK is simply a number that the developer aims for their gameplay. Counter-strike has higher TTK than the CoDs and could render the same amount of people. Likewise with Halo but than has an even higher TTK.

The hell are you people talking about? How is TTK a function of models rendered?

[Blackwolf]

The hell are you people talking about? How is TTK a function of models rendered?

Was trying to figure that out but my brain was stuck on trying to figure out how TTK has anything to do with CoF > Recoil to begin with.

[Baneblade]

Was trying to figure that out but my brain was stuck on trying to figure out how TTK has anything to do with CoF > Recoil to begin with.

Wouldn't missing a shot increase TTK?

[Coreldan]

Wouldn't missing a shot increase TTK?

That TLDRs the biggest problem when people start talking about TTKs and balance, most people ignore the fact that things like accuracy and rate of fire (already baked into TTK, but low rate of fire means that a miss is less forgiving than a single miss on a high ROF weapon) have a huge impact on how TTKs carry out.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Somebody say something about cones in here??? Oh, wait, it's just that retarded gun balance thread again, nevermind.

[Blackwolf]

Wouldn't missing a shot increase TTK?

Are you suggesting that either system would have a significantly better chance of hitting a target over the other?

By significantly, I mean increase or decrease the TTK to the point of game breaking values. As in a sniper rifle suddenly has an estimated TTK of 2 minutes while an assault rifle can kill in .3 seconds.

The reality is that you can't use TTK to change the argument because TTK doesn't factor accuracy in. At all. It is the base line value of a weapon's ability to kill in a set time frame in ideal conditions. Recoil or CoF are tools designed to control the weapon, but neither system will decrease the TTK below the weapon's core design and neither system would automatically prevent players from reaching that ideal TTK mark with 100% accuracy either.

[lawnmower]

No they don't, but I'll let you live in ignorance.
ah, source? oh right, youve already guarded yourself against me asking for proof with that comment. smart move.
they were made for casuals, they were made with the console in mind, they have among the lowest ttk of fps games out there, among the lowest average movementspeed in firefights, i think they have among the least importance of headshots because of the ttk and i think they have among the lowest accuracys.

If you have to resort to telling the person kicking your ass that you would beat them in another game that takes "skill", you're completely ignoring the fact that the game you're getting your ass whipped on takes a whole set of skills you clearly don't have.
yeah this has zero to do with what we are talking about. there are plenty of noskill games that players who have a lot of experience in can do much better than someone new that is much more skilled.


I rarely get aggravated but this is just a thread on stupid pills if you think COF is a bad idea or that it should be substituted. :blowup:
reailty has NOTHING to do with whats good for a game


High TTKs were a product of not being able to render enough dudes on the screen. Now we have low TTKs because we can render literally thousands of dudes on the screen to blow away.
lol what, source?

Things have changed for the better.
proof?

Generalizing isn't smart. Thinking all gaming is just getting dumber and dumber is an indication you aren't look at the bigger picture.
are you looking at the bigger picture? all were doing here is theorising, we dont know the answer because its a really deep and difficult question

[OnexBigxHebrew]

Somebody say something about cones in here??? Oh, wait, it's just that retarded gun balance thread again, nevermind.

LMAO!

[Deadeye]

Why not use both systems? Cone of fire for hip shots at short to medium and keep ADS if you want to control every bullet and don't mind putting up with the recoil but can shoot at long range.

[DayOne]

As has been stated before you need a CoF to simulate the fact that you don't know exactly where the barrel is pointing when not aiming down the sight. When you do ADS you should have the randomness of recoil simulated but the recoil of the gun and a tiiiiiny CoF that makes the bullet go a little out (accurate up to 100m or so with an assault rifle)

[Sirisian]

Why not use both systems? Cone of fire for hip shots at short to medium and keep ADS if you want to control every bullet and don't mind putting up with the recoil but can shoot at long range.
Generally when this is implemented like this for ADS (or anything really) it makes all guns feel identical. Maybe it's not the same for everyone, but I've noticed with my friends and myself that trained muscle memory for games that use recoil based systems takes a few minutes to master in a game to negate the weapon's accuracy modifier completely. That is the effective range for every weapon becomes the same and investing in a cert to decrease accuracy is a pointless endeavor since you can just negate the weapon property. It kind of dumbs down the tactics involved in using a weapon a bit in that sense also since you're landing shots, which for some weapons really shouldn't be landed, so it ends up skewing the weapon balance completely and makes weapons much harder to balance. This is especially true when games that use recoil assume a 100% accurate firing for a weapon and don't also implement a CoF secretly in the background to jitter the bullet as it's fired.

To preserve game balance and weapon variety while making accuracy based cert upgrades viable you really need a CoF system for everything. Without it sidegrading damage and giving up accuracy is a bit of a joke for a lot FPS players I'd imagine.

[Trafalgar]

I can't think of any game that allows people to glitch into walls that wasn't fixed.

Star Wars: Battlefront (The first one)

hip-fire... at the hip

if you hipfire

Hipfire = really big CoF, more or less useless beyond 10 yards

an inability of the shooter to know exactly where a hipfire is pointed

From the hip a COF or very unpredictable recoil makes sense. While aiming down sites it makes none at all.

Hipfire Accuracy: CoF when hipfiring

... from the hip which should only be effective at close range.

And on and on (for the rest of the thread, I suppose - I skipped two of the last three pages).

Does no-one else remember the "Aim from hip vs. aim from sights." thread? Allow me to summarize the important part: You wouldn't fire a rifle from your hip anyways, you'd fire it from your shoulder, which is the natural way to do it and what they were designed for - where you need only tilt/move your head slightly to look through the sights, where it's cushioned against recoil, where you can actually tell where you're aiming.

In short, it's nice how you've all gone back to saying "hip fire" and debating as though everyone actually is holding their rifles and such at the hip and firing them that way, which is completely unrealistic*.

* = As I wasn't in the tech test, I haven't seen how PS2 shows people holding their weapons, but I would assume that you don't run around holding your rifles at the hip all the time, and take hilarious amounts of time to move them up to your shoulder to ADS (and put them back at hip-level), because that would make PS2's infantry look like a bunch of idiots. I could, however, reasonably see the NC running around with guns at hip-level, just because, but as the TR is too professional to make that mistake, the NC would just get slaughtered en masse.

I didn't mention the Vanu. I expect the Vanu will solve this problem by (re-?)inventing skul-guns, so they can kill at the speed of thought without having to deal with any of this crap.

[EisenKreutzer]

What FPS-gamers call "hip-fire" isn't actually firing from the hip. Your guy is obviously holding his gun at his shoulder all the time.

"Hip-fire" in FPS-games means firing from the shoulder without looking down the sights.

[RageMasterUK]

No to recoil no to COF.
Replace all weapons with a 1HK rail-gun.

-RageMasterUK

[PredatorFour]

Somebody say something about cones in here??? Oh, wait, it's just that retarded gun balance thread again, nevermind.

Somebody promote this guy. If there isnt a post available invent one.

[RageMasterUK]

OK sarcasm over, but does it really matter whether its 'hip-fire' or 'shoulder-fire'? What about underslung Heavy Assault weapons, huh? Anyway, you all know what everyone means when they say hipfire or shoulder-fire, so screw what the name is, the function is what its all about. If you want to shoot more accurately you have to hold the 'aim' button, and thats about it.
To-may-to or to-mah-to? Still the same fruit.

But how do you represent a weapon which is not pinpoint-surgically accurate without COF? Tell me that?

As for recoil and COF, the game needs both for a reason. Most FPS games have both for a reason. Whoever mentioned balance is bang on the money. Those who can't understand this on first consideration just haven't got it with regards to modern FPS. A guy holding an under-slung MCG should NOT be able to land his first shot with pinpoint accuracy at 150 meters, ADS or NO ADS, so tell me how you represent this realistically without COF?

An RPG launcher is not pinpoint accurate. Hipfire OR ADS, if you fire an RPG IRL its not going to hit exactly where you aimed your crosshair at. Its the nature of the projectile that causes this innacuracy. Therefore you have to have cone of fire to represent weapons realistically.

The argument against COF is an argument against latent inaccuracy in the weapons themselves. If you're arguing against COF you either want rail-gunning in quake, or dare I say it GUN SWAY!!!!! Even crosshair sway does not sort out what COF seeks to address.

The other half of the argument for COF is whether aiming with the mouse can represent man-handling a 40 pound weapon in ones hands, while running and shooting and all other combinations. Obviously aiming with a mouse is gonna be easier than aiming a portable MCG IRL, so there needs to be some sort of deferrence of that skill, so COF takes care of that too.

I would hate to think what PS1 would have been like with no COF.

-RageMasterUK

[Trafalgar]

But how do you represent a weapon which is not pinpoint-surgically accurate without COF? Tell me that?

Well, first you give every soldier in PS2 either paintball guns or muskets, which naturally have a substantial COF at medium-to-long ranges (at least, I assume muskets do for the same reason paintball guns do; they fire balls with no rifling). Then you say "My work here is done."

[Flaropri]

The argument against COF is an argument against latent inaccuracy in the weapons themselves. If you're arguing against COF you either want rail-gunning in quake, or dare I say it GUN SWAY!!!!! Even crosshair sway does not sort out what COF seeks to address.

Well said.


On a related note: Crysis had an interesting approach, it had CoF, Recoil, Gun Sway, AND (optionally) no "Magical Crosshair." I personally really enjoyed not having a crosshair, but I think a lot of people would hate it, and since this is primarily a PvP game where Crysis (in my view) is primarily PvE, I don't think I'd play without it even given the option since few others would and I personally don't want to handicap myself if I don't need to.

But also a lack of crosshairs is something people can adjust to, or go ADS all the time to avoid. CoF is important for balance, for representing inherent inaccuracy (even for precise weapons a [very tight] CoF can help simulate wind for example), just as recoils is important for similar things, even if it is for a different mechanic.


The following is another sub-topic (I'm still not against CoF):
Generally when this is implemented like this for ADS (or anything really) it makes all guns feel identical. Maybe it's not the same for everyone, but I've noticed with my friends and myself that trained muscle memory for games that use recoil based systems takes a few minutes to master in a game to negate the weapon's accuracy modifier completely.

Is this a problem with the recoil system or how it's implemented in those games?

Generally speaking, recoil is largely used as a means of discouraging continuous fire, much like CoF Bloom is used to encourage Burst-Fire for automatic weaponry (and it takes in my view about as much skill to adjust if not more for recoil).

If Recoil is something that's being wholly bypassed through muscle memory than the recoil is either not complex enough (varying strengths of kick for different weapons and after X bullets/second) and/or it needs a randomizing factor (such as a chance to kick up and to the left sometimes when it normally goes up and to the right though that might make sense for specific weapons only). Perhaps it could need (for specific weapons) to be strong enough initially to be difficult to adjust for regardless, or be combined with weapon sway like in Borderlands (that game also uses CoF of course) where you get a bunch of sway after firing a sniper rifle and have to wait even longer to steady sights again.

Certainly, if Recoil doesn't make weapons feel different, it is being used incorrectly.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Well, they've obviously settled on a blend of both. Fact is, either one is fine, as long as they're done properly. Recoil works fine if it's not laser accurate (i.e. includes things like bullet drop that have to be compensated for, no hit-scan)

CoF is ok in the grand scheme of things, as long as it's a tight CoF, preferably with things that require compensation, no hit-scan, etc. My biggest problem with CoF is it's usually WAY to big, and weapons are only usable at rediculously short ranges.

A pistol should be accurate enough out to 40 or 50 meters, provided you take care with your shots. It's worth mentioning, the bigger problem with pistol grade rounds is the large size + low velocity means at much of a distance their penetration drops STEEPLY.

Rifles should be close to straightline out to 100 meters, and usable with iron sights at such distances. At ranges beyond that, you should be able to plink at people and land hits, provided you're taking care with your aim.

I'm not talking about simulator style mechanics, I'm just talking about reasonable usage. In a close quarters game, like CoD, this is (usually) moot, because range is not such a big consideration. In a wide open environment like this, where you're apt to be engaging (or trying to anyway) people in excess of 100 meters on a regular basis, the weapons need to be set up appropriately. Otherwise it just becomes rediculous mods

[Toppopia]

W

Rifles should be close to straightline out to 100 meters, and usable with iron sights at such distances. At ranges beyond that, you should be able to plink at people and land hits, provided you're taking care with your aim.

After playing Red Orchestra 2, I wonder what people would think about a mechanic where when ADS you scroll the mouse wheel or press some buttons to adjust the range of the sights. In RO2 since its mostly iron sights, you lower the but of the gun for the different ranges and with scopes the crosshair just moves down the screen which looks a little odd, but would be good for long range encounters, if you gauge the range correctly, just aim the sight like normal and you will hit.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

@Toppopia

Well, that would be a very simple way to implement adjustable sights, if they wanted to do so. It'd work fine, I'm sure. Biggest reason for that in RL in the 40s was insufficient quantities of quality scopes, and the general primitive nature of the ones that existed. Nowadays, an ACOG would be a better idea than tinkering with your sights :) But, for the purpose of iron sights, yeah, that's a good idea.

-edit

I'm not sure, but I think they're going for short range firing (as described earlier), so I doubt "adjustable sights" would have much use at present. But I haven't played, and so don't really know the "mean" ranges in use.