Recoil reset

[Stardouser]

On another forum people were asking if there is recoil reset, and others were saying that they thought there is from the TB videos. I cannot tell myself from watching the videos.

Recoil reset, at least in the form seen in Bad Company 2, is where, say, on your assault rifle, you fire in single shot, and so long as you do, the weapon automatically resets your aiming sight to exactly where it was. It only allows the muzzle to climb from the recoil if you were firing full auto.

This created a major problem in Bad Company 2, where you could take aim at someone, and where recoil would have forced you to fire in bursts or at least have some control skill to control the full auto recoil, you simply mash your button as fast as you can. The game treated them all as single shots despite your speed, and delivered a bunch of recoil-free shots.

This allowed people to do what in BC2 was called "tapfiring" and frankly, I bet people used mouse macros to automate this as well.

Anyway, It's Alpha, yes I know, but let's think about this anyway. Surely we don't want this?

[Pyreal]

I think CS:S had that too, because SS was the way to go for accuracy.

[BloodySoul]

I wouldn't worry too much about it, I mean this game is supposed to take place with highly advanced technologies and I wouldn't expect "guns of the future" to have recoil that goes ape shit when firing on full auto.

Aside from that, if there is a recoil like that in the game where you can finger tap the mouse to fire full auto without the hard recoil then Bravo to the smart people who fire in bursts. Anyone who is dumb enough to just stand there and hold down the trigger is just asking to be taken advantage of in my opinion.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by BloodySoul

I wouldn't worry too much about it, I mean this game is supposed to take place with highly advanced technologies and I wouldn't expect "guns of the future" to have recoil that goes ape shit when firing on full auto.

Aside from that, if there is a recoil like that in the game where you can finger tap the mouse to fire full auto without the hard recoil then Bravo to the smart people who fire in bursts. Anyone who is dumb enough to just stand there and hold down the trigger is just asking to be taken advantage of in my opinion.

I am unsure if you understood what I meant, I was not worried because I want recoil reset but because I don't. There should be recoil, and there should not be a way of circumventing it through tap firing. Note: tap firing is not burst firing. Recoil should always be present, single shot should not magically make recoil go away.

And we definitely do not want the future theme to be an excuse to give easy spray weapons.

At least in my opinion. And note that this issue actually falls under TTK, but it's a specific problem. Autoreset of recoil is yet another thing that would lower the TTK too much.

[vampyro]

If you watched the videos theres no recoil firing through sights. Which is great who the heck wants to play a shooter that makes it hard to shoot. Im guessing that shooting from the hip will have cone of fire.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by vampyro

If you watched the videos theres no recoil firing through sights. Which is great who the heck wants to play a shooter that makes it hard to shoot. Im guessing that shooting from the hip will have cone of fire.

Ah....well, if that's true, and if they are dead set against having no or minimal recoil, then that limits the ways we can fight against low TTK in beta. People won't be happy if bullet damage has to be lowered.

Recoil is a better answer than lowered bullet damage, at least to me. I think a lot of people have the impression that TTK ONLY means bullet damage, it does not.

TTK is a product of many things and this is not intended to be an all inclusive list: bullet damage, recoil, cone of fire, bullet drop, rate of fire, hitboxes(arm hits count less than chest hits), even hit detection.

[BloodySoul]

I think what needs to be remembered on this point as a MAIN OBJECTIVE is that this isn't your normal shooter. You get fast re-spawns and its not 100% in your face action like a lot of other FPS games are. Like vampyro said about his opinion on recoil, I would also have to agree with it because it would just get to messy and ruin the all around continuation of the game from PS1.

So yea, I get what you are saying but like I said before. I don't think there is anything to worry about. The devs seem to be doing a good job on keeping the FPS basics of PS1, going into PS2.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

.

TTK is a product of many things and this is not intended to be an all inclusive list: bullet damage, recoil, cone of fire, bullet drop, rate of fire, hitboxes(arm hits count less than chest hits), even hit detection.

Again, all of these things are going to be taken care of. Especially the hit boxes, if there is one main complaint from PS1 it would be those crazy hit boxes.

[SpcFarlen]

Originally Posted by BloodySoul

Again, all of these things are going to be taken care of. Especially the hit boxes, if there is one main complaint from PS1 it would be those crazy hit boxes.

Well considering i was running off a 56k modem then... i needed i needed large hitboxes. Thank god for broadband these days.

But to OP, im not a fan of this resetting recoil thing. Atleast to the extent of firing all your rounds then it going back to prefiring position. For quick bursts (5-7 shots) i dont have a problem with it. It sort of replicates natural recoil compensation. But adding a bit of "bouncyness" to that can make it look less like a snap and more of a natural compensation.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by SpcFarlen

Well considering i was running off a 56k modem then... i needed i needed large hitboxes. Thank god for broadband these days.

But to OP, im not a fan of this resetting recoil thing. Atleast to the extent of firing all your rounds then it going back to prefiring position. For quick bursts (5-7 shots) i dont have a problem with it. It sort of replicates natural recoil compensation. But adding a bit of "bouncyness" to that can make it look less like a snap and more of a natural compensation.

As of right now, sniper rifles are, I assume, going to get the largest headshot bonus, ie, sniper rifles are intended to be the 1shot/2shot headshot killers.

But if recoil autoresets, then even a weak assault rifle can be used to tapfire 5 shots into someone's head before they can move. And sometimes even if you hit the body and not the head that still makes you deadlier than a sniper at a good range. Called "tapfire SMG sniping " in BC2.

[Gandhi]

Sounds like it would be easy to fix by having the weapon reset over a certain time frame rather than right away. So maybe a rifle takes 0.1 seconds to reset, so firing more than 10 rounds a second will cause the recoil to get worse regardless of what firing mode you're in. That physics must already be in there for full auto firing anyway, just apply it to semi-auto as well.

[vampyro]

Whether you like it or not ttk will be lower than ps1 because there will be headshots. I dont see it being a big issue. The bigger issue will be how many hits a tank and vehicles can take. Afterall you will more than likely have over ten heavy infantry unloading on it with rocket launchers.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by vampyro

Whether you like it or not ttk will be lower than ps1 because there will be headshots. I dont see it being a big issue. The bigger issue will be how many hits a tank and vehicles can take. Afterall you will more than likely have over ten heavy infantry unloading on it with rocket launchers.

Vehicle TTK is a big issue, but you have to understand that I am not trying to make the TTK be as high as PS1, I just want the TTK to be higher than BF3 and CoD. A TTK that's just ever so slightly higher than BC2 would be perfect, but that would still be significantly faster than PS1. I just want people to know that changing the TTK is not just lowering bullet damage. At close range if you stick your gun in someone's back and fire, they should die quickly. But at long range, recoil should force you to burst fire, and if that causes the enemy to have a chance to make it to cover, then recoil is doing its job.

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by vampyro

Whether you like it or not ttk will be lower than ps1 because there will be headshots. I dont see it being a big issue. The bigger issue will be how many hits a tank and vehicles can take. Afterall you will more than likely have over ten heavy infantry unloading on it with rocket launchers.

Are you really cognizant of what you're saying here?

Not everybody will be carrying heavy weapons (rocket launchers) -- this will be a heavy assault-only loadout.

Thus, it stands to reason that probably no more than 1 in three infantry players in a well-rounded, prepared for anything squad will be HA.

So you're suggesting a single tank (which can be ONE PLAYER) should not be threatened by THREE SQUADS of infantry?

I find that to be a ridiculous suggestion for a balance point. If that's not truly what you meant (since you weren't aware that HA is the only class with rocket launchers, for instance), then that's one thing. But otherwise, I strongly disagree.


As for recoil... Personally, I dislike modern shooters' method of conveying recoil in the first place. Mice aren't tactile feedback input mechanisms -- you can't stabilize a bucking mouse by feel alone, because they don't buck. Coordinating a visual feedback about how the recoil has affected your aiming point with a hand-input system is very unnatural and a completely arbitrary "skill."

Similarly, recoil that's consistently a predictable amount "up" is utterly unrealistic, so systems that promote recoil responses of just constantly pushing your mouse up or down (depending on whether you invert Y) are just silly.

This is, of course, why I loved Planetside 1's cone of fire bloom -- it was a well-communicated (UI-wise) way to convey inconsistent recoil and attempts to compensate in automatic fire that circumvented abuse like the OP mentions is a problem with Battlefield Bad Company or whichever game he was talking about. Now, I realize I'm outnumbered by a pretty vast majority, so I won't get all bent out of shape and rant about how I dislike my view perspective being jerked around out of my control, but I think there's still room to talk about a system that might prove a reasonable compromise.

Namely, what if recoil were randomized (but still generally "up," of course) but only the crosshairs and gun model climbed around the screen? Then, over time after the trigger was released, the crosshairs would reset back to the center of the screen at a game-controlled rate. The controlled rate would prevent the click-spamming from circumventing the recoil entirely, while the eventual return to your original (or adjusted if, say, you were tracking a target) aim point would still occur.

Now, I can't think of any game that's done this, so I have no idea whether it would feel even more awkward or not. But I'd be damn curious to try it.

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by elfailo

This is naive. People will use it if it's most effective. If it's the best weapon for the situation people are in, everyone will use it. You don't need a "well-rounded" squad when your task is highly specific (such as defending a tower from the inside).

While this is true, I find it pretty improbable that a 10-man rocket launcher squad will survive long enough to be the norm.

Even if it did -- 10 men vs. 1 man in a tank?

Still unbalanced to let the tank survive.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by kaffis

As for recoil... Personally, I dislike modern shooters' method of conveying recoil in the first place. Mice aren't tactile feedback input mechanisms -- you can't stabilize a bucking mouse by feel alone, because they don't buck. Coordinating a visual feedback about how the recoil has affected your aiming point with a hand-input system is very unnatural and a completely arbitrary "skill."

Similarly, recoil that's consistently a predictable amount "up" is utterly unrealistic, so systems that promote recoil responses of just constantly pushing your mouse up or down (depending on whether you invert Y) are just silly.

This is, of course, why I loved Planetside 1's cone of fire bloom -- it was a well-communicated (UI-wise) way to convey inconsistent recoil and attempts to compensate in automatic fire that circumvented abuse like the OP mentions is a problem with Battlefield Bad Company or whichever game he was talking about. Now, I realize I'm outnumbered by a pretty vast majority, so I won't get all bent out of shape and rant about how I dislike my view perspective being jerked around out of my control, but I think there's still room to talk about a system that might prove a reasonable compromise.

Namely, what if recoil were randomized (but still generally "up," of course) but only the crosshairs and gun model climbed around the screen? Then, over time after the trigger was released, the crosshairs would reset back to the center of the screen at a game-controlled rate. The controlled rate would prevent the click-spamming from circumventing the recoil entirely, while the eventual return to your original (or adjusted if, say, you were tracking a target) aim point would still occur.

Now, I can't think of any game that's done this, so I have no idea whether it would feel even more awkward or not. But I'd be damn curious to try it.

The purpose of recoil in the game, especially for any non reality sim(ie, not ArmA or similar), is not to approximate reality, but to prevent easy spray and spray. A lot of you hate campers, but the easier it is to just spray and hit and even running perpendicular to the shooter won't save, the more people will camp, or walk slowly behind cover, etc. Now, I will grant you - recoil alone cannot get the job done, because the severity of recoil required would be too much. Cone of fire should prevent hipfiring or firing while moving from being too effective, but even while aim down sight, there should still be just enough recoil to make it so that you can't spray down a target that's running laterally relative to you without bursting a few shots, resetting aim, burst, reset, etc. And the very intent of that is to make it so that the farther away the target is the better chance the target gets away.

At least that's MY intent for it.

Originally Posted by elfailo

This is naive. People will use it if it's most effective. If it's the best weapon for the situation people are in, everyone will use it. You don't need a "well-rounded" squad when your task is highly specific (such as defending a tower from the inside).

OK, I will go ahead and plead lack of paying attention but...is heavy assault going to be able to carry both a primary assault rifle and secondarily an anti-vehicle weapon?

Originally Posted by CuddlyChud

I hope they don't go the BF2 route where they just overlaid the iron sights over the CoF. That's frustrating, and kind of looks like what they're doing. Of course, until you play it its really hard to tell from just the gameplay videos.

When you aim down the sights the cone of fire should be minimal or non-existent, that's where recoil takes over.