Author Topic: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play  (Read 33019 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SherlockCat

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 564
  • "bitch don't make me bring them killers out." Keef
    • View Profile
  • Nick: SherlockCat
  • Side: Union
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #150 on: July 03, 2014, 07:02:52 pm »
...what game is that?
It's a fistful of frags, it's actually pretty good plus it's a source mod so it's free on steam.

Offline Nikvonbond

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • 7e Regiment
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Nikvonbond
  • Side: Neutral
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #151 on: July 03, 2014, 10:33:29 pm »
...what game is that?
It's a fistful of frags, it's actually pretty good plus it's a source mod so it's free on steam.

This.

If you want to kick some ass in western, then it's the game for you  ;D

Offline ClearlyInvsible

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 6492
  • I'm still here. Dunno why.
    • View Profile
  • Nick: ClearlyInvsible
  • Side: Union
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #152 on: July 04, 2014, 02:26:47 am »
Yes on the scope sway, no on the shading of the pov. It looks unrealistic as hell.
"No man will make a great leader who wants to do it all himself or get all the credit for doing it."- Andrew Carnegie
“A man who has no conscience, no goodness, does not suffer.” - Khaled Hosseini
Faggots will burn in hell anyway, who cares.

Offline Nikvonbond

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • 7e Regiment
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Nikvonbond
  • Side: Neutral
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #153 on: July 04, 2014, 11:42:03 pm »
Well when you aim, you usually close one eye, and there fore naturaly lower your FOV. It might not be as drastic, but it's still lower

Offline Josy_Wales

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 191
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Josy_Wales
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #154 on: July 07, 2014, 09:46:05 am »
I havent played battlegrounds 2 but I like the aiming and shooting in it

Offline Marsh

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 866
    • View Profile
  • Side: Union
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #155 on: July 07, 2014, 04:26:22 pm »
Doing back to the aim down sights field of view, there should be no darkening in this game or in any other game where open muskets are used in my opinion. I partake in a lot of competition shooting, just this week at ICSRM Bisley in fact, and the darkening when aiming down a sight is caused by the diameter of a closed rear aperture after correct light-range-sight adjustment. Why with open-aperture sights on muskets should BCoF have darkening? It also just impares your ability to notice someone flanking you and getting into melee. Seems pointless and inaccurate to me.

As you close your rear aperture, you increase your accuracy of rear-front sight alignment, but you gain a darkening effect in your sight picture
[close]

On another note, aiming down a sight means you should be entirely focussed on the foresight as oppose to the target, and so you will loose field of view naturally. This does not cause a darkening effect though, and this should be reflected in game. Narrowing of the field of view does not have to be an incorrect darkening effect, but should more accurately be reflected as loss of focus on the surroundings and full focus on the front sight. This way, movement can still be detected in areas on the outer limits of the field of view, but the field of view is narrowed based on focus. At long range, the foresight should be the Centre of Focus. At short range, the target should be the Centre of Focus.

Offline Rupert

  • First Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1624
  • fuck
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #156 on: July 07, 2014, 07:40:35 pm »
Rifle accuracy is fine how is it. As long as I'm still able to shoot fuckers then I don't mind what happens.
Rupert, I removed your post due to some offensive content. Feel free to call 1stSAO or me "weeaboos", etc., but do not fill the thread with content that could be offensive, or insensitive to any group/groups of people based on their race, religion, or past greviances.
Thanks

Offline Josy_Wales

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 191
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Josy_Wales
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #157 on: July 08, 2014, 08:03:30 am »
what rifle accurasy?

Offline Marsh

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 866
    • View Profile
  • Side: Union
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #158 on: July 08, 2014, 09:35:55 pm »

Offline KL4R1N0G4MPR0S

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 2994
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #159 on: July 29, 2014, 01:48:32 am »
Some suggested that FSE interpretation of the historical sources of the era were wrong.
In any case, melee played a bigger role than FSE gives it credit for.
Although we are not creating NW:2 , let's not forget what b0nded our community. The unique era, the moddability, and the way some game mechanics needed devotion to master.
Therefore, FSE would be stupid to spit in our faces by making this a game focusing solely on ranged combat.
The melee system, and the necessity to actually learn it, would be undermined by a game where the trueshot/ proscope/ headshot is valued more than a chamber, a kick, or a spinstab. In fact, new BCOF players might even come to ignore melee entirely, always trying to shoot at the enemy, and avoiding melee at all costs.
Therefore, through careful balancing and map design, FSE shoudl, imho, make both ranged and melee necessary for different situations. Even though ranged will be preferred, it would be great to HAVE to engage in melee in some scenarios. For example, charging a fort's breach/ arty position, or, of course, having separate duel/ gf servers where one can simply enjoy this incredible system.
Map design will also play a role, as I belief the existence of strong cover, to mask an attackers movement  as he approaches an enemy, (like rambo :)  ) would be great.
FInally, let's hesitate beore welcoming so confidently the advent of the ranged system.
After all, shooting leads to:

1) A slower rhythm of battle, requiring more patience on behalf of the player. Not everyone will prefer this indefinitely (say, after hundreds of hours of gameplay). After all, would any of you play NW for so many hours if it focused on shooting more, with minimal melee fighting? (Rhetorical)
2) More ragequits. As we saw in B4 months ago, people, to counter campers, are more likely to, in turn, take the most accurate, marksman - like class, and return that favour, hence less CQC. It is more annoying to get scoped from a mile away, than die in an intenser melee battle. Try it.
3) Weaker atmosphere. Quite simply, the occassional melee fight/ encounter would break the monotony of ranged combat, injecting us with a strong dose of adrenaline :P

 A BALANCE IS NEEDED, WITH BOTH MELEE AND RANGED BEING EMPHASISED UPON IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. The one situation no-one wants to be found in is a Sniper Elite V2 game... or to feel that, in order to play melee, he/she has to play Bannerlord. Don't throw us melee nerds out FSE !  :'(

EDIT:
Balance would be ongoing. I think they already mentioned that if their first attempt doesn't work in regards to rifle accuracy then they will balance things further.

Its great to hear this. Being actively siezed on this delicate matter of balancing shows the community that the team won't tolerate OP weapons - very relieving to be honest :D

EDIT#2: I hate to be making so many edits to my original post, but I would like to simply add another opinion to the debate :)

In order for shooting to be so prevalent in BCoF , there must be a number of mechanics in place to ensure that one LEARNS how to shoot well, and not just be able to pwn at long distance with minimal experience/training. So here are some extra ideas of mine...

1) The necessity to adjust the iron sights is a wonderful idea. This means that, not only will the game be more realistic, but also players will have to judge the distance between them and the enemy solely by eye, which requires one to familarise himself/herself with the map first. It may even be used for balancing, as this adjustment will undoubtedly take time and slow down the reload + aiming process, if the target has shifted.
2) Wind affecting the bullet. Another great case of a realistic environment being used wisely as a mechanic.  Players could be able, imo, to judge the direction and intensity by looking at the fauna, and how/which direction it is blowing in. Therefore, to "snipe" at long range, one needs to be proficent in compensating for the effect of the wind.
3) Particle FX. Even though the actual rifled weapons were accurate, the debris, smoke and volume of the battlefield made aiming significantly harder. Therefore, to further balnce the powerful rifles, it would be nice to have smoke/dit/debris blwoing around, where appropriate, making it harder to aim properly. Further weather effects, such as rain, or fog, can also reduce visibility, adding tension to the game, and offering opportunities for, say, ambushes, or shock attacks.
4) Rifle Sway (when aiming). Seeing that most volunteers recieved minimal marksman training, it would be reasonable to add some sway when aiming, so as to make the shooting more realistic. After all, especially when standing up, it is very hard to keep the rifle steady over long periods of time. A hold breath option (for a few seconds, like in Arma) would be an interesting proposition. Crouching, additionally, should increase the accuracy/stability of the barrel slightly, as it does in real life.
5) Aiming down the scope/sights. As someone who has gone hunting with family members, I can tell you that perfectly aligning the two crosshairs in a scope, or even the iron sights on a pistol/revolver, is something that takes at least a couple of seconds. Should this be reflected, like it is in NW at the moment, (with the opening and partial closing of the reticle), I think that it would make the shooting more realistic, and would help reduce pointblanking. Having tunnel vision as well, or even an FOV reduction while staring down the sights (as someone previoulsy mentioned in this thread), would be another proposition.
6) Reducing pointblanking. Imho, pointblanking, in NW, is a risky strategy, employed only by useless fools who can't melee. Simple. However, should fighting ever develop into CQC (say in a building, for example, or a trench), then melee should be the emphasis, not a desperate attempt to shoot the enemy who is two inches away :P. Requiring some time to aim, and increasing the time needed to swap between shooting and melee mode on one's rifle, could discourage pointblanking.
7) Destructible cover. To deter skirmishers from camping, and pissing everyone else off, most, if not ALL cover, as mentioned by FSE, should be destroyable.This would make the players fear the opposing artillery more, and require them to remain mobile, as to not get skrekt by a meandering 12pdr cannon ball. Having played a sh*tload of NW, I hope that the maps will emphasise upon proper, dynamic movement and clashes (as FSE suggested with their goals/objectives systems), and will deter endless static camping and shooting.

I love NW's balance, so I would hate BCoF to devolve into a camping-fest, with shooting being the only viable option. Therefore, I hope that at least some of the above propositions are implemented, so as to make the ranged combat, the focus of this new game, more meaningful, and deep.
I really hope that many situations will require one to be proficient in melee, not only because I learnt it in the first place ;) , but also because it is a shame to let go of this unmatched melee system, unique to Warband (and some of its mods), go to waste. Regardless of how deep the shooting its however, I would like it to be balanced out with nice dose of melee fighting sometimes.
BCoF_Groupfighting_Server, anyone? :D

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
TL;DR : Melee should not be exterminated entirely. There are a number of sytems, most already proposed by FSE, which can balance the shooting and make it more realsitic at the same time.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2014, 12:24:18 pm by KL4R1N0G4MR0S9999 »
<3

Offline Rejenorst

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 2348
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #160 on: July 29, 2014, 04:53:02 am »
Balance would be ongoing. I think they already mentioned that if their first attempt doesn't work in regards to rifle accuracy then they will balance things further.
Spoiler

[close]

Offline Rapid

  • First Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #161 on: July 29, 2014, 11:11:28 pm »
Accuracy should be worse than in NW but not too realistic ratio because after all it is a game and there is always a border between being an arcade game and being a simulator game, there should be accuracy more than in real life so the matches don't drag out too long and people have fun shooting but not "as accurate" as NW being you can destroy a whole line in a matter of minutes just in shooting at a medium range which is a bit too much on the arcade side.
What we should be more worried though would be the NW style melee bomb rush, that bugs me quite a lot.

Offline ClearlyInvsible

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 6492
  • I'm still here. Dunno why.
    • View Profile
  • Nick: ClearlyInvsible
  • Side: Union
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #162 on: July 30, 2014, 01:15:31 am »
Dude, they're rifled muskets. They're pinpoint accurate at volley range.

This is why we need two different gamestates.
"No man will make a great leader who wants to do it all himself or get all the credit for doing it."- Andrew Carnegie
“A man who has no conscience, no goodness, does not suffer.” - Khaled Hosseini
Faggots will burn in hell anyway, who cares.

Offline Completenoob

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #163 on: July 31, 2014, 03:08:45 am »
6) Reducing pointblanking. Imho, pointblanking, in NW, is a risky strategy, employed only by useless fools who can't melee. Simple. However, should fighting ever develop into CQC (say in a building, for example, or a trench), then melee should be the emphasis, not a desperate attempt to shoot the enemy who is two inches away . Requiring some time to aim, and increasing the time needed to swap between shooting and melee mode on one's rifle, could discourage pointblanking.

But it works both ways. Pointblanking first defenders in the face before poking the rest in the eye when 20 defenders discharged shots against single musician dancing out in the open instead of using common sense just begs for trouble if it was not dictated by extreme video game logic as it is in typical NW public siege game. Why I would not employ something which offers better chances of success to storm a wall or a breach since it boils down to risk vs reward? It is not functionally too different from current situation where thanks to 3rd person, one can easily aim in advance and 360noscope the moment they step outside and pointblank reliably. If one gets rid of 3rd person* but in exchange allows pointblanking and more fluid general control over things to a point, there is suddenly a case for “suppressive fire” (as much as that can be achieved in shooters that is) which offers better shock value when a group of players actually close in for melee range while the others are more or less picking individual heads popping up, since instead of that quickshot kill up close you have no idea if someone is near by or not. Red Orchestra 1 - which is fairly realistic WW2 game where one shot kills and getting shot from places you couldn't even see properly was commonplace - did this pretty well since even one or two guys with bayonets managing to hit a blind spot and storm a room could end up with tons of bayonet kills, sometimes after they managed to shoot their to go for staby-staby time.

And in case if someone brings up likelihood of suppressive fire from modern perspective and how anachronistic it probably is to a point in historical context, it is no different from trying to simulate formation warfare when there is no formation warfare as far as generic gameplay goes. Events etc are complete different beasts from public gameplay, but even those events hardly bear any resemblence to formation warfare and their realities to begin with. Therefore I say that is bit silly argument.

*I am one of those who refuses to play M&B in third person because like banners, I believe it is for pussies. That is just me, but I wonder how many mad melee skillz or quickshots would turn sour if there was way to disable that.

Offline KL4R1N0G4MPR0S

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 2994
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: A concern on Rifle accuracy changing game play
« Reply #164 on: July 31, 2014, 11:23:19 am »
Spoiler
6) Reducing pointblanking. Imho, pointblanking, in NW, is a risky strategy, employed only by useless fools who can't melee. Simple. However, should fighting ever develop into CQC (say in a building, for example, or a trench), then melee should be the emphasis, not a desperate attempt to shoot the enemy who is two inches away . Requiring some time to aim, and increasing the time needed to swap between shooting and melee mode on one's rifle, could discourage pointblanking.

But it works both ways. Pointblanking first defenders in the face before poking the rest in the eye when 20 defenders discharged shots against single musician dancing out in the open instead of using common sense just begs for trouble if it was not dictated by extreme video game logic as it is in typical NW public siege game. Why I would not employ something which offers better chances of success to storm a wall or a breach since it boils down to risk vs reward? It is not functionally too different from current situation where thanks to 3rd person, one can easily aim in advance and 360noscope the moment they step outside and pointblank reliably. If one gets rid of 3rd person* but in exchange allows pointblanking and more fluid general control over things to a point, there is suddenly a case for “suppressive fire” (as much as that can be achieved in shooters that is) which offers better shock value when a group of players actually close in for melee range while the others are more or less picking individual heads popping up, since instead of that quickshot kill up close you have no idea if someone is near by or not. Red Orchestra 1 - which is fairly realistic WW2 game where one shot kills and getting shot from places you couldn't even see properly was commonplace - did this pretty well since even one or two guys with bayonets managing to hit a blind spot and storm a room could end up with tons of bayonet kills, sometimes after they managed to shoot their to go for staby-staby time.

And in case if someone brings up likelihood of suppressive fire from modern perspective and how anachronistic it probably is to a point in historical context, it is no different from trying to simulate formation warfare when there is no formation warfare as far as generic gameplay goes. Events etc are complete different beasts from public gameplay, but even those events hardly bear any resemblence to formation warfare and their realities to begin with. Therefore I say that is bit silly argument.

*I am one of those who refuses to play M&B in third person because like banners, I believe it is for pussies. That is just me, but I wonder how many mad melee skillz or quickshots would turn sour if there was way to disable that.
[close]

1) Most of the community finds it impossible to play in first person, as the camera FOV is too narrow, and the animations and awkward, and it's (for some people) harder to see what attack/defense they are holding. Therefore, what you are proposing is entirely irrelevant to the vast majority of the game's community, who plays in 3rd person, and may only switch to first for some shooting. I'm actually kinda sick of people coming from other games, like Red Orchestra, or even ArmA , and telling us how "CoD" we all are, and how our game "lacks the historical formations" needed. In a charge, IN THE EARLY 1800s, PEOPLE DID CHARGE INTO A BREACH "LIKE RAMBOS", AS THEY HAD TO (MELEE) KILL THE OTHERS BEFORE THEY GOT SHOT DOWN BY THE DEFENDERS. Did you expect us to form a little line, even in Public Servers (worse inter-team comms), and RP a Line Battle every time we played? No. We have proper LBs for that.
Face it, and this is to all those <redacted> who want  to turn our game into a shooter.
Spoiler
FSE WILL NOT TURN BCOF INTO A FIRST PERSON SHOOTER SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS THE ACW. NOR WILL IT DEGRADE THE MELEE INTO A "PRESS-X-TO-KILL" TYPE THING. READ THE DEV BLOGS.
[close]
2) Suppressing fire only works in NW if tens of people camp out a spot, shooting at anything that moves (but then the reload time ruins it). This deters str8 up charging for some, but seeing how inaccurate the musket is in NW, doesn't really scare Y0L0-ers, especially if the defenders providing suppressing fire aren't physically blocking the way to the flag.

<3