Is anyone else concerned about the proposed “faster pace” of combat? - Page 8

Sirisian · 2011-10-07, 03:53 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Otherwise you just have RPG fitting screen combat. oops! You picked the wrong loadout, you lose!

That's actually how I prefer things. One of the reasons I wanted the sniper projectile to charge its damage as it went through the air to more balance its purpose. Anyway regarding the "RPG" damage mechanism I like where the shotgun does a lot of damage up close and very little far away. Then you have the MA weapons doing average damage 0 to 70m. Pistols doing the same damage 0 to 50m. (They can fire further but they start to drop due to gravity and damage degradation starts to take effect). Anyone remember that scene from Judge Dread where he's standing in the street and quotes the maximum effective range of the enemy's weapons? Basically it's like that. If I'm 100 meters away from the enemy (put my cursor over them and it tells me the range) and he starts shooting all I'll see is slow bullets hitting around me. They might hurt, but it's not the same as being within the 70 m range. Then you'd have the sniper rifle. If you saw someone using one you could run at them if you knew their gun only gained full damage past 50 m.

A long TTK makes those kinds of damage systems more evident, but I've already mentioned that a lot.

A good example of weapons and damage would be Rage. I've been playing that game for a while now and the weapon balance is amazing.

Kalbuth · 2011-10-07, 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

That's actually how I prefer things. One of the reasons I wanted the sniper projectile to charge its damage as it went through the air to more balance its purpose. Anyway regarding the "RPG" damage mechanism I like where the shotgun does a lot of damage up close and very little far away. Then you have the MA weapons doing average damage 0 to 70m. Pistols doing the same damage 0 to 50m. (They can fire further but they start to drop due to gravity and damage degradation starts to take effect). Anyone remember that scene from Judge Dread where he's standing in the street and quotes the maximum effective range of the enemy's weapons? Basically it's like that. If I'm 100 meters away from the enemy (put my cursor over them and it tells me the range) and he starts shooting all I'll see is slow bullets hitting around me. They might hurt, but it's not the same as being within the 70 m range. Then you'd have the sniper rifle. If you saw someone using one you could run at them if you knew their gun only gained full damage past 50 m.

A long TTK makes those kinds of damage systems more evident, but I've already mentioned that a lot.

A good example of weapons and damage would be Rage. I've been playing that game for a while now and the weapon balance is amazing.

Please, no. PS2 is a FPS. Let skill be able to overcome a loadout issue. It's needless to make it a FPS otherwise, make it 3rd person, let player control his caracter position by mouse and select appropriate action on needed target like WoW does. If the aiming part is needless to you, remove it, as simple as that.

It is a FPS for a reason, because being in first person, and aiming and shooting is paramount to the game. If it is a non factor because of your loadout, it's not an FPS anymore

Sirisian · 2011-10-07, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by Kalbuth

It is a FPS for a reason, because being in first person, and aiming and shooting is paramount to the game. If it is a non factor because of your loadout, it's not an FPS anymore

Did you just build a strawman 3rd person argument and attack it to try to redefine the FPS genre as being more than a first person perspective with shooting?

Ignoring that, so having weapons that are situational means the game isn't an FPS? I think you read into what I said a bit too much. I'm just not a fan of the shotgun being identical to a rifle. I like unique weapons and rewarding players who use the right weapons for situations. I get what you're probably thinking. That a rifle a that range is just as effective, but I'm saying it shouldn't be. Personal preference basically.

Kalbuth · 2011-10-07, 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Otherwise you just have RPG fitting screen combat. oops! You picked the wrong loadout, you lose!

Originally Posted by Sirisian

That's actually how I prefer things.

From what it seems, you're not advocating weapon specificities, you're advocating that loadout should decide the outcome of a fight

Sirisian · 2011-10-07, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Kalbuth

From what it seems, you're not advocating weapon specificities, you're advocating that loadout should decide the outcome of a fight

What are "weapon specificities"? While you're at it, how is that different than the loadout a person has and the the general strengths/disadvantages of that loadout.

MasterChief096 · 2011-10-07, 12:43 PM

I think what Sirisian (although I disagree with 50% of what posts, agree with 25% and am indifferent to the other 25%) is trying to advocate switching the damage degradation rules around.

Lets take PlanetSide 1 for example. If you shoot a gauss rifle at someone point blank it does full 10 health damage. If you shoot at them at its maximum range where the bullet even renders, then it does maybe like 5-6 health damage (not sure on the numbers).

I think all Sirisian wants is for a sniper rifle to have reversed damage degradation. So basically if a sniper shoots someone 300m away and gets a headshot, its instant death, but if that same sniper shoots someone in the head from 5 meters away it might only do like 1/3 health or 1/2 health damage. The damage degradation would work in reverse to the other weapons, to give OSOK snipers a disadvantage to being able to actually have the OSOK feature.

This I wouldn't mind that much. It would force snipers to play smart and find good areas where they are at a distance from everyone else, and prevent people from becoming those halo/COD quick headshot twitch based killers that so many of them are.

It could be easily explained in the lore as an energy projectile that fires more slowly as soon as it leaves the weapon but accumulates momentum rapidly until 100-300m is its deadliest range, then dies down again after that again or something.

Traak · 2011-10-07, 12:49 PM

Reminds me of the rocket pistol that someone invented. The best defense for it was to run towards the wielder, because the rocket-propelled bullets would gain speed as they accelerated towards you through the air.

NapalmEnima · 2011-10-07, 02:11 PM

That's easy to explain. A projectile that continues to accelerate can be called a rocket.

As far as loadout dictating victory, I'm not so sure.

Lets throw some numbers around just for funsies.

Generic Shotgun can kill you (and then some) in two shots at point blank, which takes 1.2 seconds due to its rate of fire. Lets say each round does 75% of the damage needed to kill.

Generic rifle can kill you in 10 shots at point blank, which takes 1.5 seconds at point blank. Each round does 10% of the damage needed to kill.

Simply standing their and slugging it out, Generic Shotgun will win at close quarters, as it should, though not by a terribly wide margin.

If Generic Rifle gets the drop on someone with a Generic Shotgun, that shotgun has 0.3 seconds to orient and return fire in order to get a tie, less than that to come out on top. Theoretically possible, but only if your Damned Good.

Lets presume our two soldiers are both Damned Good, and can in fact orient and fire in precisely 0.3 seconds when someone starts shooting them in the back.

Slugging match outcome:
Rifle dies, shotty has 20% damage left.

Rifle gets the drop on shotty:
Both die (this is a rather stilted example, aiming for this very outcome)

Shotty gets the drop on rifle:
Rifle dies, shottys survives with 40% damage.

Okay, but we're on a battlefield. That first exchange isn't going to be your only one (unless you die of course), and not every exchange is going to be To The Death. You might take a stray rifle round or two going from A to B, perhaps a bit of shrapnel from a grenade. If the rifleman shows up with more than 25% damage, he's going to die to the first blast. A shotty-man with 25% damage can take two less bullets (8 instead of 10). That is huge.

And coming out the other side of such an exchange with Moar Health Left is likewise a Big Deal. If you don't get a chance to be patched up, you'll last that much longer the next time someone starts shooting at you.

Now this is heavily simplified, and leaves out lots of things like shield max/recharge, med kits, accuracy, cover, head shots, CoF bloom, and so on.

And if these numbers weren't tailored to make the "rifleman gets the drop on shottyman" perfectly even, it's quite possible the rifleman would win, after eating a single blast (ouch). In that scenario, victory is all about getting the drop on the other guy (in other words: "tactical" player skill). Ass-u-me'ing that every shot lands where it'll do max damage is ignoring "twitch" gamer skill, which isn't so kosher either.

So things can be balanced such that loadout might not dictate the outcome of a First Exchange, but it could certainly have an impact just a little down the road, or in a conflict that isn't simply mano-a-mano.

And this is an MMOFPS we're talking about here.

Fer instance: with the above numbers in a 3 rifles vs 3 shotguns slugging match:

0 seconds: 3 riflemen fire on a single target, doing damage fairly linearly at ~210% per second.
2 shotgun men fire on a single rifleman, instantly killing him. He fired a single round. The other shotgun man puts a round into rifleman #2.
0 & 1/7th seconds: first shotgunner has taken 50% damage
2/7: 70%
3/7: 90%
4/7: shotty 1: dead, shotty 2: 10%
5/7: 30%
6/7: 50%
1 second: 70%
1 1/7 : 90%
1.2: 2 remaining shottys fire again, killing rifleman #2, wounding #3: 75%.
1 2/7: shotty #2 dies

It'll take another 10/7ths of a second to kill shotty #3. After 8/7ths, that shotgunner will fire again, killing rifleman #3.

Result: a single shotgunner survives, with 20% health. I'm genuinely surprised at the outcome here. I figured that taking out one of the riflemen at the word "go" would make it a shoe-in for the shotgunners. I wonder if I'm missing Something Important here.

Ah. The "finer grained" damage of the riflemen allows them to lose less to overkill. If one of the shotgunners could put half his damage into each of two targets (unrealistic, some of the pellets would just miss), the shotgun opening volley could kill two of the riflemen, meaning when 1.2 seconds rolls around, that third rifleman will die to two mostly-healthy shotgunners.

Do this again with CQB high-RoF SMGs with the same DPS as the shotgun (150 @ 1.2 = 750 @ 6 = 125 DPS). 25 rps at 5 damage each gives the same DPS as a shotgun, but a better TTK (0.75 seconds instead of 1.2 (and a LOT of extra net traffic/hit detection)).

As far as net traffic is concerned, you can greatly reduce amount of vector data you send... eh... Idea Thread Time.

CutterJohn · 2011-10-08, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by MasterChief096

I think what Sirisian (although I disagree with 50% of what posts, agree with 25% and am indifferent to the other 25%) is trying to advocate switching the damage degradation rules around.

Lets take PlanetSide 1 for example. If you shoot a gauss rifle at someone point blank it does full 10 health damage. If you shoot at them at its maximum range where the bullet even renders, then it does maybe like 5-6 health damage (not sure on the numbers).

I think all Sirisian wants is for a sniper rifle to have reversed damage degradation. So basically if a sniper shoots someone 300m away and gets a headshot, its instant death, but if that same sniper shoots someone in the head from 5 meters away it might only do like 1/3 health or 1/2 health damage. The damage degradation would work in reverse to the other weapons, to give OSOK snipers a disadvantage to being able to actually have the OSOK feature.

This I wouldn't mind that much. It would force snipers to play smart and find good areas where they are at a distance from everyone else, and prevent people from becoming those halo/COD quick headshot twitch based killers that so many of them are.

It could be easily explained in the lore as an energy projectile that fires more slowly as soon as it leaves the weapon but accumulates momentum rapidly until 100-300m is its deadliest range, then dies down again after that again or something.

I prefer a TF2 solution. Have two fire modes, the low dps but extreme alpha charged shot, and a higher dps but low alpha/no headshot/crazy cof semi auto mode that is more useful at close ranges. You can differentiate between the two by saying the weapon is a semi automatic rifle with a gauss assist that ramps up the damage considerably but has a considerable charge time between full power shots. Without the charge it can act rather like an MA rifle, though of course it has a more limited ammo supply in pack and a more limited clip size, so it is definitely not an MA replacement. That would be a great sniper rifle imo.

But yeah.. Fitting screen combat sucks. AA guns can and should be useful against light armor. Shotguns should have slugs. Battle rifles should be able to countersnipe decently. Sniper rifles should be able to spam a close target if necessary. AV launchers should be able to take on air. Its not only fine, but preferable to have weapons be multirole. They just shouldn't perform as well as the equipment designed specifically for that role. There is a large difference between not performing as well and not performing at all, and can encompass variables that do not include DPS.

PSU seems to hate BF recently, but I love that game. The various major archtypes of weapons all share the same dps potential, they just differ severely in other attributes.. COF/Recoil, having a scope or not, ammo supply, amount of ammo in the mag. They all do good damage at long ranges. Yeah, they are different, but having a battle rifle doesn't preclude shooting at that sniper half the map away. It means you're disadvantaged in the contest, not that it can't be done. In PS it just can't be done, because not only does the bullet suffer massive degradation, it has a huge cof and simply stops existing well short of the max range of sniper rounds.

Bags · 2011-10-08, 12:36 AM

All the guns in BF feel the same to me... lol

Not knocking it for that, just sayin'.

CutterJohn · 2011-10-08, 04:16 AM

Largely because they go for a realistic model, and most guns just plain shoot the same. Take any battle rifle, slap a 100 round box mag on it, and you have yourself an LMG. Slap a scope on it, and you have a good sniper. Cut down the barrel, and use a short stock and a front pistol grip and you have a CQC weapon.

It won't be the best at any of those roles of course. A proper LMG will have a heavier barrel and a way to quickly change barrels, and more mass to dampen recoil. A proper sniper will have closer tolerances for better accuracy and use a heavier bullet to make wind less of a factor and improve performance at range. A proper CQC will be even lighter and use pistol bullets with less recoil and speed since at that range it doesn't matter. And those weapons can be used in other roles. M-249s are carried around(usually by someone burly) in CQC situations. The M-14 is a commonly used by designated marksmen, but was also at one time the standard issue rifle for the US army. Some weapons just have no other use of course.. M-95s are simply too large and heavy to be anything other than a sniper/anti material rifle, and shotguns, well, are shotguns. Slugs can aid in range, but its still not a rifled barrel.

MasterChief096 · 2011-10-08, 12:57 PM

I don't think anyone is advocating the extreme of "if the weapon doesn't fit the role, it should do zero damage." I think everyone is just interested in how much of an advantage should a guy have over another guy who has the right gear for the situation compared to someone who doesn't, and vice versa. For example, if I have an MA rifle and am 75m away from a dude with a sniper rifle, how much at a disadvantage should I be at based on the weapon's stats?

You can't say, "None, it should rely on player skill" because that is essentially saying that every weapon should be the same, and none should be better at certain situations or ranges than others.

Accuser · 2011-10-08, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by MasterChief096

I don't think anyone is advocating the extreme of "if the weapon doesn't fit the role, it should do zero damage."

That's how PS1 feels. Snipers at long range, MA at medium (maybe chaingun as well), HA at short, SA under cover... If you don't have the right weapon or don't like using one of those weapons, you're effectively locked out of that range/situation.

I think there's a good reason Battlefield's classes are popular in modern shooters. They're specialized to give you an advantage in their role, but skill can overcome having the wrong kit for the situation.

Gandhi · 2011-10-08, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Accuser

I think there's a good reason Battlefield's classes are popular in modern shooters. They're specialized to give you an advantage in their role, but skill can overcome having the wrong kit for the situation.

If that's what you're after just play TR and slap an MCG in every preset

Xyntech · 2011-10-09, 01:19 AM

I'd like to see HA dominate at short range, be somewhat effective at medium range and nearly useless at long range. The opposite for snipers.

Rifles I'd like to never really see dominate at any range, but be viable at all ranges. Obviously they would be the best choice at medium range, but I'd like to see them make a HA think twice about rushing in wildly at close range and be able to make snipers duck their heads even at long range.

I'd really like to see ambushing tactics encouraged though. Give someone at short range with a rifle a good chance of dropping someone with HA who didn't notice them. Likewise, if someone with HA got the drop on 2 or 3 people with rifles at short range, he should be able to kill at least a couple of them.

Sniping could be further kept in check if 3 or 4 riflemen could pin a sniper down at all but the longest sniping distances. Add in an element where a snipers aim is thrown off for a sec when they get hit, along with the obvious issue that they would need to retreat to heal if they took enough damage and snipers would need to be careful not to get in over their heads.