Future FPS Mechanic Development

Palerion · 2013-01-17, 10:37 PM

I understand that the devs have a lot on their plate right now, and rightfully so. What with base redesigning, vehicle balancing, and meta-game improvements, they are looking at a good deal of work ahead of them.

But in the meantime, I'd like to take a step into the future, when we have a more organized, more purposeful game; the bases are defensible, things start balancing out, and the meta-game is streamlined. When all these relatively important problems are fixed, might there be some work done on the FPS mechanics of the game?

This is, if course, not to say that they are bad right now, it just seems like they could be improved some in order to enhance the shooter experience some. I know that the big seller on the planetside franchise has always been large-scale warfare, and after all the issues mentioned above are ironed out, I think we will be much closer to that, but the shooter mechanics should still stand out and impress the player. Making the actual firefights look and feel more comfortable and attractive is a very important part of any shooter, and certainly should be for PS2. Overall I think it will benefit the game greatly as a future development.

Helwyr · 2013-01-17, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by Palerion

[...]When all these relatively important problems are fixed, might there be some work done on the FPS mechanics of the game?

This is, if course, not to say that they are bad right now, it just seems like they could be improved some in order to enhance the shooter experience some.[...]

I'm not sure I follow exactly what you mean by enhancing the shooter experience. Like fixing some of the hit detection issues? Removing more 'training wheel' mechanics like Spotting?

Ghoest9 · 2013-01-17, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by Palerion

I understand that the devs have a lot on their plate right now, and rightfully so. What with base redesigning, vehicle balancing, and meta-game improvements, they are looking at a good deal of work ahead of them.

But in the meantime, I'd like to take a step into the future, when we have a more organized, more purposeful game; the bases are defensible, things start balancing out, and the meta-game is streamlined. When all these relatively important problems are fixed, might there be some work done on the FPS mechanics of the game?

This is, if course, not to say that they are bad right now, it just seems like they could be improved some in order to enhance the shooter experience some. I know that the big seller on the planetside franchise has always been large-scale warfare, and after all the issues mentioned above are ironed out, I think we will be much closer to that, but the shooter mechanics should still stand out and impress the player. Making the actual firefights look and feel more comfortable and attractive is a very important part of any shooter, and certainly should be for PS2. Overall I think it will benefit the game greatly as a future development.

I think the "shooter mechanics" are one of the high points of the game.

Its possible we are talking about different things because you were rather vague though.

I think the only thing that needs a change is the flinch code.

KaskaMatej · 2013-01-18, 05:32 AM

I don't know how would you refine FPS mechanics even more than what we have now. we have balistics, recoil, sound and visuals... I really don't know.

Palerion · 2013-01-18, 08:16 AM

I was being careful not to be specific as to not attract flame. Maybe the word isn't FPS mechanics for some of the issues I'm thinking of, but perhaps for other parts it is. One thing that could be improved is the screen shaking when any explosion occurs within a mile's radius of you. But that obviously isn't FPS mechanics.

What I'm getting at is more the possibility of making the shooter mechanics easier to learn. I understand we don't want call of duty, but I've introduced some people to the game and they find it (as I did) hard to pick up and learn. Again, not bad, it's just that it seems like, on a scale of easy to hard (in terms of shooting), the lineup seems to be Call of Duty, Battlefield 3, Planetside 2. I would just propose making the shooting mechanics easier to learn.

Elgareth · 2013-01-18, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Palerion

What I'm getting at is more the possibility of making the shooter mechanics easier to learn. I understand we don't want call of duty, but I've introduced some people to the game and they find it (as I did) hard to pick up and learn. Again, not bad, it's just that it seems like, on a scale of easy to hard (in terms of shooting), the lineup seems to be Call of Duty, Battlefield 3, Planetside 2. I would just propose making the shooting mechanics easier to learn.

Errr...what? Aim at someone, left click to shoot. How much easier can shooting mechanics become?
That we'd need Tutorials of some sort (New Account, First Login puts you in a small, virtual world (basically a simulator) where Generators, Control Points, Hex System, the Shop/Certs are explained briefly... or just Textboxes explaining things once you stumble upon them) is obvious, but the shooting mechanics?

You'd have to be more specific, even if that opens up possibilities to flame if the idea is bad... however, without being more specific, one can't talk about it neither positively nor negatively, since noone knows what you want to say

Palerion · 2013-01-18, 09:13 AM

Alright. Well I guess I'll put it more clearly: recoil and spread combined with a system that requires sustained fire to pull out kills. It can be a bit of a challenge, and can really piss someone off when they find a guy standing still and put four shots into him before he runs off. The shooting plays like Battlefield 3, but in a frustrating way. Battlefield did it for the realism, Planetside 2 just took the recoil and spread that battlefield had and doubled the TTK.

Even for people who have played other first person shooters, it can be quite irritating. It takes about four headshots to get a kill, eight body shots at very close range. With that kind of TTK, Battlefield-style recoil and spread seem to be stupid mechanics. A future refinement of the system would seem ideal (in my eyes, of course others are entitled to their opinions).

EDIT: I am also aware that people have discussed the TTK being too low. I would be fine with higher TTK I guess, but again, it would not make sense with the same recoil and spread we have on the current weapons.

ShadetheDruid · 2013-01-18, 09:15 AM

Testing the weapons out in a safer environment, like a simulator (something like the one from the first game, but better), would be the best bet for new players.

At least, I assume you mean things like recoil and spread, which for people new (or newish) to FPSs or specifically the game itself might need to test out before they can get the hang of the weapons?

If so, a simulator is the way to go. Most people use the warpgate walls at the minute, which is fine but not perfect.

Edit: You explained while I was posting. Oh well.

Mietz · 2013-01-18, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Palerion

Alright. Well I guess I'll put it more clearly: recoil and spread combined with a system that requires sustained fire to pull out kills. It can be a bit of a challenge, and can really piss someone off when they find a guy standing still and put four shots into him before he runs off. The shooting plays like Battlefield 3, but in a frustrating way. Battlefield did it for the realism, Planetside 2 just took the recoil and spread that battlefield had and doubled the TTK.

Even for people who have played other first person shooters, it can be quite irritating. It takes about four headshots to get a kill, eight body shots at very close range. With that kind of TTK, Battlefield-style recoil and spread seem to be stupid mechanics. A future refinement of the system would seem ideal (in my eyes, of course others are entitled to their opinions).

EDIT: I am also aware that people have discussed the TTK being too low. I would be fine with higher TTK I guess, but again, it would not make sense with the same recoil and spread we have on the current weapons.

The problem isn't so much recoil and spread, its predictable recoil and random spread.

If you pay attention to the weapon mechanics the spread is completely random, not only that the COF is entirely an "RPG" mechanic where the ADS don't go where your bullets go.

The game is simulating COF in a very primitive way as if the guns themselves weren't accurate. IRL (just for perspective sake) the inaccuracy comes from the shooter, not because the barrel is bent or doesn't shoot straight.

Generally where you put your crosshair, the bullet should go. If you want to simulate spread (from recoil), make the ADS jump where the bullet is going, so we can actually compensate for it.

Here are recoil plots for nearly all guns:
http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/i...l-plots.74987/

Recoil is predictable and you can "get used" to a weapon, COF is just completely random BS.

If you removed COF and gave more varied horizontal recoil, it would make the guns behave more consistently.

It would certainly be an improvement for the shooting. Right now it feels its a good 30% luck if my bullets hit or not at medium range where the hitbox size doesn't guarantee a hit.

ShadetheDruid · 2013-01-18, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Mietz

Recoil is predictable and you can "get used" to a weapon, COF is just completely random BS.

CoF is still controllable through burst fire. It's not like it's completely random and uncontrollable.

Kerrec · 2013-01-18, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Mietz

The problem isn't so much recoil and spread, its predictable recoil and random spread.

If you pay attention to the weapon mechanics the spread is completely random, not only that the COF is entirely an "RPG" mechanic where the ADS don't go where your bullets go.

The game is simulating COF in a very primitive way as if the guns themselves weren't accurate. IRL (just for perspective sake) the inaccuracy comes from the shooter, not because the barrel is bent or doesn't shoot straight.

Generally where you put your crosshair, the bullet should go. If you want to simulate spread (from recoil), make the ADS jump where the bullet is going, so we can actually compensate for it.

Here are recoil plots for nearly all guns:
http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/i...l-plots.74987/

Recoil is predictable and you can "get used" to a weapon, COF is just completely random BS.

If you removed COF and gave more varied horizontal recoil, it would make the guns behave more consistently.

It would certainly be an improvement for the shooting. Right now it feels its a good 30% luck if my bullets hit or not at medium range where the hitbox size doesn't guarantee a hit.

I haven't dug into the details of how PS2 weapon mechanics work, but I DO understand how the BF3 weapon mechanics work. Everyone says SOE just copied BF3, so I'm going to go out on a limb...

Cone of Fire (known in BF3 circles as Random Bullet Spread) is a concept that penalizes sustained automatic fire, and rewards controlled fire discipline. All guns have a minimum COF and the longer you hold that trigger down, the larger the cone gets.

Cone of Fire also creates distinction between different weapons, as far as how their effectiveness at range is concerned. A weapon that has a large COF (either base, or how fast it grows) will not be good at long ranges, and barely adequate at medium ranges. Weapons that have small COF (base AND how fast it grows) WILL be good at long ranges. This creates a distinction between weapons, making sure they don't all seem the same (or making sure that ONE weapon doesn't make all others irrelevant). What the game designers do is pair COF with Rate of Fire, to keep small cone of fire weapons from dominating everywhere. So close range weapons with large COF will have high rates of fire, and small COF weapons will have low rates of fire. It is THESE variables that give weapons their distinctiveness.

Remove COF so that bullets go where the crosshair is pointed, and you have lasers. Weapons will no longer have any distinction other than the one that shoots the most bullets downrange. Even things like bullet drop are not valid balancing variables, because they are constant. So one class will have THE best weapon, and each classes will have their own BEST weapon. All the other weapons will be irrelevant and some classes who are weapon "accuracy" dependant, like the infiltrator, will become obsolete.

I've seen years of people moaning and groaning about COF/RBS and how the bullet comes out of the barrel at an angle (Cone of Fire was integrated as far back as BF2, AFAIK). That is just weaving semantics to justify a weak argument. Stop thinking of COF as a weapon statistic, and start thinking of it as a (Weapon + Soldier) statistic. Instead of creating a poinless visual mechanic that shows how your weapon crosshair is varying relative to your soldier crosshair, both of which are being kicked around by weapon recoil, game developpers have simplified it to Cone of Fire. Just think about it: The slowest weapons spit out 600 bullets per minute, the fastest ones around 800 per minute. 600 bullets per minute is equal to 10 bullets every second. So you want to be able to correct your aim every 0.1 seconds (for the SLOW guns!)? Get real... you don't even know what you're asking for. If the screen was shaking like that I would just get a headache or get nauseous.

You say you want to be able to "correct" for Cone of Fire. Well, stop holding down the mouse button. THAT is how you "correct" your cone of fire.

Mietz · 2013-01-18, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

CoF is still controllable through burst fire. It's not like it's completely random and uncontrollable.

Well it IS random, and hence uncontrollable.
This isn't about burst, you can burst compensate with horizontal recoil as well.

Its about how COF is a random "cone" its not the recoil that makes your gun shake and point your ADS off target, its a calculated random cone where the bullets will go.

Mietz · 2013-01-18, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

Stop thinking of COF as a weapon statistic, and start thinking of it as a (Weapon + Soldier) statistic.
[...]
You say you want to be able to "correct" for Cone of Fire. Well, stop holding down the mouse button. THAT is how you "correct" your cone of fire.

You correct for an imaginary statistic. I am the soldier. Else you are making an RPG and should give my soldier a mechanic to level up his accuracy and reduce the COF for this weapon. You actively remove control from me, the person who is supposed to actually target and shoot, in a shooting game.
Or, if you want to go this route, then also add recoil to the "soldier" statistic, after all, why keep them separate?

Especially with shot re-centering the suggestion of controlling burst is pointless.

Out of curiosity, did you ever play games that have this? (Red Orchestra 1/2, ARMA, etc.)

Kerrec · 2013-01-18, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Mietz

Well it IS random, and hence uncontrollable.
This isn't about burst, you can burst compensate with horizontal recoil as well.

Its about how COF is a random "cone" its not the recoil that makes your gun shake and point your ADS off target, its a calculated random cone where the bullets will go.

You're still not getting it. All guns have a base Cone of Fire. All guns will increase this Cone of Fire at different rates. Guns that are supposedly good at long range will have small base cone of fire, and the growth of their cone of fire will be small. The base value is often plenty good to hit your target regularly, but the longer you hold that trigger down, the more the cone grows and the less bullets end up hitting your target.

So you can CONTROL your cone of fire, by controlling how big you allow it to get. Burst fire lets the cone reset to base size, so it never gets so big that you're missing more than you're hitting.

P.S. A gun that is categorized as close range will have a large base Cone of Fire. So even doing controlled bursts with that kind of gun will not allow you to hit reliably at long ranges. That is the whole point, and how some weapons are defined as short, medium or long range weapons.

Mietz · 2013-01-18, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

You're still not getting it. All guns have a base Cone of Fire. All guns will increase this Cone of Fire at different rates. Guns that are supposedly good at long range will have small base cone of fire, and the growth of their cone of fire will be small. The base value is often plenty good to hit your target regularly, but the longer you hold that trigger down, the more the cone grows and the less bullets end up hitting your target.

So you can CONTROL your cone of fire, by controlling how big you allow it to get. Burst fire lets the cone reset to base size, so it never gets so big that you're missing more than you're hitting.

P.S. A gun that is categorized as close range will have a large base Cone of Fire. So even doing controlled bursts with that kind of gun will not allow you to hit reliably at long ranges. That is the whole point, and how some weapons are defined as short, medium or long range weapons.

Are we talking past each other?
Because I understand perfectly well how the weapons work in PS2.

I'm not interested in controlling the COF bloom.