The problem with "Implausible Reload"

[LZachariah]

In most FPS games over the past few years, reload mechanics are oddly unrealistic. My brothers and I have taken to calling this phenomenon "Implausible Reload," and I shall illustrate it easily:

If you have a 30-round magazine, and you fire one shot, then reload, you have just thrown away 29 bullets. Only weapons like shotguns reload by slotting individual rounds into the chamber. However, in most games, "reloading" just takes ammunition out of your total ammo and replenishes your weapon back to full. I am sometimes confused at how games overlook this fundamentally simple fact. Battlefield 2142, for instance, had a plausible reload system; your magazines contained ammunition, and if you reloaded too early, you necessarily threw away whatever bullets were left in your discarded magazine.

To me, Implausible Reload makes so little sense, and certainly nobody thinks that this is actually how reloading works. So, my question to everyone is, what is your preference? (and why do you hold that preference?)

1. The more realistic system of "each magazine contains a certain number of rounds."

2. The more convenient system of "the act of reloading magically replenishes your gun's ammunition back to full."


~Zachariah

[Rbstr]

Do we need like, 4 threads on the front page alone, about reloading?

[Cosmical]

A valid point and something i dont think ive ever really thought about in much detail.

I think youre going to have to Bite the Bullet on this one though (PUN HILARIOUSLY INTENDED) this is a gaming mechanic that wont change anytime soon. Ive played FPS's for decades now, and even i have moments of panic and fraustration. Accidentally throwing me last 30 bullets to the ground in the persuit of realism is something im not prepared to deal with because i got excited. haha

[Vancha]

Did Hamma just put out the order to make threads about things we've just had threads about?

[Shanesan]

Originally Posted by LZachariah

In most FPS games over the past few years, reload mechanics are oddly unrealistic. My brothers and I have taken to calling this phenomenon "Implausible Reload," and I shall illustrate it easily:

If you have a 30-round magazine, and you fire one shot, then reload, you have just thrown away 29 bullets. Only weapons like shotguns reload by slotting individual rounds into the chamber. However, in most games, "reloading" just takes ammunition out of your total ammo and replenishes your weapon back to full. I am sometimes confused at how games overlook this fundamentally simple fact. Battlefield 2142, for instance, had a plausible reload system; your magazines contained ammunition, and if you reloaded too early, you necessarily threw away whatever bullets were left in your discarded magazine.

To me, Implausible Reload makes so little sense, and certainly nobody thinks that this is actually how reloading works. So, my question to everyone is, what is your preference? (and why do you hold that preference?)

1. The more realistic system of "each magazine contains a certain number of rounds."

2. The more convenient system of "the act of reloading magically replenishes your gun's ammunition back to full."


~Zachariah

This was brought up on page one, post 8 here, as well as much deeper in this thread as well.

To answer the question, each magazine should house a certain number of rounds, and reloading by tossing the mag is a lazy coders way out of a "where do I put this partially spent mag" dilemma.

Pocket the clip and come back to it later when you need it .

[BlazingSun]

No.

I started typing out a long reply, but then couldn't be bothered as I don't think that the Devs will change reloading anyway.

Short version: Current reloading system is unrealistic? ... So what? The proposed ideas don't add anything to the game.

[Quovatis]

I guess if you really want to be realistic, the "thrown away" mags go into a separate pool. You can then put them back in the main pool if you wait for a while (i.e. you're taking the rounds out of some mags and filling the rest up).

I don't really mind the mechanic of most current games. Not realistic, but less frustrating.

[Shade Millith]

BF1942 and BF:V (and I think BF2 also), had a magazine count instead of bullet count.

Reloading was something you did when you needed to, not on a whim.

I liked it like that.

[DayOne]

It would take a while for some people to get used too (those with the 3-bullets-down-must-reload reflex, me included) but I think it is an all together better system. It would mean more team work as you can supply each other with mags.

Also you could get customisation options where you get another clip of ammo to use, as in an actual clip, not just 30 more magic bullets of replenishing.

[EASyEightyEight]

As realistic as tracking rounds per magazine might be, most people aren't used to or very accepting of the idea, and I wouldn't count on SOE asking for a leap of faith with this iteration of Planetside.

A long, long time ago, I played a mod for Half-Life called Firearms, and it was a blast. Along side having weapon mods and tracked magazines, getting shot in various locations degraded character performance. Reloading became slower and aim less accurate with shots to the arms, movement slower to the leg, with chances to break the leg, slowing me down, and the model actually limped. I might have both legs broken, forcing me into prone until I spent time applying two splints. Even too far a fall would break a leg(s.)

Speaking of bandages, there was also a bleed mechanic. Taking a shot or two in the right areas and I'd bleed out if I didn't take a moment to tend to them.

As cool as I think all these features would be in Planetside, it's just not something most players are used to, or willing to accept. A lot of people just want to shoot other people, without worrying about all the little things, even if all the little things are a (virtual) medics wet dream to worry about.

As an aside, Firearms also sported perks, such as increased reload speeds, faster appliance of medical supplies, etc, and one could even apply armor to themselves at the cost of speed. It was a game ahead of it's time in my opinion. It was just over shadowed by Counter-Strike.

[Raka Maru]

Reloading just puts you half empty clip into your pack. It magically gets filled with your favorite ammo stash and is full the next time you use it unless your stash is completely empty.

I'm ok with this rather than stop, fill clips, then go back to shooting.

[Panserbjorne]

Originally Posted by Raka Maru

Reloading just puts you half empty clip into your pack. It magically gets filled with your favorite ammo stash and is full the next time you use it unless your stash is completely empty.

I'm ok with this rather than stop, fill clips, then go back to shooting.

Actually, that isn't a bad thought, to make it more plausible. Perhaps there is a slot on the armor for the secondary clip- once the clips are switched, the unused clip is automatically, and mechanically, fed bullets from your pack. Considering the technology of PS and PS2, it wouldn't be that preposterous to think a system like that is in place.

That's just to make it seem more "Realistic"- otherwise, I have to say I like the "Implausible Reload" as a gameplay choice.

[VioletZero]

I don't see how a realistic reloading system is a good game mechanic.

[sylphaen]

I'd bet my house that will not make it in.

It was discussed in the past and the concensus was that such a system would end up slowing down the game.

As such, while it would be more realistic, it would not add more fun to the intended gameplay (i.e. faster gameplay than PS1 where no realistic reload was being used).

PS2 is not intended to be a simulator but a fun game instead.

[Death2All]

IT HAS TO BE REALISTIC OR ELSE IT'S NOT FUN