this is disconcerting... - Page 5

Sirro · 2012-08-05, 02:32 PM

I have fond memories of Planetside, what I don't have fond memories is the way the guns handled. It always felt(feels, I reactivated for the weekend) kind of messy, you pick up a weapon and it's hard to get a good idea of how to handle things. CoD and Battlefield do a good job of giving you feedback in my opinion.

The problem I believe is the damage resistance because of regular ammo versus armor piercing. The developers had to have a balance in them and the result is your gun can feel like a pee-shooter. I also believe what they labelled as short-medium-long range wasn't very good.

Last night I was using the Pulsarand of course it's been a very long time since I last used it, however when I was engaging people it just felt confused and muddled, and I think the blend of range and armor resist actually is what made it feel sloppy.

When I end up having to stop and think of how I am engaging instead of doing it innately, then something is a miss with the mechanics. I am not pro but I've been playing FPS's since Doom and the reason why that game and many like it (Quake, CS, etc) today are still played it's because you pick up and play it.

This probably sounds confusing but I am sure many understand that "feel" you get from a FPS and to me there was always disconnect with PS. Not that I didn't eventually pick up on things over time but I preferred using MAX or vehicles because they always felt much more matured and fluid.

Revanmug · 2012-08-05, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by SturmovikDrakon

If you can't properly aim with a buggy MHG then that's just sad. Learn to adapt

This doesn't just apply to buggy HMGs, but the ones on the tanks as well. Did you ever have problem firing from the passenger position in BF3?

I'll repeat, the screen-shake gives you an impression of power and simulates the heavy recoil

Currently, the HMGs in Planetside feel like plastic guns because they don't give you back any feedback, especially the Engineer placed MG due to its pathetic little sound

The one in tanks and "troop carrier" have the advantage of being completly protected removing the possibility of killing the gunner (except if the humvee is damage) which was the point that you completly miss like your dear .50 . You are already dead by a more effective weapon carried by a MOBILE infantry by the time you would need to kill me. It is completly ineffective against aircraft and doesn't kill infantry faster. What remain are other buggies or humvee which can be dealt with infantry or heavier vehicule

How about following your own advice and learn to play with people that actually know to aim with their AR or sniper? Nah actually, most people are engineer so it will be a smaw to the face. Fake power ain't going to save you against really powerful weapon.

Snipefrag · 2012-08-05, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by brighthand

yes. The word 'twitchy' would still raise an eyebrow...the people's eyebrow (;o

Just watch the videos, or wait till you play it. Its not Unreal Tournament twitchy, its just not slow and sluggish gun play like PS1 was, and for that I'm very grateful.

SturmovikDrakon · 2012-08-05, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Revanmug

The one in tanks and "troop carrier" have the advantage of being completly protected removing the possibility of killing the gunner (except if the humvee is damage) which was the point that you completly miss like your dear .50 . You are already dead by a more effective weapon carried by a MOBILE infantry by the time you would need to kill me. It is completly ineffective against aircraft and doesn't kill infantry faster. What remain are other buggies or humvee which can be dealt with infantry or heavier vehicule

How about following your own advice and learn to play with people that actually know to aim with their AR or sniper? Nah actually, most people are engineer so it will be a smaw to the face. Fake power ain't going to save you against really powerful weapon.

Unlike you, I can adapt. I've never had a problem taking out infantry while being "exposed", you have to be smart when using them and not just park yourself in the middle of a field.

The .50 cal has the advantage of being extremely accurate over long range. Even with the screen shake, it's not overdone to the point where you can't aim

So you don't want exposed MGs to have any sort of simulation of recoil, fine

What of tank MGs/wall turrets?

All I want is for the guns and weapons in this game to feel good, and I can't find a single aspect in BF3 that doesn't feel good

Revanmug · 2012-08-05, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by SturmovikDrakon

Unlike you, I can adapt. I've never had a problem taking out infantry while being "exposed", you have to be smart when using them and not just park yourself in the middle of a field.

Adapt?! if you want to use something several time inferior to anything else while always being expose, have fun. That's not changin how inferior it is and amusing to watch just before they die. And if you are really parking yourself somewhere to play with your toy, there is nothing I can add except that an immobile target is a dead target.

Originally Posted by SturmovikDrakon

The .50 cal has the advantage of being extremely accurate over long range. Even with the screen shake, it's not overdone to the point where you can't aim

Sniping with the buggies, I heard it all... Continue tagging some random guy so he might regen 20 sec later. Add some "shoot back here" sign next to you.

Originally Posted by SturmovikDrakon

So you don't want exposed MGs to have any sort of simulation of recoil, fine

What of tank MGs/wall turrets?

Screen shaking and recoil ain't the same thing... And considering that a 0.50 ain't ain't any deadly than an AR in BF3, I'm not sure why it require all that fake shit.

If over the top screen shacking is the effect PS2 use to give impression of power, I will feel sad for the sound and the effect of the gun itself. And mostly the sound since it is the first I check on most guns.

SturmovikDrakon · 2012-08-05, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by Revanmug

Adapt?! if you want to use something several time inferior to anything else while always being expose, have fun. That's not changin how inferior it is and amusing to watch just before they die. And if you are really parking yourself somewhere to play with your toy, there is nothing I can add except that an immobile target is a dead target.

Sniping with the buggies, I heard it all... Continue tagging some random guy so he might regen 20 sec later. Add some "shoot back here" sign next to you.

Screen shaking and recoil ain't the same thing... And considering that a 0.50 ain't ain't any deadly than an AR in BF3, I'm not sure why it require all that fake shit.

If over the top screen shacking is the effect PS2 use to give impression of power, I will feel sad for the sound and the effect of the gun itself. And mostly the sound since it is the first I check on most guns.

I'll get back to you when I'm not on my phone with a more detailed example/explanation

berzerkerking · 2012-08-05, 04:19 PM

BF3 had superior gun quality COD guns were so overpowered that the first time I played I had 39 kills with a pistol
If they copy COD were gonna have a bad time

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-08-05, 04:26 PM

Quit worrying, folks. You'll get in to play in a few more days. Be patient, and see what they're doing, before going all bonkers about it

Serotriptomine · 2012-08-05, 04:26 PM

No one said anything about copying any game.
For all we know they could have had shitty gun-play because one or two elements were off. They dusted off BF3 and CoD and said to themselves, why don't we use "this" mechanic or something like it to make our guns have a little more umph.

How it digs into their shoulder, how the gun should shake, if it should do this, that, the other. They never once said. "Yo, I liked the AK-47 in CoD so i'm going to make the Cycler act like it, no one will ever know!"

Grow up. The games don't suck, hundreds of millions of players over the years. between both games. They're doing something right.

Does that mean I want cookie-cutter guns? **** no.

What that does mean, is that I want innovation with a familiar feel so the end result isn't SOE failing to deliver the game we all want to be the same, and different.

brighthand · 2012-08-05, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by Malckeor

'Sup everyone. First post.

Getting the weapons to feel good isn't something to be worried about; it doesn't matter whether or not the devs took inspiration from Call of Duty in this regard. If the weapons feel good, then that's one more positive quality in what will be an awesome game, and I'll be a happy man.

If you're worried about Call of Duty's community coming into Planetside 2, though, think of it this way: The only Call of Duty game that is active on the PC is Call of Duty 4, which is actually an awesome game with a cool bunch of players for the most part. If any Call of Duty player(s) will be playing Planetside 2, they'll likely be coming over from COD4.

The console players for COD are the ones to worry about, but they're most likely not going to hop from console to PC to play such a completely different game like Planetside 2. If there's one thing that's true about Call of Duty players, it's that they HATE change. Planetside 2 won't have hitscan and is not going to have a huge focus on K/D like COD does. We've got nothing to worry about.

This, and all of the other reassuring comments, sounds good to me! -even though you guys are in the same boat as me, not knowing much until the beta hits. But still....this.

OnexBigxHebrew · 2012-08-05, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

This thread is much ado about nothing. As has already been pointed out, this is just a reference to how they're trying to make guns "feel". I don't like CoD, but it's a shooter with decent gun animations. Certainly a helluva lot better than PlanetSide 1's were. That is the point.

Yeah, info went waaaaay over OP's head.

Shylan · 2012-08-05, 07:44 PM

I don't know about anyone else here, but CoD's shooting mechanics both look and feel artificial to me. They feel too fast and light, due to the speed and crispness of the animations. Everything moves too quickly and too precisely to feel natural or satisfying. It's all too twitchy. The weapons may have appropriate recoil, but speed and precision of the ADS animation and the transition between having the weapon down while sprinting to having it up to shoot are just too fast and precise, ruining any feel of weight or heft that the recoil gave the impression of. You can't handle a 3-7 pound weapon without experiencing some inertial or centripetal pull when hefting it around like that. No one can handle a gun and move it in a perfectly straight line or a perfect spline curve; there's always some amount of additional motion on the other axes'.

I hope there's time taken to add smaller animations to make the gun play feel more realistic and weighty, and less artificial than CoD and some other triple-A shooters out there.

TheDAWinz · 2012-08-05, 07:45 PM

This thread is disconcerting.

TtD · 2012-08-05, 07:52 PM

As has been argued pretty much already, CoD isn't an automatic marker of bad game design (and will people please seperate modern CoD from the classic CoD ffs, since CoD4 the game has been a completely different, and worse, experience). If anything, wanting to learn from CoD in terms of the heft and 'feel' of weapons is a smart idea, through both classic and modern series the designers have struck a solid balance between sound quality, responsiveness, and the glass smooth nature of the animations. It's probably one of the few areas where CoD has been consistantly superior to the Battlefield series (especially in BC2 and 3 there have been jarring between animation and sound on some guns that have made them very unresponsive and glitchy (an-94 in 3 especially in release iteration), largely due to BF pushing sound quality so hard.

Where there would be a red flag, is if PS2 emulated modern CoD's hit dynamics (lack of recoil, limited inaccuracy while moving at pace, very low ttk) but as of now there is no evidence of this. As is, your making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Originally Posted by Shylan

I don't know about anyone else here, but CoD's shooting mechanics both look and feel artificial to me. They feel too fast and light, due to the speed and crispness of the animations. Everything moves too quickly and too precisely to feel natural or satisfying. It's all too twitchy. The weapons may have appropriate recoil, but speed and precision of the ADS animation and the transition between having the weapon down while sprinting to having it up to shoot are just too fast and precise, ruining any feel of weight or heft that the recoil gave the impression of. You can't handle a 3-7 pound weapon without experiencing some inertial or centripetal pull when hefting it around like that. No one can handle a gun and move it in a perfectly straight line or a perfect spline curve; there's always some amount of additional motion on the other axes'.

I hope there's time taken to add smaller animations to make the gun play feel more realistic and weighty, and less artificial than CoD and some other triple-A shooters out there.

Again, you're confusing 'feel' with game mechanics. The glass smooth animation is a positive, you want that comfortable response and it's the one redeeming factor of recent CoDs. It only becomes a gamebreaking issue for many due to the game design, the excess precision, rapid ADS time, lack of pull are all more recent additions to the franchise that have been intentionally added. I agree with you that they're really offputting, and those design choices are a big reason I stopped playing CoD myself, but they're not inherently linked to the 'feel' of the weapons.

Shylan · 2012-08-05, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by TtD

I agree with you that they're really offputting, and those design choices are a big reason I stopped playing CoD myself, but they're not inherently linked to the 'feel' of the weapons.

I do consider the handling animations to be part of a weapon's 'feel', because that's about the only way I can think of to judge the feel of a weapon in a video game when you're not firing it and experiencing recoil, bullet spread, or bullet drop. In a game, you have no physical way to judge size or weight of a weapon other than the animations the character performs when you perform certain actions with the weapon. The only other clues present would be the sound design for that weapon and the actions associated with it.

Honestly interested: Where do you draw the distinction between a weapon's feel and its mechanics? To me, they're very closely related, if not inseparable.