Higby Wants Your Thoughts on Iron Sights for FPS.....

[bmfof]

Originally Posted by wasdie

You're assuming the pace of the game is quick and that PS2 is going to have a lot of really close quarters fighting.

From what I can tell, everything is a lot bigger than PS1. Also, if implemented right, somebody taking a corner smart can beat out somebody just sitting there without the iron sights waiting to pounce.

I'm not assuming anything. If PS2 is anything like, say, BF3, I'll be happy with the movement dynamics, as long as I'm not perpetually locked down my sight because of intentionally made shit weapons.

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by Redshift

That was just a load of really dull quick scoping..... i hope that's not how they implement ADS in PS2

TBH I didn't even watch more than a few seconds of that clip. I picked it because it was the first COD1 vid I found that had game footage of ADS to illustrate that was ADS developed for PC games, not consoles.

Originally Posted by bmfof

The point is that mobility will always win over the fabled "tactics" you all seem to think iron sights add. It's one thing to pretend you're a super badass specop going in corners slowly with your weapon up, completely something else to pick up the most arcadey weapon in the game and just run around like a madman twitching everyone into submission. Unless a game removes all possibility for weapons to be even remotely useful at short-mid range, then those weapons will always dominate the game in these encounters in the right hands.

That's a pretty piss-poor example of "mobility over ADS." 99% of the people that guy killed didn't even know he was there. That vid would've looked almost exactly the same had that guy stopped to ADS his victims since the vast majority of them were stationary and facing away from him.

What you vid does show is the advantages of stealth, flanking maneuvers, and ambush tactics. I'll give you that. But it says very little for or against using ADS.

And another point that you don't seem to be able to wrap your head around is that that isn't and "Either or" issue. In PS2, both tactics can and should be viable choices depending on the situation.

Your example of "going in corners slowly with your weapon up" tells me that you've either not played many multiplayer games that have a decent balance of ADS vs run-and-gun, or you think that all firefights in PS2 will happen at <10m. But if ADS is properly implemented, neither case is even remotely close to the truth. There will be times when run-and-gun tactics will overcome an ADSer, and there will be times when someone using ironsights will tear a running player to shreds. Neither tactic is intrinsically superior to the other. Nor should it be.

I don't know if you saw this vid earlier in the thread or not so I'll post it for you to prove my point: Depending on its implementation, ADS is not an inferior tactic.


COD2 is a game where "Running around like a madman" and ignoring the ADS button will get you killed, over and over. It's implementation isn't perfect (see the quick scoping and dolphin diving to ADS that he does), and IMO most weapons in it are a little too inaccurate when not using ADS for my tastes, but it does show that ADS can be quite deadly in the right situation, and in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

[Lunarchild]

Originally Posted by bmfof

The point is that mobility will always win over the fabled "tactics" you all seem to think iron sights add. It's one thing to pretend you're a super badass specop going in corners slowly with your weapon up, completely something else to pick up the most arcadey weapon in the game and just run around like a madman twitching everyone into submission. Unless a game removes all possibility for weapons to be even remotely useful at short-mid range, then those weapons will always dominate the game in these encounters in the right hands.

Right, like the Akimbo FMGs in MW3... Which I usually beat with my semi-auto MK14, silenced assault riffle using ADS...

[Redshift]

Originally Posted by Erendil

stuff

watch that video from your last post, go to around 40 seconds, perfect example of ADS being a waste of space, at those ranges ADS shouldn't be needed, it's pointless. Go to 50 seconds and you see where it should be useful.

[headcrab13]

I do plenty of shooting from the hip in modern-day games, but I also appreciate the addition of ironsights. It's not an "either/or" thing, it's just a matter of preference and your current tactical situation.

I expect sights to be very useful in PS2 when I'm pinned down or defending the end of a bridge with my squad from behind cover, and in a variety of other situations I expect to burst into the tower running and gunning.

[Revanant]

Originally Posted by bmfof

I'm afraid your conclusion is brough up due to a severe lack of experience.

Red Orchestra 2 Heroes of Stalingrad MG-34 gameplay - YouTube

1) Actually, this just reinforces my point that a game with mandatory iron sights doesn't necessarily equate to neutered or gimped close quarters combat.

2) The video seems to be taking place on relaxed realism, based on the instantaneous kill notifications. While this is still far more hardcore than a lot of other games, it might be a bit harder to pull this off in "realistic" mode, because players lack radar and Friend/Foe identifications rely heavily on spotting uniform and character model differences.

3) There have been some complaints that the MG34 is too powerful when fired from the hip, for reasons like this video showcases. Being accurate outside of point blank range is very hard with most weapons, but the MG34 does a decent job of it. Personally, I've netted my fair share of point blank kills with the MG34--it's far easier than with the DP-28 (Russian counterpart).

4) Just for the record, you do realize how incredibly hard it is to manage what the player in the video achieves, right? Every shot he's taking is blind...no iron sights, no floating/COF crosshairs, nothing. Arguably, this video is proof that success in CQB isn't chained to aiming mechanics, but situational awareness.

[Revanant]

5) Not to be a spoilsport, but aimbot is also a possibility. Especially around the 3:50 minute mark, when he's taking single shots out a window and nailing players across the map.

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by Redshift

watch that video from your last post, go to around 40 seconds, perfect example of ADS being a waste of space, at those ranges ADS shouldn't be needed, it's pointless. Go to 50 seconds and you see where it should be useful.

Like I said, I think most weapons in COD2 are/were too inaccurate when not using ADS. I envision non-ADS firing from an assault rifle in PS2 to be about as accurate as a standing Lasher CoF. So you could hit all of your shots out to about 30m, or about two grid squares worth in any PS1 basement (which are ~14.5m across apiece).

That'd make it more accurate than COD2 weapons, but slightly less accurate than the MG34 in bmfof's vid.

Originally Posted by headcrab13

I do plenty of shooting from the hip in modern-day games, but I also appreciate the addition of ironsights. It's not an "either/or" thing, it's just a matter of preference and your current tactical situation.

I expect sights to be very useful in PS2 when I'm pinned down or defending the end of a bridge with my squad from behind cover, and in a variety of other situations I expect to burst into the tower running and gunning.

Exactly. It's not an either/or issue.

As ballpark figures, I'd expect ADS to be superior at any distance longer than 40m (e.g. - the main lobby and basement hallways of a Bio Lab). Anything closer than about 20m (from the top stair in a tower to the opposite wall at the bottom of the flight) should be the realm of run-and-gun tactics. In between is anybody's game.

And of course some weapons will benefit from it more than others. Pistols will get some but will obviously still be less accurate than rifles. And HA may not even get the option (too big and bulky to raise to eye level and keep steady).

[Jimmuc]

Originally Posted by Revanant

5) Not to be a spoilsport, but aimbot is also a possibility. Especially around the 3:50 minute mark, when he's taking single shots out a window and nailing players across the map.

theres an aiming reticule in the game but they turned off the infantry HUD when making the video. you can see in these screenshots: here and here
just really need to visualize the reticule then aim shoot when using no HUD..atleast thats what i do

[Revanant]

Originally Posted by Jimmuc

theres an aiming reticule in the game but they turned off the infantry HUD when making the video. you can see in these screenshots: here and here
just really need to visualize the reticule then aim shoot when using no HUD..atleast thats what i do

I think we're talking about different games :P.

[goneglockin]

So some guy posted a video of CoD from 2003 for a rebuttal as to why ironsights aren't an industry-wide crutch for console kiddies?

What does that have to do with anything? We know there were games with ADS before xbox, but that's not what made it start being shoved down everyone's throats on literally every platform. Console sales did. There was no single point in time where a switch was thrown and every game had them, but if you look at the games that do have them, somewhere around 90% are post xbox.

This is the same time when millions of people started buying FPS games almost exclusively for online play. If you really think that the games weren't made easier to continue expansion into an emerging market and maximize sales, that's naive.

Yes, ADS is a symtom of today's kill-for-kill, everybody wins, FPS games.

And to the one guy who said it's about getting people to work together to play tactically, it's also true. But why bother? No one ever plays this way in these games enough to notice. Maybe in some distant future where we are all bred for war and it's part of our training, but in an era of self-important narcissistic facebook users, forget about getting a young American male to play any way other than what his ego desires- where he is Rambo.

I see it in BF games all the time, no team work, forums filled with people complaining about lack of team work, a handful of people who boast that they do as if that makes up for everyone else playing the game like a free for all. You guys should know better than anyone that's how it works from your original PlanetSide days.

So... my point is- why throw in mechanics which fail at creating tactical play, but most definitely slow down the game to boring campfest levels?

Artificial mechanics to curb behavior do not work, other ideas and systems are needed.

[Garem]

Originally Posted by goneglockin

So... my point is- why throw in mechanics which fail at creating tactical play, but most definitely slow down the game to boring campfest levels?

Artificial mechanics to curb behavior do not work, other ideas and systems are needed.

They don't fail to create tactical play. You're making a statement but you have yet to substantiate on it. In your opinion, it doesn't make for tactical play. Many of us disagree, and with our own valid reasons.

More importantly, this "campfest" issue that you seem to see as the major problem just WON'T be a problem in PS2. Well, sort of. We want campers- attacking defenderless bases would be dull. Clearly, when you can respawn quickly and battles are infinitely more massive, the old arguments for camping become a lot less important-- and just maybe counter to the game purpose.

As a side note, I strongly agree with Redshift's statement earlier, even as an Iron Sights proponent. That being, we want hipfire to be viable in short ranges up to several meters. We want the penalty for iron sights (difficult target tracking) to be matched

Of course, in many other games this is already the case. CoD:MW2's accuracy boost perk for hipfire was a very good standard for where I'd like to see PS2 hipfire accuracy.

[Jimmuc]

FYI there is an aiming reticule..look one of higby's food shots

[goneglockin]

Originally Posted by Garem

More importantly, this "campfest" issue that you seem to see as the major problem just WON'T be a problem in PS2. Well, sort of. We want campers- attacking defenderless bases would be dull.

People generally do not want play games where they are made to wait, or where not waiting and stepping out from cover results in instant death because the mechanics do not permit fast paced gameplay. I know this is a PlanetSide game, but why settle for a repeat of PS1? We saw that and people didn't hang around for more for very long, did they.

[Lunarchild]

Originally Posted by goneglockin

People generally do not want play games where they are made to wait, or where not waiting and stepping out from cover results in instant death because the mechanics do not permit fast paced gameplay. I know this is a PlanetSide game, but why settle for a repeat of PS1? We saw that and people didn't hang around for more for very long, did they.

Sounds like you have the wrong TTK in mind to me... Then again, there are some people who DO like that playstyle.

Anyhow, seeing as there is about a 50/50 split of opinions here, I would definitely suggest making both playstyles valid ways of playing the game, that way everyone wins.