Future FPS Mechanic Development

[Palerion]

I understand that the devs have a lot on their plate right now, and rightfully so. What with base redesigning, vehicle balancing, and meta-game improvements, they are looking at a good deal of work ahead of them.

But in the meantime, I'd like to take a step into the future, when we have a more organized, more purposeful game; the bases are defensible, things start balancing out, and the meta-game is streamlined. When all these relatively important problems are fixed, might there be some work done on the FPS mechanics of the game?

This is, if course, not to say that they are bad right now, it just seems like they could be improved some in order to enhance the shooter experience some. I know that the big seller on the planetside franchise has always been large-scale warfare, and after all the issues mentioned above are ironed out, I think we will be much closer to that, but the shooter mechanics should still stand out and impress the player. Making the actual firefights look and feel more comfortable and attractive is a very important part of any shooter, and certainly should be for PS2. Overall I think it will benefit the game greatly as a future development.

[Helwyr]

[...]When all these relatively important problems are fixed, might there be some work done on the FPS mechanics of the game?

This is, if course, not to say that they are bad right now, it just seems like they could be improved some in order to enhance the shooter experience some.[...]

I'm not sure I follow exactly what you mean by enhancing the shooter experience. Like fixing some of the hit detection issues? Removing more 'training wheel' mechanics like Spotting?

[Ghoest9]

I understand that the devs have a lot on their plate right now, and rightfully so. What with base redesigning, vehicle balancing, and meta-game improvements, they are looking at a good deal of work ahead of them.

But in the meantime, I'd like to take a step into the future, when we have a more organized, more purposeful game; the bases are defensible, things start balancing out, and the meta-game is streamlined. When all these relatively important problems are fixed, might there be some work done on the FPS mechanics of the game?

This is, if course, not to say that they are bad right now, it just seems like they could be improved some in order to enhance the shooter experience some. I know that the big seller on the planetside franchise has always been large-scale warfare, and after all the issues mentioned above are ironed out, I think we will be much closer to that, but the shooter mechanics should still stand out and impress the player. Making the actual firefights look and feel more comfortable and attractive is a very important part of any shooter, and certainly should be for PS2. Overall I think it will benefit the game greatly as a future development.


I think the "shooter mechanics" are one of the high points of the game.

Its possible we are talking about different things because you were rather vague though.

I think the only thing that needs a change is the flinch code.

[KaskaMatej]

I don't know how would you refine FPS mechanics even more than what we have now. we have balistics, recoil, sound and visuals... I really don't know.

[Palerion]

I was being careful not to be specific as to not attract flame. Maybe the word isn't FPS mechanics for some of the issues I'm thinking of, but perhaps for other parts it is. One thing that could be improved is the screen shaking when any explosion occurs within a mile's radius of you. But that obviously isn't FPS mechanics.

What I'm getting at is more the possibility of making the shooter mechanics easier to learn. I understand we don't want call of duty, but I've introduced some people to the game and they find it (as I did) hard to pick up and learn. Again, not bad, it's just that it seems like, on a scale of easy to hard (in terms of shooting), the lineup seems to be Call of Duty, Battlefield 3, Planetside 2. I would just propose making the shooting mechanics easier to learn.

[Elgareth]

What I'm getting at is more the possibility of making the shooter mechanics easier to learn. I understand we don't want call of duty, but I've introduced some people to the game and they find it (as I did) hard to pick up and learn. Again, not bad, it's just that it seems like, on a scale of easy to hard (in terms of shooting), the lineup seems to be Call of Duty, Battlefield 3, Planetside 2. I would just propose making the shooting mechanics easier to learn.

Errr...what? Aim at someone, left click to shoot. How much easier can shooting mechanics become?
That we'd need Tutorials of some sort (New Account, First Login puts you in a small, virtual world (basically a simulator) where Generators, Control Points, Hex System, the Shop/Certs are explained briefly... or just Textboxes explaining things once you stumble upon them) is obvious, but the shooting mechanics?

You'd have to be more specific, even if that opens up possibilities to flame if the idea is bad... however, without being more specific, one can't talk about it neither positively nor negatively, since noone knows what you want to say :D

[Palerion]

Alright. Well I guess I'll put it more clearly: recoil and spread combined with a system that requires sustained fire to pull out kills. It can be a bit of a challenge, and can really piss someone off when they find a guy standing still and put four shots into him before he runs off. The shooting plays like Battlefield 3, but in a frustrating way. Battlefield did it for the realism, Planetside 2 just took the recoil and spread that battlefield had and doubled the TTK.

Even for people who have played other first person shooters, it can be quite irritating. It takes about four headshots to get a kill, eight body shots at very close range. With that kind of TTK, Battlefield-style recoil and spread seem to be stupid mechanics. A future refinement of the system would seem ideal (in my eyes, of course others are entitled to their opinions).

EDIT: I am also aware that people have discussed the TTK being too low. I would be fine with higher TTK I guess, but again, it would not make sense with the same recoil and spread we have on the current weapons.

[ShadetheDruid]

Testing the weapons out in a safer environment, like a simulator (something like the one from the first game, but better), would be the best bet for new players.

At least, I assume you mean things like recoil and spread, which for people new (or newish) to FPSs or specifically the game itself might need to test out before they can get the hang of the weapons?

If so, a simulator is the way to go. Most people use the warpgate walls at the minute, which is fine but not perfect.

Edit: You explained while I was posting. Oh well. :p

[Mietz]

Alright. Well I guess I'll put it more clearly: recoil and spread combined with a system that requires sustained fire to pull out kills. It can be a bit of a challenge, and can really piss someone off when they find a guy standing still and put four shots into him before he runs off. The shooting plays like Battlefield 3, but in a frustrating way. Battlefield did it for the realism, Planetside 2 just took the recoil and spread that battlefield had and doubled the TTK.

Even for people who have played other first person shooters, it can be quite irritating. It takes about four headshots to get a kill, eight body shots at very close range. With that kind of TTK, Battlefield-style recoil and spread seem to be stupid mechanics. A future refinement of the system would seem ideal (in my eyes, of course others are entitled to their opinions).

EDIT: I am also aware that people have discussed the TTK being too low. I would be fine with higher TTK I guess, but again, it would not make sense with the same recoil and spread we have on the current weapons.

The problem isn't so much recoil and spread, its predictable recoil and random spread.

If you pay attention to the weapon mechanics the spread is completely random, not only that the COF is entirely an "RPG" mechanic where the ADS don't go where your bullets go.

The game is simulating COF in a very primitive way as if the guns themselves weren't accurate. IRL (just for perspective sake) the inaccuracy comes from the shooter, not because the barrel is bent or doesn't shoot straight.

Generally where you put your crosshair, the bullet should go. If you want to simulate spread (from recoil), make the ADS jump where the bullet is going, so we can actually compensate for it.

Here are recoil plots for nearly all guns:
http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/weapon-recoil-plots.74987/

Recoil is predictable and you can "get used" to a weapon, COF is just completely random BS.

If you removed COF and gave more varied horizontal recoil, it would make the guns behave more consistently.

It would certainly be an improvement for the shooting. Right now it feels its a good 30% luck if my bullets hit or not at medium range where the hitbox size doesn't guarantee a hit.

[ShadetheDruid]

Recoil is predictable and you can "get used" to a weapon, COF is just completely random BS.

CoF is still controllable through burst fire. It's not like it's completely random and uncontrollable.

[Kerrec]

The problem isn't so much recoil and spread, its predictable recoil and random spread.

If you pay attention to the weapon mechanics the spread is completely random, not only that the COF is entirely an "RPG" mechanic where the ADS don't go where your bullets go.

The game is simulating COF in a very primitive way as if the guns themselves weren't accurate. IRL (just for perspective sake) the inaccuracy comes from the shooter, not because the barrel is bent or doesn't shoot straight.

Generally where you put your crosshair, the bullet should go. If you want to simulate spread (from recoil), make the ADS jump where the bullet is going, so we can actually compensate for it.

Here are recoil plots for nearly all guns:
http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/weapon-recoil-plots.74987/

Recoil is predictable and you can "get used" to a weapon, COF is just completely random BS.

If you removed COF and gave more varied horizontal recoil, it would make the guns behave more consistently.

It would certainly be an improvement for the shooting. Right now it feels its a good 30% luck if my bullets hit or not at medium range where the hitbox size doesn't guarantee a hit.

I haven't dug into the details of how PS2 weapon mechanics work, but I DO understand how the BF3 weapon mechanics work. Everyone says SOE just copied BF3, so I'm going to go out on a limb...

Cone of Fire (known in BF3 circles as Random Bullet Spread) is a concept that penalizes sustained automatic fire, and rewards controlled fire discipline. All guns have a minimum COF and the longer you hold that trigger down, the larger the cone gets.

Cone of Fire also creates distinction between different weapons, as far as how their effectiveness at range is concerned. A weapon that has a large COF (either base, or how fast it grows) will not be good at long ranges, and barely adequate at medium ranges. Weapons that have small COF (base AND how fast it grows) WILL be good at long ranges. This creates a distinction between weapons, making sure they don't all seem the same (or making sure that ONE weapon doesn't make all others irrelevant). What the game designers do is pair COF with Rate of Fire, to keep small cone of fire weapons from dominating everywhere. So close range weapons with large COF will have high rates of fire, and small COF weapons will have low rates of fire. It is THESE variables that give weapons their distinctiveness.

Remove COF so that bullets go where the crosshair is pointed, and you have lasers. Weapons will no longer have any distinction other than the one that shoots the most bullets downrange. Even things like bullet drop are not valid balancing variables, because they are constant. So one class will have THE best weapon, and each classes will have their own BEST weapon. All the other weapons will be irrelevant and some classes who are weapon "accuracy" dependant, like the infiltrator, will become obsolete.

I've seen years of people moaning and groaning about COF/RBS and how the bullet comes out of the barrel at an angle (Cone of Fire was integrated as far back as BF2, AFAIK). That is just weaving semantics to justify a weak argument. Stop thinking of COF as a weapon statistic, and start thinking of it as a (Weapon + Soldier) statistic. Instead of creating a poinless visual mechanic that shows how your weapon crosshair is varying relative to your soldier crosshair, both of which are being kicked around by weapon recoil, game developpers have simplified it to Cone of Fire. Just think about it: The slowest weapons spit out 600 bullets per minute, the fastest ones around 800 per minute. 600 bullets per minute is equal to 10 bullets every second. So you want to be able to correct your aim every 0.1 seconds (for the SLOW guns!)? Get real... you don't even know what you're asking for. If the screen was shaking like that I would just get a headache or get nauseous.

You say you want to be able to "correct" for Cone of Fire. Well, stop holding down the mouse button. THAT is how you "correct" your cone of fire.

[Mietz]

CoF is still controllable through burst fire. It's not like it's completely random and uncontrollable.

Well it IS random, and hence uncontrollable.
This isn't about burst, you can burst compensate with horizontal recoil as well.

Its about how COF is a random "cone" its not the recoil that makes your gun shake and point your ADS off target, its a calculated random cone where the bullets will go.

[Mietz]

Stop thinking of COF as a weapon statistic, and start thinking of it as a (Weapon + Soldier) statistic.
[...]
You say you want to be able to "correct" for Cone of Fire. Well, stop holding down the mouse button. THAT is how you "correct" your cone of fire.

You correct for an imaginary statistic. I am the soldier. Else you are making an RPG and should give my soldier a mechanic to level up his accuracy and reduce the COF for this weapon. You actively remove control from me, the person who is supposed to actually target and shoot, in a shooting game.
Or, if you want to go this route, then also add recoil to the "soldier" statistic, after all, why keep them separate?

Especially with shot re-centering the suggestion of controlling burst is pointless.

Out of curiosity, did you ever play games that have this? (Red Orchestra 1/2, ARMA, etc.)

[Kerrec]

Well it IS random, and hence uncontrollable.
This isn't about burst, you can burst compensate with horizontal recoil as well.

Its about how COF is a random "cone" its not the recoil that makes your gun shake and point your ADS off target, its a calculated random cone where the bullets will go.

You're still not getting it. All guns have a base Cone of Fire. All guns will increase this Cone of Fire at different rates. Guns that are supposedly good at long range will have small base cone of fire, and the growth of their cone of fire will be small. The base value is often plenty good to hit your target regularly, but the longer you hold that trigger down, the more the cone grows and the less bullets end up hitting your target.

So you can CONTROL your cone of fire, by controlling how big you allow it to get. Burst fire lets the cone reset to base size, so it never gets so big that you're missing more than you're hitting.

P.S. A gun that is categorized as close range will have a large base Cone of Fire. So even doing controlled bursts with that kind of gun will not allow you to hit reliably at long ranges. That is the whole point, and how some weapons are defined as short, medium or long range weapons.

[Mietz]

You're still not getting it. All guns have a base Cone of Fire. All guns will increase this Cone of Fire at different rates. Guns that are supposedly good at long range will have small base cone of fire, and the growth of their cone of fire will be small. The base value is often plenty good to hit your target regularly, but the longer you hold that trigger down, the more the cone grows and the less bullets end up hitting your target.

So you can CONTROL your cone of fire, by controlling how big you allow it to get. Burst fire lets the cone reset to base size, so it never gets so big that you're missing more than you're hitting.

P.S. A gun that is categorized as close range will have a large base Cone of Fire. So even doing controlled bursts with that kind of gun will not allow you to hit reliably at long ranges. That is the whole point, and how some weapons are defined as short, medium or long range weapons.

Are we talking past each other?
Because I understand perfectly well how the weapons work in PS2.

I'm not interested in controlling the COF bloom.

[Kerrec]

Well it IS random, and hence uncontrollable.
This isn't about burst, you can burst compensate with horizontal recoil as well.

Its about how COF is a random "cone" its not the recoil that makes your gun shake and point your ADS off target, its a calculated random cone where the bullets will go.

You correct for an imaginary statistic. I am the soldier. Else you are making an RPG and should give my soldier a mechanic to level up his accuracy and reduce the COF for this weapon. You actively remove control from me, the person who is supposed to actually target and shoot, in a shooting game.
Or, if you want to go this route, then also add recoil to the "soldier" statistic, after all, why keep them separate?

Especially with shot re-centering the suggestion of controlling burst is pointless.

Out of curiosity, did you ever play games that have this? (Red Orchestra 1/2, ARMA, etc.)

I own and have played ARMA. So what's your point?

If you want to think of this in terms of RPG, then what you are asking for is to have a big 2 handed sword that hits for big damage, be able to swing as fast as a dagger that does piddly damage. In effect, you're saying, "hey I can mash this key 2 times a second, so I should be able to swing my 2h sword 2 times a second." So let me ask you, what is the point of having a dagger then?

For that matter, RPG games have TONS of randomness in them. You can swing your sword and MISS simply because you didn't roll high enough to beat his armor class. Not because you didn't have the skill to line up your swing...

Red Orchestra... Haven't played them. Only read about them. Let me ask you a question: Assuming Red Orchestra has "THE" best FPS game mechanics, how well is it doing in the FPS multiplayer scene?

[Mietz]

I own and have played ARMA. So what's your point?

If you want to think of this in terms of RPG, then what you are asking for is to have a big 2 handed sword that hits for big damage, be able to swing as fast as a dagger that does piddly damage. In effect, you're saying, "hey I can mash this key 2 times a second, so I should be able to swing my 2h sword 2 times a second." So let me ask you, what is the point of having a dagger then?

For that matter, RPG games have TONS of randomness in them. You can swing your sword and MISS simply because you didn't roll high enough to beat his armor class. Not because you didn't have the skill to line up your swing...

Red Orchestra... Haven't played them. Only read about them. Let me ask you a question: Assuming Red Orchestra has "THE" best FPS game mechanics, how well is it doing in the FPS multiplayer scene?

I don't even know what you are talking about anymore.
What have swords to do with daggers and PS2?

What does that have do with realistic recoil mechanics instead of COF?

[Kerrec]

Are we talking past each other?
Because I understand perfectly well how the weapons work in PS2.

I'm not interested in controlling the COF bloom.

That sounds like a player problem and not a game mechanic problem. Let me flip the coin:

I'm not interested in playing a game where everyone uses the same class with the same gun and it's a frigg'n laser beam to boot.

[Kerrec]

I don't even know what you are talking about anymore.
What have swords to do with daggers and PS2?

What does that have do with realistic recoil mechanics instead of COF?

Swords and daggers have absolutely nothing to do with PS2. You keep bringing up RPG as a validation for your arguments, so I gave an example of what you are asking for, in RPG terms, hoping you'd understand what it is you're really asking for.

Edit: AHH, you want realistic recoil mechanics. Recoil is predictable and generally easily compensated for by manual input as you fire. You can find plenty of YouTube videos of people demonstrating it.

You can also find plenty of YouTube videos of mouse/keyboard/software macros that do it automatically, which is lame and undetectable. And that's why you have to introduce elements of randomness.

There's nothing skillful in a macro that does:

Loop
Mouse button one
Down X pixels
Right X pixels
End loop

[Mietz]

Swords and daggers have absolutely nothing to do with PS2. You keep bringing up RPG as a validation for your arguments, so I gave an example of what you are asking for, in RPG terms, hoping you'd understand what it is you're really asking for.

No, you made up a strawman of my argument.

Try again.

[Kerrec]

No, you made up a strawman of my argument.

Try again.

Not going to try again... I'm just going to copy and paste what I've already written in this thread, that you chose to ignore:

COPY/PASTE:

Cone of Fire also creates distinction between different weapons, as far as how their effectiveness at range is concerned. A weapon that has a large COF (either base, or how fast it grows) will not be good at long ranges, and barely adequate at medium ranges. Weapons that have small COF (base AND how fast it grows) WILL be good at long ranges. This creates a distinction between weapons, making sure they don't all seem the same (or making sure that ONE weapon doesn't make all others irrelevant). What the game designers do is pair COF with Rate of Fire, to keep small cone of fire weapons from dominating everywhere. So close range weapons with large COF will have high rates of fire, and small COF weapons will have low rates of fire. It is THESE variables that give weapons their distinctiveness.

Remove COF so that bullets go where the crosshair is pointed, and you have lasers. Weapons will no longer have any distinction other than the one that shoots the most bullets downrange. Even things like bullet drop are not valid balancing variables, because they are constant. So one class will have THE best weapon, and each classes will have their own BEST weapon. All the other weapons will be irrelevant and some classes who are weapon "accuracy" dependant, like the infiltrator, will become obsolete.

[Palerion]

Okay guys, this went downhill pretty quick. All I was pointing out was that the Cone of Fire, combined with high recoil and high time to kill, makes kills very hard to acquire, even on an unaware medium-range target. The problem is, the recoil can knock your shot to one side of the enemy, and while your sight may still be on target, it isn't on the center of the target. This is where cone of fire causes problems. If the bullets went right where your reticule is, they would all at least nick the enemy, as your weapon is on target, but the cone of fire makes a good deal of them miss. This is where the high time to kill comes in. When you're talking 8 bullets minimum to kill, likely more than that, and so many of your shots are already missing, the time to kill has just escalated even more so.

I think simply lowering one of these factors (recoil, cone of fire, time to kill) could help a lot. Lowering recoil and thus making it easier to stay centered on your target is one way. Lowering cone of fire would allow more forgiveness for not staying directly on the center of your target. Lowering time to kil, or in this case bullets to kill,l would make the recoil and cone of fire in general matter a bit less. It's simply a matter of their being too many detrimental factors to shooting in this game, making kills far too hard to attain.

[Kerrec]

Palerion,

I laughed when I read your post. Not because what you said was dumb, wrong or anything like that. I simply laughed because there's another thread going on where people want to INCREASE time to kill purposely to make it harder to get kills. To them, that would increase their enjoyment.

Edit: The other thread:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=52077

[Palerion]

I've read it. I don't mean we should increase time to kill, I mean one of the three things I mentioned would make shooting a bit more forgiving. Honestly I'm fine with 8 to 15 bullets depending on range for a kill, as long as I can consistently get those bullets on target. At the same time it does depend on which faction you play, as the VS weapons are lasers, and are laser accurate with low recoil. All I'm saying is reducing COF or Recoil (preferably COF) would make the game much more enjoyable.

I know about that thread and that's why I said I would be fine if TTK were increased, but at the same time, weapons would have to be easier to use.

[Mietz]

Not going to try again... I'm just going to copy and paste what I've already written in this thread, that you chose to ignore:

COPY/PASTE:

Cone of Fire also creates distinction between different weapons, as far as how their effectiveness at range is concerned. A weapon that has a large COF (either base, or how fast it grows) will not be good at long ranges, and barely adequate at medium ranges. Weapons that have small COF (base AND how fast it grows) WILL be good at long ranges. This creates a distinction between weapons, making sure they don't all seem the same (or making sure that ONE weapon doesn't make all others irrelevant). What the game designers do is pair COF with Rate of Fire, to keep small cone of fire weapons from dominating everywhere. So close range weapons with large COF will have high rates of fire, and small COF weapons will have low rates of fire. It is THESE variables that give weapons their distinctiveness.

Remove COF so that bullets go where the crosshair is pointed, and you have lasers. Weapons will no longer have any distinction other than the one that shoots the most bullets downrange. Even things like bullet drop are not valid balancing variables, because they are constant. So one class will have THE best weapon, and each classes will have their own BEST weapon. All the other weapons will be irrelevant and some classes who are weapon "accuracy" dependant, like the infiltrator, will become obsolete.

Then you have not understood my argument nor do you get what I said and are not actually interested in knowing, just repeating yourself and declaring victory.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Mietz]

This is where cone of fire causes problems. If the bullets went right where your reticule is, they would all at least nick the enemy, as your weapon is on target, but the cone of fire makes a good deal of them miss.

This.

[Palerion]

Honestly one of the greater problems with current FPS mechanics to me is that SOE is trying too hard to make a Sci-Fi FPS realistic. Instead of making low (or no) magnification sights kind of static on the screen, they make your sight sway as you turn it, jiggle around from explosions or damage, and fly around randomly if you jump or fly while aiming down sights. It seems like a detrimental mechanic to me.

[ShadetheDruid]

..and fly around randomly if you jump or fly while aiming down sights

That's actually a good thing, it limits the amount of annoying bunnyhopping.

[Palerion]

Trust me, I hate bunny hopping. But we already have high bullet deviation to prevent bunny hopping. Still, aside from that, the spaztic sights after an explosion and the swaying of low magnification sights doesn't seem right.

[ShadetheDruid]

Some of the stuff does need a bit of tuning, yeah. The shake from explosions has been mentioned once or twice on FNO as something that's a bit ridiculous (if my memory serves me), so the devs will probably tune that at some point at least.

[Palerion]

Yeah, I've heard people mention that. The low magnification scope sway really struck me after playing other FPS's for a little bit, such as Blacklight, and noticing how much more enjoyable and controllable the shooting felt. Gameplay is much more consistent, and manages to be more friendly to new players, while still allowing more skilled, experienced players to have the edge strictly because of reflex and knowledge of the game. Needless to say I mention the sight sway to Planetside players in-game and they accuse me of wanting a COD clone. I just think the devs should try to make the gunplay moreso exciting and sturdy, instead of frustrating and unpredictable.

[psijaka]

I think the "shooter mechanics" are one of the high points of the game.

Its possible we are talking about different things because you were rather vague though.

I think the only thing that needs a change is the flinch code.

^ this

Gameplay feels really crisp, on the whole, but the flinch thing is a bit overdone, as is the screen shake you get when you have shells landing nearby.

[psijaka]

Palerion,

I laughed when I read your post. Not because what you said was dumb, wrong or anything like that. I simply laughed because there's another thread going on where people want to INCREASE time to kill purposely to make it harder to get kills. To them, that would increase their enjoyment.

Edit: The other thread:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=52077

Beat me to it - I was going to point that out myself!

In that thread we have people complaing that they die too quickly because the TTK is too short.

In this thread we have people complaining that they can't kill quickly enough because the guns are too difficult to handle.

I wonder whether the same names turn up in both threads....

[Palerion]

^ this

Gameplay feels really crisp, on the whole, but the flinch thing is a bit overdone, as is the screen shake you get when you have shells landing nearby.

Well, as I post things like this, I develop, research more, play and experiment more, and learn more. In doing so, I have fouund that the main issue is the flinching, screen shake, and low magnification sight sway when turning/tracking enemies. Now, would you also agree that this low magnification sight sway is a bit of an un-needed, annoying, and maybe even degressive mechanic? Because honestly, I can't say I've ever seen a game do it. Even Battlefield 3 doesn't do it. Most likely because a 1x magnification sight is made to be smooth, precise, and quick in close and medium range combat and target acquisition. It seems that this sight sway should only occur on scopes of 2, maybe even 4x magnification or higher.

[Kerrec]

Then you have not understood my argument nor do you get what I said and are not actually interested in knowing, just repeating yourself and declaring victory.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Lol. Ignore me all you want. I don't write in forums to convince YOU. I write in forums to convince everyone.

Your argument is: A bullet should not come out of the barrel of a gun in any other direction than where it is pointed at. The player should always be able to see exactly where the bullet will go. If the bullet is not going to hit what he is aiming at, he should see that and be able to correct for it.

THAT is your argument, based on the real world "realism". I do get exactly what you want. Doesn't mean I agree.

This is a GAME. To get what you want, someone would have to invent a force feedback mouse that moves your cursor and you have to struggle against the mouse to get it back on target. That is the only way to have it both ways. But since such a thing doesn't exist, we have Cone of Fire.

The cursor jumping around 600 times a second would just make people sick. A flat reduction in Cone of Fire across the board would make powerful close range weapons with high ROF deadly even at long ranges, and would make weapons that are supposed to be deadly at long ranges, obsolete.

[Palerion]

Beat me to it - I was going to point that out myself!

In that thread we have people complaing that they die too quickly because the TTK is too short.

In this thread we have people complaining that they can't kill quickly enough because the guns are too difficult to handle.

I wonder whether the same names turn up in both threads....

Of course they do, if you're talking about my name. I said they would have to make weapons easier to use if they increase time to kill.

1. I'm not complaining. I'm pointing out that the unfriendly and difficult aiming in this game is a turn off to new players.

2. The main issue I am pointing out is that low magnification sights should not sway as you move them and that the screen should not shake all over the place every time an explosion hits near you or a bullet hits you.

If these things were fixed, shooting would be much easier and much more fun.