Fallout Studios Forums

Chyros, on 6 Oct 2010, 19:40, said:

Any fps that doesn't use hitscan would be just that from all the gripe you post about it.

Kalo, on 6 Oct 2010, 22:42, said:

Any fps that isn't CoD Modern Warfare would be just that from all the gripe he posts about it.
Why do you even bother discussing this with Chyros? You'd have more chance to chew a wall than to convince him since he actually doesn't give a damn about the other players who think differently from him.
I for one do love games with projectile bullets, it makes the sniping much more realistic than the one in CS 1.6 >_>

CJ, on 6 Oct 2010, 23:50, said:

I indeed don't give a damn what anyone will say on this point, I will always consider projectile bullets to be mechanistically flawed, a very strong personal preference of mine .

Far worse IMO is that bullets don't go where you aim though. If the game isn't about aiming, then how is it a shooter? If you depend solely on luck to kill someone, then how is it about skill?

Chyros, on 6 Oct 2010, 22:58, said:

You're missing the whole point, the actual skill is to be actually able to determine where the bullet will land, and not just always aiming at the head like an idiot. If you fired a sniper rifle at 500 meters IRL by aiming right at the target, I'd doubt you'd hit...

Nah I'm with Chyros on this, non-hitscan is just-frustrating tbh. Firing by leading is annoying in a faster-paced game.

CJ, on 7 Oct 2010, 0:13, said:

No, you're missing the point I'm trying to make. The bullet will

NOT

land where you aim at it. Even if it's stationary.

It fires randomly in a cone, just as if you fired it from the hip.

So you fire a bullet at an unknown trajectory against a target with an unknown trajectory, and the bullet takes [flight time + ping] seconds to get there, wherever "there" is.

...What's to aim about that?

scope, on 7 Oct 2010, 0:16, said:

Indeed!
Edited by Chyros, 06 October 2010 - 22:20.

Chyros, on 6 Oct 2010, 23:20, said:

Well I guess that's just because the game itself has a bad physics engine. When I was talking about projectile bullets I meant that it would act like a hitscan, but still take in consideration the gravity and wind to add a bit of realism, like what you can find in sniping games...

CJ, on 7 Oct 2010, 0:27, said:

It has nothing to do with the physics, the game is programmed to make all weapons inaccurate by a certain amount of degrees that's programmed for each weapon. The game WANTS you to not hit what you point at. It's the same system as in BC2 except a bit more severe.

Well you can't really call that projectile bullets then. BC2's system was really awful indeed, especially for the snipers... But you can't deny that the CoD4 sniping is far from being flawless either...

CJ, on 7 Oct 2010, 0:36, said:

Yahtzee usually knows very little about multiplayer gaming, but for once he actually had it spot on in his MW2 review which I happened to view again recently. He said "mechanistically MW2 is almost perfect: shots go where you point and most things you fire at can generally be trusted to die". This just is not the case for a game with projectile bullets or inaccurate gunfire, hence why I dislike it so much.

CoD 4 sniping only lacked lag compensation, which appeared in MW2. Apart from some balance issues I'd say it's actually quite perfect.

It'll never happen

Maybe it will, if someone releases a good sniping game
Sniper : Ghost Warrior could've done the trick if it didn't have all those AI bugs D;

Sorry, but Chyros. I (And all the players currently playing that caught on) can easily make three bullets hit on demand in BC2, assuming the server doesn't hiccup obviously. The guns are not hard to control, yeah, they have deviation. But what's so hard to understand about tapping your mouse gently at long to super long range? All of what you say leads me to believe you weren't good at it.


So, can you or Scope describe to me what makes it such a bad choice? Really though. When it works, there's nothing bad about it. Sure, you have to lead. But if you don't like that, the only reason I can surmise you dislike it is because you find it difficult. Yeah, it's "a lot more fast paced. But you can get that same fast paced effect if you throw a bunch of people in a room and hand them a gun and tell them to have a jolly old time.
Edited by Kalo, 07 October 2010 - 00:44.

I have to agree with Kalo on this. When I first started playing BC 2, I was raging so much because none of my bullets seemed to hit my enemy, but then Kalo told me to try firing in short bursts instead of holding down the trigger while screaming. Suddenly, I could actually get kills.

I dunno about the rest of the BC 2 players here, but I actually aim directly at my target's torso, much of the time, yet my bullets still hit and kill people, so I don't really get why everybody's complaining about the projectile system in the game.

Kalo, on 7 Oct 2010, 2:41, said:

The cone starts off quite expanded, and it doesn't even get bigger when firing unless you are moving. When it does, it grows very slowly. So why should I tap? You can't rely on the weapon shooting where you are pointing, and recoil doesn't have to negatively affect this. It seems a lot smarter to me to fire in full auto all the time actually since that at least gives you the chance that one of those random bullets might actually hit something.

Quote

It interferes with the flow of the game, makes it very slow-paced, doesn't make it so that you can actually kill a whole bunch of people with one magazine, doesn't reward quick thinking as much, and it's based on pure luck, instead of being fast-paced, fluid, reliable and rewarding to the skilled player who can think, aim and fire quickly. I think if you see two players in different spots, for example 45 degrees located away from each other, the game should enable you to reliably kill both of them in less than a second. This doesn't work in a game where you don't know what will happen if you pull the trigger and where you don't know the guy is dead until the game tells you that enough of your random bullets have hit to kill him. In hitscan games, you don't have to READ that your opponent is dead, you KNOW that your opponent is dead, even without the game telling you, because you shot at him, so you hit him, so he dies. Killing comes as a natural consequence of aiming well in hitscan games. You aim well, you will always make that kill. The same is never true in bullet projectile and inaccurate-ADS games. In CoD 4 and MW2, I can anticipate at which point in time the guy is going to die, which further opens massive opportunity for kicking arse. And if you can't even kill two people in one second, how on earth are you ever going to win a 2v1? And if you can't win a 2v1 (or a 3v1, or 4v1), where's the fun? It means the only factor is how many people of your team travel together at the same time.

It's much more fun if you can just run out and kill everything you see reliably and quickly IMO, that way at least you can make a difference. That way you can go behind enemy lines and go on a killing spree of 10 or more in one life regularly and see that you are actively making a difference, instead of your biggest contribution being to "follow the team well" and... I can't think of anything more you could do actually.

EDIT: this just in, it does use projectile bullets. They do move a little faster than the BC2 bullets that you could outrun, but still the same applies I'd say.
Edited by Chyros, 07 October 2010 - 06:29.

You could outrun bullets in BC2? Strange, someone chasing me with a Saiga 2k while I was running away killed me...

Destiny, on 7 Oct 2010, 8:47, said:

The bullets in BC2 go at 600 ms^-1 which means at long range you can move dozens of times your hitbox dimensions out of the bullet's flight path. The only guarantee of a hit is when you pull off a "dodge this", Matrix style, on someone.
Edited by Chyros, 07 October 2010 - 06:50.

I prefer it when bullets are affected by gravity, it's a matter of personal taste. But I I dislike fast-paced games, When you are too busy spraying bullets everywhere screaming: "TASTE SUM MOAR!" you don't get to...FEEL the game. Remember that awesome new Bioshock Infinite trailer? I FELT THE GAME! I felt the wind on my face and the sunshine and the clean thin air. Know what killed the athmosphere? The player, using a 19th century bolt-action rifle to snipe a guy about 1500 metres away, in a heigth where the wind would be insane, by aiming at his head. Bioshock never was very realistic, but this really killed it for me. I can understand that you want to be able to kill everything and everyone around you by being the fastest and most precise, but I prefer games where you have to think before you aim, predict speed, distance, stuff like that. It's hard and makes the game less speedy, but It makes the whole thing more about experience and skill.

Bullets not hitting at a distance where you should hit them sucks though, I can agree with you on that.

All around, it's more about athmosphere/tactical vs. pace/precision.
Edited by SquigPie, 07 October 2010 - 07:28.

Chyros, on 7 Oct 2010, 6:27, said:

Because even when you are firing your deviation is trying to reset. Are you seriously asking me WHY you should do that? We're telling you what works time and time again for us, yet you're relying on why instead of another persons solid experience.

Chyros, on 7 Oct 2010, 6:27, said:

I suppose it would make it slow paced if you didn't have the hang of it, and didn't know how to use it to your advantage. But it doesn't do that for a number of people, you're actually saying that BC2 is slow paced? That's not true.


I don't have to "Read". Err...No..I have it memorized on how many bullets it takes with my favorite weapon, so no. It's nothing like that. Sorry. Oh, and how are you doing to win in a 2v1? Luck, why the hell are you in a 2v1 situation? You're missing the whole point of the Battlefield series if you're trying to take this into account. You're suppost to be watching your squad mates back, this generally means you are within the vicinity of your squad. This isn't an action movie where you're the star, Chyros. All of these things you point out are ONLY taken into account if you're chilling on your own. And when you're on your own, it's actually good that you're thinking of these things. Because it shows you're not like the mindless masses who run around noob tubing like it's going out of style.

Chyros, on 7 Oct 2010, 6:27, said:

Before I say this, this right here shows you have good intentions. BUT :

When you ride your bicycle, do you do it with no wheels and wonder why it doesn't move? There's more to it than enemy infantry, there's ton more that you could do. Stopping the flow of armor via destroying them in their spawn, stealing the vehicles and bringing the fight to them. Or going behind enemy lines and capturing the flag. Or Jihadding people (Which is hilarious).


There's more to it than "Follow the team well." and "going on a killing spree of 10 regularly" As you can see with my suggestions.


Also, this post is meant to be informative and not offensive.
Edited by Kalo, 07 October 2010 - 07:34.

SquigPie, on 7 Oct 2010, 9:28, said:

Of course it's a matter of taste, but in a really fast-paced game you can get quite some rush, I promise you .

Quote

Fast aiming and quick target acquisition is at least as skillful IMO.

Kalo, on 7 Oct 2010, 9:32, said:

It's inaccurate by x degrees by default, and when you are firing, it's still x degrees inaccurate. There is nothing to reset.

Quote

Assuming all shots hit, which they won't, it will take roughly 1,0 to 0,75 seconds to kill someone in BC2, compared to MW's 0,2 to 0,3 seconds. This is disregarding bullet flight time and the fact the shots-to-hit ratio in BC2 is probably less than a third of MW's. I'd call that pretty slow-paced, yeah.

Quote

I don't see what would be wrong with that .

Quote

I don't take offence too easily .

I remember those few games i had on BC2 with Chyros, Wizard and AJ, no one worked with me as a team and we got our asses kicked
It was quite funny but sad at the same time. In a squad based shooter you need to stick with your team to make any kind of progress.

The reason it takes 1,0 to 0,75 seconds to kill someone is because you are supposed to work as a team. Everything in the game is balanced to the fact that you have one team mate by the side of you, firing bullets into the same guy (where, its probably going to be quicker to kill them). Thus making BC2 a fast paced game when you play it right. Its an unarguable fact that BC2 is much much better for people who want to work as a team in comparison to most of FPS games, especially MW2.

It is my opinion that the whole ''100 percent luck'' thing is extremely over dramatized :S I agree kills go faster in the CoD games but stating that aiming in BC2 or MoH is just like hipspraying and 100 percent luck is b.u.l.l.s.h.i.t. You need more bullets to kill someone because not all of them will automatically hit but that doesn't mean this game is 'luck'.

Expanding the argument on other fields which would make BC2 a better game is not really fair as the discussion is about the firing mechanics of a game though. Some players like CoD style, others like me, like the more varied gameplay that BC2 offers me. Theres little to be evangelised there.

To me the BC2 style mechanics are also an outcome as it allows me to play a game without having to go into a very concentrated adrenaline rush. I know that for lots of players it is exactly that which motivates them to play the game but I simply do not possess the discipline, skill or the material to play to such an extent and it would only serve to make me frustrated. A firing system that is not 100% based on the awesome gaming skills of the guy with much more experience than me nor is based completely on speed, suits me much better.

That is not saying that playing BC2 to a good extent requires less skill. It is less dependent off your reaction and aiming speed, so in CoD you will be more challenged to be faster and faster, but the higher variation in BC2 gameplay requires a lot more thought to the game itself and how to tactically approach every situation. It is true that you cannot go into a situation by yourself and expect to rely on your sole skills to kill the enemy squad of 4 every time, but a tactical approach (the fact that the maps are largely destructible helps greatly here ;D) works better and gives a lot more gratification if it actually works out.

On MoH itself I already found that although the kills are a bit faster due to more bullet damage, I dislike the game over BC2 in pretty much any other way, so I'll stick with battling the ruskies.
Edited by Shirou, 07 October 2010 - 09:28.

Chyros, on 7 Oct 2010, 7:49, said:

I myself play Red Orchestra quite a bit myself, and that game is pretty much one hit kills or at least will totally stop/shoot your guns out of your hands. And I find dodging a bullet travelling at correct speed (760ms^-1 for a Kar98k) with even bullet drop is pretty impossible. I shot many sprinting guys from 800m away, takes some epic leading and compensation of bullet drop, but still not what I would say he can dodge that more like you missed him.

Shirou, on 7 Oct 2010, 11:13, said:

It fires randomly in a cone, so technically it can always decide to make you miss every single shot you ever fired, even if they were aimed true. I'd call that 100% luck.

Quote

Fair enough, all of this is a matter of taste of course. I just happen to like the exact opposite .

ΓLambdaRhoTauThetaGamma, on 7 Oct 2010, 11:20, said:

The only reason it's difficult to dodge (though you could go on epic runs by zigzagging all the time) is because you can't dropshot or run diagonally. Basically the game just kills off agility so it's actually possible to hit someone.

Chyros, on 7 Oct 2010, 11:53, said:

No. While BC2 is basing the direction of every shot on random generator, this is (about 100% likely) a pseudo-random generator. A true random generator would be too much effort for Dice to include and the computations have to be made extremely fast, so it needs to be very simple. A simple pseudo-random generator even gives better results for players while still keeping up the veil that the game realistically generates bullet trajectories.

False generators won't have you miss every shot of your magazine on that far away enemy. So while technically you are right, I practically think its a bit more subtle. This is of course pure speculation, but I find it highly unlikely BC2 uses a true random generator. /nitpicking.

_{splitting the hair so you don't have to}
Edited by Shirou, 07 October 2010 - 16:21.