PDA

View Full Version : Weapon's weight penalties on aiming...


Kyle Kellahshehskee
8th May 2005, 10:37 AM
(1) The heavier and longer a weapon is, the harder it is to steady, and the more difficult it is to maintain steadiness while aiming.*

(2) The greater the number of attachments on a weapon, the more difficult it becomes to steady due to the added encumbrance. Now this next suggestion would be probably REALLY pushing the workload for Sentry Studios, but the PLACEMENT of the attachment could also effect its handling capabilities. The further out the attachment is from the center of the player's body mass, the greater the instability.

And perhaps a "loosening of parts" POTENTIAL penalty could be added to the attachments. Having spoken to servicemen and from reading tons of firsthand accounts, it's not an uncommon experience for an attachment to become loosened during the course of battle. The rattling of the weapon during firing, combined with the weapon bumping and banging into things while moving has and does lead to the attachments becoming loosened from their moorings, and thus making life MORE complicated for the attachment's user.

Maybe every time a player bumps the weapon into the environment, there's a percentage chance that the weapon gets loosened to one degree or another. For every "x" number of rounds fired, there's a percentage chance that the attachment gets loosened. So on and so forth...




*Please note that I feel that this weight penalty should also apply to the weight of the AMMO. The penalty for using a drum of ammo would be greater than someone who's using a magazine.

This may even help to curb all those INF players, such as myself, from always taking a drum of ammo instead of a magazine. After all, there aren't any minuses in doing so, just pluses, so take the drum man. TAKE the drum!

If this kind of weapon's weight penalty was to be combined with my adjustable attributes suggestion, found here: http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?t=158220 then the strength modifier could have a meaningful impact in regards to the kinds of weapons a player chooses based on his/her physical attributes.

Psychomorph
8th May 2005, 11:45 AM
Yeah, for example sight damage would be good and make the back up sights useful. Also I would dream of having the scopes getting steamed when beeing in a cold surrounding and entering a warm room.
What about attachments beeing shooted off :p?

About the AK drum. I also thought about that they is to less penalty. I think reloading should be slower, due to the mag is huge and not as fast to grab and retreive as a lean magazine.
Magazines should be the one to have the fastest reloading, not the slap into weapon and spann, but the whole useage.

Taque
8th May 2005, 12:30 PM
Uh, the drum already has a drawback - it's bulk it quite a bit higher than magazines for the amount of ammo you get from it (at least from AKM, remind me about AKMSU?).

Psychomorph
8th May 2005, 12:52 PM
AKMSU uses the exact same drum. I noticed yesterday, that the drum color that a guy used with his AKMSU, which was bright earlier, has now the darker skin as the AKM.

The drawback of weight of the drum is truth, but not enough.

- Lich -
8th May 2005, 03:17 PM
Aeh, and its not true...first package of ammo does not count, so...

2 drums, 150 rounds: 6 bulk
5 mags, 150 rounds: 8 bulk

4 drums, 300 rounds: 18 bulk
10 mags, 300 rounds: 18 bulk

Kyle Kellahshehskee
8th May 2005, 08:03 PM
Psychomorph,

Initially I really liked your idea about scopes/laser sights getting steamed up, but in all my years of hunting in the Great White North (Northeastern Michigan) I've only have had that happen to an extremely limited degree, and was completely avoidable so long as I didn't pass the scope too close to my nose on its way to my eye.

However, I strongly feel that your idea of attachments getting damaged/destroyed by incoming rounds is a superb one to make. The value, then, of iron sights is that they're much smaller to hit by default, and thus one's more assured that they'll be useful to the player for a longer period of time.

Lich, your information regarding how the first unit of ammo in regards to bulk doesn't count against the player is quite a revelation to me. Wow!

I feel that it's important for me to state that I strongly believe that whatever values are assigned to weapons and gear, that they be kept as realistic as possible. I really loathe the idea of a game that claims to be "authentic" when in fact it defies reality by "balancing" items by tweaking their real world values. It's the primary reason why games like Full Spectrum Warrior, Close Combat: First to Fight, Brothers in Arms, and Call of Duty feel so fake to me. Their makers blow their horns about how "outstanding in their realism" they are, and then, lo and behold, they're about as real as playing Halo.

I hope that the next incarnation stays rigidly true to its maxim.

Derelan
8th May 2005, 10:33 PM
I think it would be a great idea to have a players arms get tired if they are aiming a considerably heavy weapon for quite a long time. This would be great to balance the game away from camping, which the game currently seems to make you want to do.

Kyle Kellahshehskee
8th May 2005, 11:22 PM
Derelan,

The whole "arms get fatigued quicker by aiming heavier weapons" suggestion is definately a very strong one, and utterly believable for when one is in the crouching or standing positions. It is also a GREAT balancing feature that would probably work quite well with an adjustable physical attributes system.

It may have what I feel to be a nominal effect on camping. People can always still camp even with such a system in place. While I mostly tend not to practice camping myself, I'm not totally against it either, since camping DOES occur in the real world too. One just has to know how to flush those stubborn buggers out. :-D

Perhaps camping could be best addressed by making a mutator that "auto-kills" the LAST player on a team if they're relatively unharmed and they camp for more than 30 seconds at a time. This way they have to keep moving, but have enough time to recover stamina if that is something they're periously low on.

But that's ANOTHER topic... lol

yurch
9th May 2005, 12:11 AM
I think it would be a great idea to have a players arms get tired if they are aiming a considerably heavy weapon for quite a long time. This would be great to balance the game away from camping, which the game currently seems to make you want to do.It will do nothing for 'camping'. Take any fatigue you would have from aiming stationary and double it for a moving person. Maintaining a proper aiming posture at a walk or even worse, a moving crouch, is far harsher on the muscles.

'Camping' will probably become more and more favorable if the game moves closer to realism. The situations or gametypes are the only actual way to force the players to move.

5eleven
9th May 2005, 01:13 AM
I have a suggestion:

While you are playing, wear a 40 pound rucksack and jog in place. That should be penalty enough.

Seriously, with all the suggestions in the short time that I've played Infiltration, including some of my own, with only a few exceptions, this is just going to have to be as real as it gets. The engine is old, the tweaking, although absolutely exceptional, seems to have about reached it's limit. I'm not really discouraging your suggestion, but the godz here have implemented as much as humanly possible. I have to remind myself at times that emulating a combat situation on a stationary computer screen will always have limitations. ;)

Kyle Kellahshehskee
9th May 2005, 09:57 PM
The recommendations that have been made here by me are not intended for the UT engine, but rather the H-L 2 one. The same goes for all of my other recent posts under the subject heading of "New Version Suggestions."

I'm hoping that these kinds of features are folded into Sentry's next incarnation of this game.

5eleven
10th May 2005, 01:01 AM
aha, touche. good call. guess i should have noticed that it was in the new version suggestions thread. :lol:

Gnam
10th May 2005, 03:46 PM
It's the primary reason why games like Full Spectrum Warrior, Close Combat: First to Fight, Brothers in Arms, and Call of Duty feel so fake to me. Their makers blow their horns about how "outstanding in their realism" they are, and then, lo and behold, they're about as real as playing Halo.

I understand your point, but incidentally, what's do bad about Brothers in Arms? There are a couple things (object penetration, infinite MG42 ammo, gunner invincibility, 2 primary weapons for squad leader) that are out of wack, but overall it seemed to be pretty accurate.

Kyle Kellahshehskee
10th May 2005, 11:08 PM
My biggest complaint about Brothers in Arms, and this is true for even its most "realistic" difficulty setting, is that it is completely "canned." It may SEEM like it's not a rail shooter, but it very much is.

While one's free to roam the map, encounters with enemies are all strategically scripted. For example, when one encounters a squad of Germans on the West side of a village, one never has to worry about another squad (let alone a small element that's sent to investigate what all the racket's about) moving in from the Southwest. Why? Because they haven't been spawned yet as the variables to spawn them have yet to be met. What kind of variables? Did the player cross this boundary? Has all the enemies from the already triggered spawn point been killed yet? Has the timer for event "x" been completely counted down? If the answer to any one of these is "No" then one isn't ever going to encounter another group of enemies while your teams are battling others. Oh, if only all wars could be this cooperative! Lame. Lame. LAME.

Weapon accuracy is a joke. While I've never fired in real life any of the firearms in the game, I am utterly confident that when I have a stationary enemy square in my sights at only 5 yards distance that I AM going to hit him. Not in Brothers in Arms. This happens so frequently it's ridiculous.

Watch your teammates get killed. And then next level they're back. Now THAT's what I call "realism."

The hype surrounding this game is just that: h-y-p-e. And VERY overblown, and VERY unrealistic. It's a cleverly disguised rail shooter, but that's still all it is. A rail shooter.

I don't have a problem with anyone enjoying these kinds of games, but I do have a MAJOR problem when the companies that make them are lying through their teeth about them. It's my assessment that Brothers in Arms has a very long way to go before it reaches "realism." And this is my main grumbling point.

gal-z
21st May 2005, 06:02 PM
Along with fatigue I think weapons should have some sort of "intertia" which will be more bothersome to handle with heavy weapons.
Also you should add addo weight - and as you shoot the ammo reduce its weight accordingly, so an empty drum doesn't weight like a full one.

Nukeproof
22nd May 2005, 04:28 AM
They do already have minimum inertia. It was discussed in 2.9 beta phase but it just felt akward to the testers (pretty much like lag) to have a stronger effect, so it was reduced to a bare minimum.

yurch
22nd May 2005, 02:26 PM
'Inertia' in game applications usually just helps all the wrong weapons. What is it, time to speed up, time to slow down? You'll find that doing either is a real pain in the ass with a mouse, which is a device that measures solely displacement.

Also, bear in mind that adding any sort of speed element to the mouse can often spell a framerate dependancy. That's bad.

gal-z
27th May 2005, 08:01 AM
Well being able to turn 180deg with any weapon in 0.01 sec is unrealistic anyway, so something should be done. If that's impossible/not practical, then at least make it more difficult to aim by making heavier weapons harder to stabilize (take longer and more shaky when not stabilized) based on their bulk/weight, which should include the weight of the ammo currently inserted in the weapon (a mag or a near-empty drum/box shouldn't have same effect as a full 200 round box).

Derelan
27th May 2005, 04:10 PM
Well being able to turn 180deg with any weapon in 0.01 sec is unrealistic anyway, so something should be done. If that's impossible/not practical, then at least make it more difficult to aim by making heavier weapons harder to stabilize (take longer and more shaky when not stabilized) based on their bulk/weight, which should include the weight of the ammo currently inserted in the weapon (a mag or a near-empty drum/box shouldn't have same effect as a full 200 round box).
Done.

RTFM.

gal-z
28th May 2005, 09:52 AM
Done where? I'd like to play around with it :P
link please? Sorry for not being up to date as I'm not home much.

Derelan
28th May 2005, 10:08 AM
Done where? I'd like to play around with it :P
link please? Sorry for not being up to date as I'm not home much.
Heavier weapons turn much slower and have more weapon sway, as stated in the INF manual, one of the reasons to prefer submachine guns over assault rifles, and why the Minimi isn't always a great CQB weapon.

gal-z
7th Jun 2005, 08:29 AM
Well I guess you don't feel it enough... As well as not taking everything into consideration (like ammo weight).

keihaswarrior
12th Jun 2005, 06:05 PM
Derelan, I am pretty sure that the inertia effect only exists for the sniper rifles and minimi. Even then it is extremely tame and basically not noticable.

Derelan
13th Jun 2005, 01:20 PM
They do already have minimum inertia. It was discussed in 2.9 beta phase but it just felt akward to the testers (pretty much like lag) to have a stronger effect, so it was reduced to a bare minimum.
So it seems that the full noticeable inertia effect doesn't work to well according to the testers.

I think Call of Duty was a good example of how intertia was implemented in weapons.

Gnam
18th Sep 2005, 03:16 AM
Weapon accuracy is a joke. While I've never fired in real life any of the firearms in the game, I am utterly confident that when I have a stationary enemy square in my sights at only 5 yards distance that I AM going to hit him. Not in Brothers in Arms. This happens so frequently it's ridiculous.
Actually, funny you should mention that. I had the same experience early on, feeling like the weapons were shooting 'off', but after playing the game a while, I came to realize what was actually going on...

- sometimes when standing behind cover, the sandbags, wall, or bush in front of you can block your bullet, even if it apears that your weapon is angled over the obstruction. This can happen in particular due to sway; one second your weapon is unobstructed at the height of the sway, then when the sway sinks to the lowest point, it becomes obstructed. Thus, some of your shots apear to be hitting near the target, while others seem to "disapear" because they are being blocked by the wall at various points durring your breathing cycle

- there are no 1-hit-kills in BIA, except with the sniper rifles (which magically kill in one hit anywhere even though they shoot the same round as other rifles which kill in 2 hits). Even headshots do not kill in 1 hit, though sometimes it apears that they do because the enemy you're targeting was allready shot without your knowledge. Furthermore, enemies don't always make the characteristic "yiaah!" scream when hit, sometimes making no sound at all, and they respond to the shot by standing up and running to another barrel or part of the wall (like they respond to pretty much everything). Thus, you'll shoot them, and hit, but it looks like you missed, because there is no apperant effect, but in fact, the next time you hit them, they will go down with only 1 hit as if they have taken damage previously.

- the hitboxes for the enemies when they are crouching behind cover are a little skewed. When enemies are crouching behind cover, and all you can see is the tip of their helmet, the hitbox does not cover the very tip of the helmet. So from most angles where you can see the tip of the helmet, the bullet passes through and register. From other angles though, particularly up close, you can hit it if you aim well enough. However, sometimes when you hit, you won't realize it, because the enemy doesn't react.

- AFAIK the hitbox for the enemy when he's peeking over the top of the cover is the same as when he's still crouching down. I don't think I've ever hit an enemy durring this animation unless his lower body was exposed and I aimed low. If you aim for the head, neck, or shoulders, I don't think it will register.

So, it's not really the accuracy of the guns that's bad (although I think sway when standing is excessive), the weapons will hit where you're aiming, it's just that the damage models and hit detection tend to screw things up.

I agree with your other points as well, but I don't really mind the flaws of the game so much. I definitely would like the game better if they weren't there, but it's not so bad, to me. It's still basically the most realistic commercial game out there. I don't think I've seen any game that's not a 3rd party mod with anywhere near the level of realism that BIA is at.

Gnam
18th Sep 2005, 03:25 AM
Weapon accuracy is a joke. While I've never fired in real life any of the firearms in the game, I am utterly confident that when I have a stationary enemy square in my sights at only 5 yards distance that I AM going to hit him. Not in Brothers in Arms. This happens so frequently it's ridiculous.
Actually, funny you should mention that. I had the same experience early on, feeling like the weapons were shooting 'off', but after playing the game a while, I came to realize what was actually going on...

- sometimes when standing behind cover, the sandbags, wall, or bush in front of you can block your bullet, even if it apears that your weapon is angled over the obstruction. This can happen in particular due to sway; one second your weapon is unobstructed at the height of the sway, then when the sway sinks to the lowest point, it becomes obstructed. Thus, some of your shots apear to be hitting near the target, while others seem to "disapear" because they are being blocked by the wall at various points durring your breathing cycle

- there are no 1-hit-kills in BIA, except with the sniper rifles (which magically kill in one hit anywhere even though they shoot the same round as other rifles which kill in 2 hits). Even headshots do not kill in 1 hit, though sometimes it apears that they do because the enemy you're targeting was allready shot without your knowledge. Furthermore, enemies don't always make the characteristic "yiaah!" scream when hit, sometimes making no sound at all, and they respond to the shot by standing up and running to another barrel or part of the wall (like they respond to pretty much everything). Thus, you'll shoot them, and hit, but it looks like you missed, because there is no apperant effect, but in fact, the next time you hit them, they will go down with only 1 hit as if they have taken damage previously.

- the hitboxes for the enemies when they are crouching behind cover are a little skewed. When enemies are crouching behind cover, and all you can see is the tip of their helmet, the hitbox does not cover the very tip of the helmet. So from most angles where you can see the tip of the helmet, the bullet passes through and register. From other angles though, particularly up close, you can hit it if you aim well enough. However, sometimes when you hit, you won't realize it, because the enemy doesn't react.

- AFAIK the hitbox for the enemy when he's peeking over the top of the cover is the same as when he's still crouching down. I don't think I've ever hit an enemy durring this animation unless his lower body was exposed and I aimed low. If you aim for the head, neck, or shoulders, I don't think it will register.

So, it's not really the accuracy of the guns that's bad (although I think sway when standing is excessive), the weapons will hit where you're aiming, it's just that the damage models and hit detection tend to screw things up.

I agree with your other points as well, but I don't really mind the flaws of the game so much. I definitely would like the game better if they weren't there, but it's not so bad, to me. It's still basically the most realistic commercial game out there. I don't think I've seen any game that's not a 3rd party mod with anywhere near the level of realism that BIA is at.