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.
2012-06-02, 12:05 PM
Linear Mode
