Higby Wants Your Thoughts on Iron Sights for FPS..... - Page 23

Garem · 2012-02-15, 03:11 PM

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.

You want a more "tactical" game but you argue against being "made to wait".

Huh? That makes very little sense. Pure-Hipfire games like Halo and Quake are best for fast paced arena games. Planetside 2 doesn't fit that description, and I'm pretty sure nobody here wants Quake:MMO. I sure don't.

As the post above mentioned, the TTK in PS2 ought to resolve the problems here anyways.

As for Planetside 1 and it's flaws, I'd be careful about treading on that hallowed ground! Plus, I'm not sure what your point is here anyways- you're arguing to KEEP an aspect of PS1.

Regardless, it's because of that game, despite those very flaws, that has each and every one one of us salivating over every little press release for PS2. We saw what worked, what didn't, and what has improved since then.

ADS combat has not, in the slightest, taken the tactical elements out of the game, nor made less skilled players better off than more skilled players. No argument put forth so far has produced one iota of evidence to this effect, nor against it. Why? Because it's just different, apples and oranges. Kids are just as good/bad at buttonmashing in hipfire Halo as they are are ADS shooters like CoD (although at least in the ADS'ers, they're overzealous aimers and hence move slower and are easier to hit for me or reckless hipshot pray'n'sprayers).

Lastly, and back to the PS1 rights/wrongs, the aiming method was never what drove people to or from PS1. BFRs and the Aftershock expansion were pretty critical for my several-year absence, personally speaking. The game just got old, the expansions and changes were minimal, and the MMO market zoomed forward without PS1.

goneglockin · 2012-02-15, 09:31 PM

It's really simple.

Before ADS- mastering FPS games meant having to MOVE and SHOOT.

After ADS- mastering FPS games is about waiting for someone else to move so they cant shoot.

It's a little more complicated then that, there are more elements and offending mechanics that are rolled into ADS- like sped up bullets and nerfed run speeds to take dodging all but out of it- but it's the single biggest reason for the breakdown of gameplay in modern shooters.

Garem · 2012-02-16, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by goneglockin

It's really simple.

Before ADS- mastering FPS games meant having to MOVE and SHOOT.

After ADS- mastering FPS games is about waiting for someone else to move so they cant shoot.

It's a little more complicated then that, there are more elements and offending mechanics that are rolled into ADS- like sped up bullets and nerfed run speeds to take dodging all but out of it- but it's the single biggest reason for the breakdown of gameplay in modern shooters.

So somehow balancing whether or not one should be MOVING or SHOOTING (ADS style) requires less skill than necessarily having to do both (hipfire style)? That doesn't make any sense at all.

I've played both game styles, although more recently more ADS for obvious reasons. Experience and reason just don't prove what you're saying. Having the option to use BOTH, clearly, allows more tactical play where the smarter and more talented player will know which to do under a particular set of circumstances.

Where tactics and on-the-fly decisions are more important (to either use ADS or shoot quick from the hip at a charging shotgunner, for example), you find a better game.

ADS is not this godawful curse that you make it out to be, nor do hipfire games get rid of the woes seen in recent games, such as slow move speeds and faster bullets (to reflect realism, which although you condemn, I applaud; we'll just have to agree to disagree as a matter of preference here). There is room for both and I hope that frustrations over non-related issues in other games does not blind the developers into barring ADS, since it isn't the basic problem with those games anyways.

More importantly, children playing games that we adults want to enjoy is the REAL problem, and where your argument began. Here, we agree. In PS2, we won't have to worry about that, though- no open mics, so we won't be abused by inane children's chatter. But don't let the whining pissants and their unavoidable connection to ADS games mar your opinion of otherwise functional mechanics.

Neurotoxin · 2012-02-16, 12:29 AM

Maybe a rant, but...
For me, iron sights or not isn't really the question, but more a matter of how the zoom / ADS functionality will feel and act. How much the crosshair moves from whatever is being aimed at when accessing the scope or sights, how close the crosshair is to where the bullet will actually go, time to get in or out of sights, whether the features of some guns require the sights / scope or not, how accurate players are with or without the scope while moving or stationary... There is a lot more to the functionality than the decision to use an ADS-style zoom or more of the classic style.

One feature I always liked about zooming in PlanetSide is that your built-in zoom worked much in the same way as the weapon zoom, so there was a high level of consistency from weapon to weapon.

Stormhall · 2012-02-16, 10:55 AM

I think planetside 2 should have fixed aim/camera iron sights and rectangle/dead zone type free aim hip fire. Makes that much more realistic. In a biological sense as opposed to a technological sense which planetside is not.

goneglockin · 2012-02-16, 06:36 PM

[QUOTE=Garem;636961]So somehow balancing whether or not one should be MOVING or SHOOTING (ADS style) requires less skill than necessarily having to do both (hipfire style)? That doesn't make any sense at all.
QUOTE]

If it doesn't make any sense, you haven't played enough FPS games.

There used to be two skills-

A) Dodging/movement

B) Shooting

I'm not even going to get into all the little mini things that made people better at games like Quake, UT, FEAR, etc. But basically, if you stood still- you died.

Today it's the exact opposite, you move and you die.

So now what are the skills needed to play an FPS Game?

A) Shooting

B) Laying down in a bush? Is that a skill?

P.S.

Youre gonna say tactics is a skill but it is not. It is not because it is not something that the mechanics encourage. The mechanics only discourage actions, (i.e. sitting still) they do not make people play tactically. If you take a game that punishes people for running around in the open, they will not start reading Sun Tzu's art of war, they will simply not move. That is the problem with today's video games, and that is the problem with all the batty people spouting off about tactics, realism, and how these games are so great- but they're wrong.

IronMole · 2012-02-16, 07:09 PM

[quote=goneglockin;637390]

Originally Posted by Garem

So somehow balancing whether or not one should be MOVING or SHOOTING (ADS style) requires less skill than necessarily having to do both (hipfire style)? That doesn't make any sense at all.
QUOTE]

If it doesn't make any sense, you haven't played enough FPS games.

There used to be two skills-

A) Dodging/movement

B) Shooting

I'm not even going to get into all the little mini things that made people better at games like Quake, UT, FEAR, etc. But basically, if you stood still- you died.

Today it's the exact opposite, you move and you die.

So now what are the skills needed to play an FPS Game?

A) Shooting

B) Laying down in a bush? Is that a skill?

P.S.

Youre gonna say tactics is a skill but it is not. It is not because it is not something that the mechanics encourage. The mechanics only discourage actions, (i.e. sitting still) they do not make people play tactically. If you take a game that punishes people for running around in the open, they will not start reading Sun Tzu's art of war, they will simply not move. That is the problem with today's video games, and that is the problem with all the batty people spouting off about tactics, realism, and how these games are so great- but they're wrong.

Yes. Give me ADS and you can have your silly little run and gun. I know who will be dead first, and it definitely won't be me.

Quake/UT were nothing but twitch games. It wasn't really skill either, I mean all you had to was tap space bar (macro it) and just pot luck the shots.

You can not compare the differences between UT/Quake to games like CoD4/BF3 as they have completely different mechanics.

SKYeXile · 2012-02-16, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by IronMole

Yes. Give me ADS and you can have your silly little run and gun. I know who will be dead first, and it definitely won't be me.

Quake/UT were nothing but twitch games. It wasn't really skill either, I mean all you had to was tap space bar (macro it) and just pot luck the shots.

You can not compare the differences between UT/Quake to games like CoD4/BF3 as they have completely different mechanics.

o.O

Erendil · 2012-02-16, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by goneglockin

So somehow balancing whether or not one should be MOVING or SHOOTING (ADS style) requires less skill than necessarily having to do both (hipfire style)? That doesn't make any sense at all.
QUOTE]

If it doesn't make any sense, you haven't played enough FPS games.

There used to be two skills-

A) Dodging/movement

B) Shooting

I'm not even going to get into all the little mini things that made people better at games like Quake, UT, FEAR, etc. But basically, if you stood still- you died.

Today it's the exact opposite, you move and you die.

So now what are the skills needed to play an FPS Game?

A) Shooting

B) Laying down in a bush? Is that a skill?

P.S.

Youre gonna say tactics is a skill but it is not. It is not because it is not something that the mechanics encourage. The mechanics only discourage actions, (i.e. sitting still) they do not make people play tactically. If you take a game that punishes people for running around in the open, they will not start reading Sun Tzu's art of war, they will simply not move. That is the problem with today's video games, and that is the problem with all the batty people spouting off about tactics, realism, and how these games are so great- but they're wrong.

Your assertion that today's games encourage people to sit still is incorrect. Rather, they encourage you to move quickly, efficiently, and intelligently. One of the main differences between today's games and old-school arena shooters is that simply shooting and moving is not enough. In today's shooters, people who move, but do so carelessly and stupidly, will die over and over until they realize that just taping down the Run key will not let them come out on top like it used to.

If you just constantly run around and hope that your footspeed and dodging skillz will let you win the day, you will die, and usually not achieve you team's objectives - be it in CTF, Search and destroy, basically any match type outside of TDM - because the weapons in today's shooters are often more accurate (with ADS) and deadlier.

However, by the same token if you just sit still and camp all day, you may stay alive a while longer, but you will still not achieve your team's objectives, and unless you're just playing DM/TDM you will still lose.

So in today's games, rather than just running and gunning, now you have to use these skills:

Dodging/Movement
Shooting
Knowing WHEN to move, WHEN to shoot, and WHEN to do both.
Effectively using cover/concealment to hide your movements and position, quickly move from cover to cover, etc
Using stealth and flanking maneuvers to improve your firing positions and get the drop on the enemy
Using effective scanning techniques (since enemies are more likely to wear camo and not be brightly colored like in old school Arena shooters and there is generally more cover and concealment available) and use fast target acquisition
Shooting QUICKLY (i.e. - quickly zeroing in on your target), not just accurately, due to faster TTK's

I could go on, but hopefully you get the picture.

goneglockin · 2012-02-17, 01:58 AM

The only picture I get is that you live in candy land.

People dont play these games this way. They sit, ignore the objective, and wait for their tickets to run out so they can play defense and pad their stats with easy kills. When some loony with a hard on for "tactical play" manages to use a border line exploit to slip past the defenders and take the objective, you can practically hear the other players groan that they will now have to wait longer to play defense.

My other favorite thing I see in these games is people who switch teams until they are nice and stacked. They then steam roll the noobs and pat themselves on the back for "tactics."

Horrible games, horrible time for the genre.

Garem · 2012-02-17, 02:27 AM

Originally Posted by goneglockin

The only picture I get is that you live in candy land.

People dont play these games this way. They sit, ignore the objective, and wait for their tickets to run out so they can play defense and pad their stats with easy kills. When some loony with a hard on for "tactical play" manages to use a border line exploit to slip past the defenders and take the objective, you can practically hear the other players groan that they will now have to wait longer to play defense.

My other favorite thing I see in these games is people who switch teams until they are nice and stacked. They then steam roll the noobs and pat themselves on the back for "tactics."

Horrible games, horrible time for the genre.

Good grief, what game(s) are you even talking about? Those complaints are very specific, and don't really have anything to do with ADS. Just shitty players who don't understand the importance of Map Control.

Then again, a good, sneaky bastard in PS1 actually does exactly what you said, and it does cause groaning. Gotta pay attention and be aware, no matter if you use hipshot or ADS.

I can't remember the last time I played a game where you could arbitrarily switch from one side to the other. Reconnecting/Late game joining has been implemented for years. Whatever game you play that allows that sucks.

Erendil · 2012-02-17, 03:32 AM

Originally Posted by goneglockin

The only picture I get is that you live in candy land.

People dont play these games this way. They sit, ignore the objective, and wait for their tickets to run out so they can play defense and pad their stats with easy kills. When some loony with a hard on for "tactical play" manages to use a border line exploit to slip past the defenders and take the objective, you can practically hear the other players groan that they will now have to wait longer to play defense.

My other favorite thing I see in these games is people who switch teams until they are nice and stacked. They then steam roll the noobs and pat themselves on the back for "tactics."

Horrible games, horrible time for the genre.

Of course, because team stacking never happened in the good ol' dayz of Arena shooters, right?

Nor did camping, ignoring the objective, using cheats/exploits, killwhoring, etc..

Please.

Come on down off of your throne there, Princess, and take a look around you.

I think the elevation up there is starving your brain of oxygen.

Multiplayer online games have been filled with idiots, self-centered douchebags, killwhores, and cheaters since the days of PKMUDs. And probably before that (I wouldn't know, that's as far back as I go).

And at the risk of sounding elitist, you might - and I stress might - be able to make a case for today's online gamer demographic including an ever-larger group of less educated and/or techically-savvy individuals, which could correlate to a decrease in intelligent gameplay on the parts of the gamers (I don't know tho as I haven't done any research down those lines). But that doesn't mean the games themselves are inherently less intelligent. Correlation <> Causality.

But all of this is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that ADS was not put on today's games as part of some grand conspiracy to reduce the amount of skill needed to play or to water down the gameplay or make people slow down so console gamers can shoot you more easily.

It was added to increase the perception of realism and encourage more tactical gameplay. If it were otherwise I highly doubt that games like ArmA, America's Army, or Red Orchestra would've implemented it.

goneglockin · 2012-02-17, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Erendil

The fact of the matter is that ADS was not put on today's games as part of some grand conspiracy to reduce the amount of skill needed to play or to water down the gameplay or make people slow down so console gamers can shoot you more easily.

Not for that reason, but for money. Someone else asked what game I was talking about. Take your pick. This is how most all of the major brand name FPS games play today. Nerfed FPS gameplay to make it enjoyable at any level of skill, it's good for business.

This is what made FPS gaming a household item.

This is what made the competitive tourneys go away, when no wanted to watch someone "think" about maybe moving from bush to bush for a better chance to flank/shoot someone in the back.

The mechanics are all deliberate, whether or not they are conspiracy- who knows. But they are deliberate to make it enjoyable for all ages/skill levels. Tactics has nothing to do with it, because again- the games are not played that way. Look at the other interests of the target demographic of your average xbox kid to see why these mechanics encourage nothing but dullness.

Again- mechanics don't encourage, they discourage. They are limits, barriers. You can play around them, and if you think the result is "tactics," then that's your opinion.

LordReaver · 2012-02-19, 03:12 PM

The solution to all ADS problems is, when aiming down the sight, do not reduce the COF. Now it's just a quick zoom function.

IronMole · 2012-02-19, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by LordReaver

The solution to all ADS problems is, when aiming down the sight, do not reduce the COF. Now it's just a quick zoom function.

No. The whole point of ADS is for accuracy.