random deviation/spread in shooters

[kellhounds]

I believe this is a god awful mechanic since its invention and only dose harm in any game its in. I believe there should only be player inaccuracy not weapon/character inaccuracy.

why dose this mechanic exist, well for one to balance volume of fire weapons and restrict them to close quarters, two to make them easier to use. what happens when you give a high rate of fire weapon a wide spread is you essentially make it an area of effect weapon thirdly and the most shallow of all reasons to simulate real world weapons performance or character accuracy.

now you could achieve the first reason with better mechanics. if you want to restrict a weapon to CQC than make it damage drop off over distance. or if you want to make more difficult to use at distance use extreme muzzle jump and or low projectile velocity.

In tribes 2 there is a single weapon with random deviation and that's the chain gun, it would still be perfectly balanced with out a random spread because its already insanely difficult to hit players wising by at 200mph with a laser, no imagine having to lead your shots

it's not so bad in single player however it dose very little good, the only good it dose is on an aesthetic level. in multiplayer however it just brings way too much luck in to gunfights.

even shotguns would function better in video games with less spread, what if instead of a 3 foot spread at 10 meters to mitigate any need for aiming how about they get a tight 6 inch spread at 10 meters however with damage drop off over distance. it would be much more skill oriented, an effective CQC weapon instead of an easy one, and it would even be more realistic.


just some thoughts, discuss.

 

[Waffle_Man]

There is no such thing as a bad mechanic, only bad implementation.

Care to share any specific examples of spread being used poorly and how making all of the weapons perfectly accurate would have made the game better?

 

[evilneko]

Y'know, I used to play CounterStrike, way back when. Instead of bitching about bullets not always hitting exactly where the crosshairs were...we learned to anticipate and even use it to our advantage.

Some people complained about the dualies being so inaccurate. Me, I figured 'em out, and got to love embarrassing the fuck out of people by killing them with dualies.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I thought the days of bullets zooming in straight lines immediately into targets without realistic spread and drop off went out with the days of Quake and Doom? I thought you guys LIKED realism!
Seriously though, it doesn't really bother me that much. Of course the only FPS I've played in multiplayer recently is Bad Company 2 where ALL guns do it so I am kinda used to it and aim accordingly. It also widens the gap a bit between good players and bad ones.

 

[TorqueConverter]

I believe this is a god awful mechanic since its invention and only dose harm in any game its in. I believe there should only be player inaccuracy not weapon/character inaccuracy.

why dose this mechanic exist, well for one to balance volume of fire weapons and restrict them to close quarters, two to make them easier to use. what happens when you give a high rate of fire weapon a wide spread is you essentially make it an area of effect weapon thirdly and the most shallow of all reasons to simulate real world weapons performance or character accuracy.

now you could achieve the first reason with better mechanics. if you want to restrict a weapon to CQC than make it damage drop off over distance. or if you want to make more difficult to use at distance use extreme muzzle jump and or low projectile velocity.

In tribes 2 there is a single weapon with random deviation and that's the chain gun, it would still be perfectly balanced with out a random spread because its already insanely difficult to hit players wising by at 200mph with a laser, no imagine having to lead your shots

it's not so bad in single player however it dose very little good, the only good it dose is on an aesthetic level. in multiplayer however it just brings way too much luck in to gunfights.

even shotguns would function better in video games with less spread, what if instead of a 3 foot spread at 10 meters to mitigate any need for aiming how about they get a tight 6 inch spread at 10 meters however with damage drop off over distance. it would be much more skill oriented, an effective CQC weapon instead of an easy one, and it would even be more realistic.


just some thoughts, discuss.

What about similar weapons?

It's part of weapon balancing. If you are going to have a lot of weapons in a game and many of these weapons will be similar in nature then are going to have to find a way to make similar weapons distinct from each other yet balanced.

Weapon balance is one thing I will give CoD some credit. Take the RPD and AUG HBAR in MW2 for example. The RPD had great, precise, iron sights and was able to deal some serious damage at range but this came at the cost of slow reload times, slower player movement, long profile and poor hip fire accuracy. The aug was also a light machine gun like the RPD but had smaller magazine with a faster reload animation, higher ROF, smaller profile and quicker player movement speeds.

To further balance the two weapons within the light machine gun category, the aug was given a wider, less concentrated, firing pattern. This made a weapon that was superior to the RPD in terms of close combat run-and-gun, inferior at long ranges. You have to take iron sights and firing patterns into consideration when balancing weapons.

Why not have the aug use the RPDs accuracy, but with less bullet damage over distance? That would make it too similar to a assault rifle and destroy one of the unique attributes of the light machine guns, power.

 

[Smooth Operator]

The mechanic is ok if managed properly, which it rarely is.
Yes real weapons will have random deviation and cause random kills but guess what that feels like bullshit, so devs understand that it is a game and that it needs to feel like you made cool shit happen.

If you limit it so guns will not kill with stray bullets (only when you actually aim at people) then it feels far more solid, and if you give players more life then bullshityness is far less likely to happen.
But then we do haveto mention that in most modern shooters the spray and pray was designed to be a viable "tactic" so everyone wins, no matter how bad they are.

 

[DoPo]

Let me get this straight, OP is complaining about recoil? The thing any firearm has?

I believe this is a god awful mechanic since its invention and only dose harm in any game its in.

This "mechanic" is called realism. I dare you to empty a clip of any automatic weapon ever and not feel any recoil.

Spoiler: Here is an inexperienced person shooting a Desert Eagle just once

Here is a normal person shooting a Desert Eagle just once

Spoiler: And here is a normal person shooting a 1911

And here is a normal person shooting a 1911

You can assume that recoil in automatic weapons is similar to this but repeated many times in the span of just a few seconds. It is not uncommon at all to get a dislocated shoulder or another injury due to recoil (assuming you are a rookie).

why dose this mechanic exist

See above.

well for one to balance volume of fire weapons and restrict them to close quarters

See above.

two to make them easier to use. what happens when you give a high rate of fire weapon a wide spread is you essentially make it an area of effect weapon

It's called "suppressing fire" - one of the major reasons why automatic fire exists. Firearms that are meant to actually shoot people, either have means to switch auto fire off, or don't even have it in the first place. And by the way, a "area of effect weapon" will only be good for a few short seconds. After that, you are at the mercy of your target while you spend several times as much time to reload. The "area of effect weapon" is not a really useful strategy all of the time.

thirdly and the most shallow of all reasons to simulate real world weapons performance or character accuracy.

Yeah, so you do acknowledge it. I see you actually want your game to look

Spoiler: like this

like this

A noble and worthy goal, I say. Not at all shallow.

now you could achieve the first reason with better mechanics. if you want to restrict a weapon to CQC than make it damage drop off over distance.

Like it is meant to do, oh wait, it isn't.

or if you want to make more difficult to use at distance use extreme muzzle jump

So...recoil? You want recoil. Cool.

and or low projectile velocity.

Bullets travel at approximately 900 m/s (maybe more or less depending on the weapon. That's the average speed I found). Most shooters I've played don't have big enough maps to make taking the speed into account significant.

And finally, there are shooters like you describe. Why don'y you go and play them instead of complaining about what you don't like. Quake has very few weapons with actual recoil. Usually machine guns. And has the plasma weapons which has slow moving projectiles. Sniper: Elite takes realistic approach and it's still extremely dependant on skill. Well, the settings can be changed, but you may have to account for the distance and the wind, if using a sniper rifle. Not just "Put crosshairs on enemy. Shoot." That will get you nowhere fast. And there are many others.

 

[Magikarp]

Let me get this straight, OP is complaining about recoil? The thing any firearm has?

I think he's complaining about deviation, as in the bullet not going exactly where the crosshair is.

 

[DoPo]

Let me get this straight, OP is complaining about recoil? The thing any firearm has?

I think he's complaining about deviation, as in the bullet not going exactly where the crosshair is.

OK, sorry, recoil and inaccuracy. Most of it is recoil, not the inherent inaccuracy of the weapon, though.

 

[synobal]

If you've ever fired a weapon you'd learn very quickly that most video games are utterly terribly accurate compared to the real deal. The pistol is one of the biggest things, it's sooooo easy to miss with a pistol at anything approaching a distance yet in most video games you can move and fire at the same time with very little trouble.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Fixed spread is probably a better way of accomplishing the same thing.

 

[NightHawk21]

Actually I have no problem with it to an extent. Realistically, you fire a gun from the hip and your gonna get some spray (probably not as much as in the videogame if your a trained soldier, but some). The only time I have a problem with this is on sniper rifles. Lets take MW2 as an example. The Sniper rifles have a crosshair that takes up half the screen, and you can literally shoot the gun at a wall 3 feet away and have it hit by your shoulder. That right there is just dumb IMO. I would rather they take away the cross hairs on snipers completely, but make the crosshair smaller.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

Guns are more inaccurate that you realize in real life. A chain gun isn't actually designed to hit anything. Its designed for suppressive fire to force the enemy to take cover giving your allies time to flank them.

The only gun that should be 100% accurate is a laser gun. As light isn't affected by wind or distance. Except perhaps in a loss of energy way, but never accuracy.

 

[Sandjube]

I never minded it, except when for some reason games think that unless you're looking down your scope, your sniper rifle magically fires at such angles that would be impossible (Looking at you, CoD). Like really, in most games if you don't scope, you just have to fire in the direction and hope you're accurate. In CoD the bullets can more or less go in ANY DIRECTION, even like at a 90 degree angle to your barrel. it's ridiculous.

Actually I have no problem with it to an extent. Realistically, you fire a gun from the hip and your gonna get some spray (probably not as much as in the videogame if your a trained soldier, but some). The only time I have a problem with this is on sniper rifles. Lets take MW2 as an example. The Sniper rifles have a crosshair that takes up half the screen, and you can literally shoot the gun at a wall 3 feet away and have it hit by your shoulder. That right there is just dumb IMO. I would rather they take away the cross hairs on snipers completely, but make the crosshair smaller.

Oh I got ninja'd damn.

 

[Atmos Duality]

It depends on the relative speed of the game, and the relative speed of the projectiles.

Halo for the longest time was the standard for consoles; relatively slow movement with a mix of hitscan (instant-hit) and projectile weapons. Piss easy to play on PC, much better balanced for controllers.

The Quake series (through 3 anyway; nobody cares about Q4) also had such a mix and played a bit faster, but the primary weapon by which everything else was compared was the Rocket Launcher, because it mixed utility, firepower, AND strategy (Q3 ultimately devolved into Longest Yard Rocket vs Rail matches for most of its life).

For Quake, projectile spread was limited to most hitscan weapons (shotguns, machineguns/chainguns). For Halo, it was barely present at all.

For Modern Wankery/Counterstrike/"real guns" shooters...you're going to see far more hitscan or near-hitscan weapons, so spread and recoil is the only way to keep every game from degenerating into "I see you first, I win" sniper-battles and close-quarter ambushes, where evasive maneuvers and positioning have little impact.

Historically, you will find that the most game-breaking weapons in shooters in general are recoil-free hitscan weapons because they enable easy sniping at any range. The Pistol in Halo 1. The Sniper Rifle in UT99'. The AWP in Counterstrike. The Railgun in Quake 2 and 3.

And that logic translates into modern day burst-fire abuse in Modern Wankery titles and their ilk, only now you have Win-More effects for killstreaks that kind of steal the show.

If you want a REAL basis for comparison to see the logic behind FPS weapons, accuracy and relative player speeds, go download Tribes 2 and give it a whirl (it's legally free). Despite the average player velocity (movespeed) being among the quickest in any FPS I know, there are only a handful of hitscan weapons, and each one has some sort of drawback.

There is no such thing as a bad mechanic, only bad implementation.

There are a few mechanics I'd be hard-pressed to justify in any given situation, though in theory that is correct. Effects that steal item drops from other players in MMOs for instance...(Dofus)

 

[kellhounds]

It depends on the relative speed of the game, and the relative speed of the projectiles.

Halo for the longest time was the standard for consoles; relatively slow movement with a mix of hitscan (instant-hit) and projectile weapons. Piss easy to play on PC, much better balanced for controllers.

The Quake series (through 3 anyway; nobody cares about Q4) also had such a mix and played a bit faster, but the primary weapon by which everything else was compared was the Rocket Launcher, because it mixed utility, firepower, AND strategy (Q3 ultimately devolved into Longest Yard Rocket vs Rail matches for most of its life).

For Quake, projectile spread was limited to most hitscan weapons (shotguns, machineguns/chainguns). For Halo, it was barely present at all.

For Modern Wankery/Counterstrike/"real guns" shooters...you're going to see far more hitscan or near-hitscan weapons, so spread and recoil is the only way to keep every game from degenerating into "I see you first, I win" sniper-battles and close-quarter ambushes, where evasive maneuvers and positioning have little impact.

Historically, you will find that the most game-breaking weapons in shooters in general are recoil-free hitscan weapons because they enable easy sniping at any range. The Pistol in Halo 1. The Sniper Rifle in UT99'. The AWP in Counterstrike. The Railgun in Quake 2 and 3.

And that logic translates into modern day burst-fire abuse in Modern Wankery titles and their ilk, only now you have Win-More effects for killstreaks that kind of steal the show.

If you want a REAL basis for comparison to see the logic behind FPS weapons, accuracy and relative player speeds, go download Tribes 2 and give it a whirl (it's legally free). Despite the average player velocity (movespeed) being among the quickest in any FPS I know, there are only a handful of hitscan weapons, and each one has some sort of drawback.

There is no such thing as a bad mechanic, only bad implementation.

There are a few mechanics I'd be hard-pressed to justify in any given situation, though in theory that is correct. Effects that steal item drops from other players in MMOs for instance...(Dofus)

I wouldn't say the pistol in halo CE was cheap. most players took 5 to even 7 shots to kill spite the fact it was a 3sk weapon. granted if you were doing something silly like standing still than any monkey could kill you in a second with nearly any weapon, even the plasma pistol. even though halo CEs movement speed was lower, strafing was snappy, much less aim assist than later tiles, and you had a 90 degree FoV which makes it a bit more difficult to aim and made everything look much farther than it actually did. I find it hilarious when people say Halo CE had the best radar when in reality the CE radar only went out to 15 meters where as every other halo game has a 25 meter radar. I cant speak for quake but if the AWP is anything like the magnum than yeah the weapon is really cheap because it's OHK anywhere.

I'm a big fan of the tribes series and really there is only one weapon that has random deviation in tribes 2 and it dose not need it at all. the chain gun shoots very slow projectiles, and doesn't really deal much damage even if it was perfectly accurate than only very skilled players would be able to hit people that actually move. the random deviation though forces the weapon to be luck based.

and as for modern wankery titles, CoD is noobish because of the obscene amounts of aim assist, low head shot multipliers, insanely high torso damage, and low movement speed. I wouldn't say tap firing is an abuse as much as its the only logical way to shoot for those who can actually shoot straight. A proper aim down sights shooter should have very high head shot multipliers because of the inherently low movement speeds. have absolutely no aim assist whether it's on a console or not, and not have any random deviation.

 

[sextus the crazy]

Personally, I'd want to see gun weight affect "realistic" FPS games more often. It feels weird to me that machine guns are treated like high capacity magazine assault rifles in games like battlefield when an MG weighs usally 2 to 4 times as much as an AR. Having more recoil, passive gun sway (crosshairs don't sit still, as they shouldn't when aiming a 20 pound firearm), and longer gun switching and aim-down-sights time be better than having the guns be unrealistically weak or inaccurate (MG3, I'm looking at you).

 

[kellhounds]

I believe this is a god awful mechanic since its invention and only dose harm in any game its in. I believe there should only be player inaccuracy not weapon/character inaccuracy.

why dose this mechanic exist, well for one to balance volume of fire weapons and restrict them to close quarters, two to make them easier to use. what happens when you give a high rate of fire weapon a wide spread is you essentially make it an area of effect weapon thirdly and the most shallow of all reasons to simulate real world weapons performance or character accuracy.

now you could achieve the first reason with better mechanics. if you want to restrict a weapon to CQC than make it damage drop off over distance. or if you want to make more difficult to use at distance use extreme muzzle jump and or low projectile velocity.

In tribes 2 there is a single weapon with random deviation and that's the chain gun, it would still be perfectly balanced with out a random spread because its already insanely difficult to hit players wising by at 200mph with a laser, no imagine having to lead your shots

it's not so bad in single player however it dose very little good, the only good it dose is on an aesthetic level. in multiplayer however it just brings way too much luck in to gunfights.

even shotguns would function better in video games with less spread, what if instead of a 3 foot spread at 10 meters to mitigate any need for aiming how about they get a tight 6 inch spread at 10 meters however with damage drop off over distance. it would be much more skill oriented, an effective CQC weapon instead of an easy one, and it would even be more realistic.


just some thoughts, discuss.

What about similar weapons?

It's part of weapon balancing. If you are going to have a lot of weapons in a game and many of these weapons will be similar in nature then are going to have to find a way to make similar weapons distinct from each other yet balanced.

Weapon balance is one thing I will give CoD some credit. Take the RPD and AUG HBAR in MW2 for example. The RPD had great, precise, iron sights and was able to deal some serious damage at range but this came at the cost of slow reload times, slower player movement, long profile and poor hip fire accuracy. The aug was also a light machine gun like the RPD but had smaller magazine with a faster reload animation, higher ROF, smaller profile and quicker player movement speeds.

To further balance the two weapons within the light machine gun category, the aug was given a wider, less concentrated, firing pattern. This made a weapon that was superior to the RPD in terms of close combat run-and-gun, inferior at long ranges. You have to take iron sights and firing patterns into consideration when balancing weapons.

Why not have the aug use the RPDs accuracy, but with less bullet damage over distance? That would make it too similar to a assault rifle and destroy one of the unique attributes of the light machine guns, power.

CoD4 did it better, instead of random spread they had fixed sway for weapons like the M4, AK74u, Ak47, HK G36, and of course all snipers. this did not make them impossible to use at distance it did not even make their effectiveness random at distance as spread would. It just made ot more difficult to hit at those distances.

 

[kellhounds]

Personally, I'd want to see gun weight affect "realistic" FPS games more often. It feels weird to me that machine guns are treated like high capacity magazine assault rifles in games like battlefield when an MG weighs usally 2 to 4 times as much as an AR. Having more recoil, passive gun sway (crosshairs don't sit still, as they shouldn't when aiming a 20 pound firearm), and longer gun switching and aim-down-sights time be better than having the guns be unrealistically weak or inaccurate (MG3, I'm looking at you).

yeah it's hilarious that a 7lbs to 8lbs bolt action rifle has more sway than a 30lbs M60 GPMG

however you have to consider in BC2 the medic got LMGs because they had no anti vehicle capabilities. and really all the LMGs were terrible in that game after the M60 debuff.

 

[sextus the crazy]

Personally, I'd want to see gun weight affect "realistic" FPS games more often. It feels weird to me that machine guns are treated like high capacity magazine assault rifles in games like battlefield when an MG weighs usally 2 to 4 times as much as an AR. Having more recoil, passive gun sway (crosshairs don't sit still, as they shouldn't when aiming a 20 pound firearm), and longer gun switching and aim-down-sights time be better than having the guns be unrealistically weak or inaccurate (MG3, I'm looking at you).

yeah it's hilarious that a 7lbs to 8lbs bolt action rifle has more sway than a 30lbs M60 GPMG

however you have to consider in BC2 the medic got LMGs because they had no anti vehicle capabilities. and really all the LMGs were terrible in that game after the M60 debuff.

I don't know what ones you were using, but I found the MG36 & MG3 to be really, really useful. Come to think of it, the UMP .45 & M416 were awesome, too. Is Dice trying to tell us that the germans make good guns?