Random Deviation

Whip Nailed it · 2012-07-02, 11:52 AM

what's your take on it?

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

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

edit: this is how i would like it to work

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

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

Sledgecrushr · 2012-07-02, 11:54 AM

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

Littleman · 2012-07-02, 12:02 PM

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

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

Whip Nailed it · 2012-07-02, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Littleman

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

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

this is how i look at it too

Originally Posted by Sabot

deal with it.

great input

Sabot · 2012-07-02, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Whip Nailed it

great input

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

wasdie · 2012-07-02, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Littleman

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

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

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

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

Shade Millith · 2012-07-02, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Littleman

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

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

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

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

ChipMHazard · 2012-07-02, 12:16 PM

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

Littleman · 2012-07-02, 12:21 PM

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

wasdie · 2012-07-02, 12:00 PM

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

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

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

Sabot · 2012-07-02, 12:00 PM

deal with it.

zomg · 2012-07-02, 12:11 PM

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

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

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

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

wasdie · 2012-07-02, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by zomg

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

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

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

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

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

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

maddoggg · 2012-07-02, 12:18 PM

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

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

kadrin · 2012-07-02, 12:25 PM

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

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

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

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