Third Person Aiming---please straight answer! Thanks in advance | Forums

[ThePollie]

A game does need to feel good. It won't matter what else it has if the player feels awkward playing the game, that much goes without saying. But it's hardly an arguement for or against snap-to-cover or contextual-cover systems. Manual leaning can be smooth and crisp, as can being moved on rails. It just needs to be done right. If animations are rough and jerkish, any system will feel difficult to use. Snap-to-cover systems are often plagued by over-exposure, environmental pieces not being part of the system and having no way to be aware of this until the last second, and for causing clipping issues which arguably are only really important in multiplayer, but can cause problems in either if the hitbox is targetable through this.

[Dcopymope]

A game does need to feel good. It won't matter what else it has if the player feels awkward playing the game, that much goes without saying. But it's hardly an arguement for or against snap-to-cover or contextual-cover systems. Manual leaning can be smooth and crisp, as can being moved on rails. It just needs to be done right. If animations are rough and jerkish, any system will feel difficult to use. Snap-to-cover systems are often plagued by over-exposure, environmental pieces not being part of the system and having no way to be aware of this until the last second, and for causing clipping issues which arguably are only really important in multiplayer, but can cause problems in either if the hitbox is targetable through this.

Which games would you pick where the snap-to-cover was done well? Hells Highway and the Mass Effect games are two that come to mind. In any case though, I don't consider the snap-to-cover feature as something that belongs in any shooter claiming to be authentic. Hiding behind cover and magically seeing around and over objects without even peaking your head is NOT "authentic" or "realistic" in the slightest. At least in the GRAW games when Ubi Soft went full blown metrosexual, they tried forcing the player to actually peak around and over objects if they actually wanted to see, like you logically would have to in real life.

[ThePollie]

Admittedly, no, I don't have an example of a snap-to-cover system done really well. At least not off the top of my head. I've always found glaring faults in every application I've seen, to date. The vast majority of them fall prey to the same error; overexposure. You take cover, peek, and in the process expose a huge portion of yourself not only to your intended target, but also to a massive angle out into the field. It's incredibly bad design and I've a friend in the military that absolutely despises the practice, and I fully agree with why.

Even in games designed around snap-to-cover, I often find myself abandoning the system as I get better and better with the game. With The Division, I quickly stopped using the system whenever appropriate cover was available to simply stand back from. From there, I could peek the corner manually, often only exposing my arm, head, part of my leg, and sometimes a bit of my chest, but it was only to one person; the person I was shooting at, specifically. As a result, I started dying a lot less. In fact, I started taking less damage entirely and had a lot less down-time during combat to heal. Targets were downed faster because I could stay out longer to fire, since with only one man (as opposed to five or six) firing on me, my health did not degrade nearly as fast.

Other problems include clunky controls, especially with detaching from cover in a hurry, such as in the event of a grenade landing in your lap, or with being attached to the wrong cover and trying to shift back in a hurry. This is especially problematic on difficulties or games that have extremely short time-to-kill, where even a moment in bad cover can mean death, you can't afford to have a system that may flip out and put you in a bad position. This is especially frustrating as, unlike manual control, you can't really help it. You use the system and hope it doesn't screw you.

[DanHibikiFanXM]

The biggest problem that has always occurred with sticky cover in relation to my gaming experiences is in the name - sticky cover. It doesn't matter if it's GRAW/GRAW2/GRFS, The Division, Mass Effect, Gears of War, whatever...I always end up getting stuck on cover and objects in the environment. Nothing is worse than getting stuck on a wall during combat. It's atrocious and annoying, and typically speaking in PvE environments you're better off NOT using the cover system. The Division for example becomes instantly easier when you pie corners and objects to engage targets.

That's on top of the inherently unrealistic and borderline stupid ways the characters actually use the cover in the games too like others have mentioned. Manual leaning is the optimal solution for me.

[AI BLUEFOX]

Same for me, leaning better than cover.

Watch any GRFS video and you will usually see the players running at a wall and avoiding using the cover system. Although it wasn't strictly sticky, it acted that way when you were sprinting as it was the same button, at least on the Xbox. I also like that leaning adds a bit of gamer skill in terms of awareness and controlling the character. Cover systems negate part of the skill differential.

[Dcopymope]

Admittedly, no, I don't have an example of a snap-to-cover system done really well. At least not off the top of my head. I've always found glaring faults in every application I've seen, to date. The vast majority of them fall prey to the same error; overexposure. You take cover, peek, and in the process expose a huge portion of yourself not only to your intended target, but also to a massive angle out into the field. It's incredibly bad design and I've a friend in the military that absolutely despises the practice, and I fully agree with why.

Even in games designed around snap-to-cover, I often find myself abandoning the system as I get better and better with the game. With The Division, I quickly stopped using the system whenever appropriate cover was available to simply stand back from. From there, I could peek the corner manually, often only exposing my arm, head, part of my leg, and sometimes a bit of my chest, but it was only to one person; the person I was shooting at, specifically. As a result, I started dying a lot less. In fact, I started taking less damage entirely and had a lot less down-time during combat to heal. Targets were downed faster because I could stay out longer to fire, since with only one man (as opposed to five or six) firing on me, my health did not degrade nearly as fast.

Other problems include clunky controls, especially with detaching from cover in a hurry, such as in the event of a grenade landing in your lap, or with being attached to the wrong cover and trying to shift back in a hurry. This is especially problematic on difficulties or games that have extremely short time-to-kill, where even a moment in bad cover can mean death, you can't afford to have a system that may flip out and put you in a bad position. This is especially frustrating as, unlike manual control, you can't really help it. You use the system and hope it doesn't screw you.

Well, the way I see it, if they can't get it right, then don't do it at all. If they don't at least put in some effort to make it believable like they did with the way you had to peak in GRAW, then it doesn't belong in Ghost Recon. If they can't fix the issues you point out, such as over exposure to the enemy, then the whole concept should be done away with.

[topeira1980]

i will never agree that a mediocre cover system is worse than no system at all. if people find it faulty than they can ignore it, like Thepollie with the division.
I dont have these issues with the division - i always try and target the enemy who is the most to the side so when i peak out - i can only see him and only him sees me.
i find the division's cover one of the best out there. and to escape grenades you'd roll. not walk away casually. also the movement speed in cover was pretty identical to the movement speed out of cover so no problem moving along cover to avoid nades or enemies.
In the division (as well as WD2, to a much lesser efficiency) you can hide deep behind cover (lets say a BUS) and stay really far from the edge and AIM towards the bus. this will make you aim at the cover and as you AIM and glued to cover you can slowly move towards the edge until you are exposed just right. it works really well.

what was great with the division also was the fact you could switch shoulders and there was an animation change that allowed you to easily tell when you are shooting the cover you are behind (when NOT glued to it) or shooting around it and into the enemy, so doing what ThePollie said was extra efficient. in certain cases im using this tactic as well. i am shifting between the sticky cover (like 70% of the time) and pieing corners (30% of the time). i love the options.
i just with that game was not RPG with bullet sponges but a more realistic shooter with stealth. i would never let the controller down if that was the case.

After looking at the GRFS vids i think this game also had one of the best systems - when you were in cover you didnt stand close to the edge but like a foot and a half away from the edge. when you DID lean only the arms and head where exposed. in order to properly see around a corner you had to push towards it. you could do cover-to-cover runs. you could crouch (cant believe The Division and Watch dogs took this option away. it's SO needed). you could blind fire and blind toss grenades (something very usefull you cant do without a cover system). i think GRFS had a good cover system.

Mafia 3 has a good cover system as well. you can crouch. stealth kill from cover and back into cover. do all the ususal things with very rare instances of cover not "working". and this game also allows shoulder switching so even if you do find a cover you dont like - you can pie a corner.

MGSV had one of the worst cover systems. along with Mass Effect 1. i used it still, often enough, but thank god i could switch shoulders and use ADS... ugh.

[FighterForJC]

Oh come on! Quake (actually Quake 2)taught me to use cover


Yet leaning is how we do it in real life no matter how it looks.
Also moving from cover to cover... I'd rather do it myself and play the game than have game do it for me.

It doesn't matter who's doing the doing, the animations in Wildlands are dated, every single animation. It's stiff and indistinguishable from Mr. Bean. Fact.

[Dcopymope]

i will never agree that a mediocre cover system is worse than no system at all. if people find it faulty than they can ignore it, like Thepollie with the division.

I dont have these issues with the division - i always try and target the enemy who is the most to the side so when i peak out - i can only see him and only him sees me.
i find the division's cover one of the best out there. and to escape grenades you'd roll. not walk away casually. also the movement speed in cover was pretty identical to the movement speed out of cover so no problem moving along cover to avoid nades or enemies.
In the division (as well as WD2, to a much lesser efficiency) you can hide deep behind cover (lets say a BUS) and stay really far from the edge and AIM towards the bus. this will make you aim at the cover and as you AIM and glued to cover you can slowly move towards the edge until you are exposed just right. it works really well.

what was great with the division also was the fact you could switch shoulders and there was an animation change that allowed you to easily tell when you are shooting the cover you are behind (when NOT glued to it) or shooting around it and into the enemy, so doing what ThePollie said was extra efficient. in certain cases im using this tactic as well. i am shifting between the sticky cover (like 70% of the time) and pieing corners (30% of the time). i love the options.
i just with that game was not RPG with bullet sponges but a more realistic shooter with stealth. i would never let the controller down if that was the case.

After looking at the GRFS vids i think this game also had one of the best systems - when you were in cover you didnt stand close to the edge but like a foot and a half away from the edge. when you DID lean only the arms and head where exposed. in order to properly see around a corner you had to push towards it. you could do cover-to-cover runs. you could crouch (cant believe The Division and Watch dogs took this option away. it's SO needed). you could blind fire and blind toss grenades (something very usefull you cant do without a cover system). i think GRFS had a good cover system.

Mafia 3 has a good cover system as well. you can crouch. stealth kill from cover and back into cover. do all the ususal things with very rare instances of cover not "working". and this game also allows shoulder switching so even if you do find a cover you dont like - you can pie a corner.

MGSV had one of the worst cover systems. along with Mass Effect 1. i used it still, often enough, but thank god i could switch shoulders and use ADS... ugh.

Let me see you and 'Thepollie' ignore the cover system in games like Arma 3, or the old Ghost Recon 1 & 2 for that matter, see how that works out for you, assuming you would consider the lean function in those games to be faulty. Its easy to ignore a cover system in pieces of garbage like Future Soldier and The Division where you have wolverine health systems and can absorb tons of bullets like a sponge before you die, even if you get a bullet square in the dome. This argument only works in arcade shooters with very forgiving health systems, and in games where the enemy can't shoot straight to save their lives, unlike in Ghost Recon 1 & 2 or Arma 3. If Wildlands ends up being as "authentic" or "realistic" as Ubi Soft hyped this game up to be and the enemy can shoot straight, then I can assure you that just ignoring whatever kind of cover system they give you whether its a more lean or peak oriented system or if its done snap to cover style will not work for you. Lets leave negative memories like Future Soldier and unrelated trash like The Division in the garbage bin, in the depths of hades where they belong.

[ThePollie]

Now let's be clear, a cover system is not strictly snap-to-cover. A cover system is any form of gameplay control that allows the player to make use of cover. Either a snap-to-cover feature (Gears of War), a lean to peek corners (SWAT4), or smooth movement to pop in and out (Quake). ARMA 3's cover system is very nice, if a tad overwhelming for newer players. Being able to adjust stances to work with nearly any cover found in the field is an amazing feeling when you get it to work.

But however 'faulty' a lean mechanic may be implemented, I would still make use of it. The difference between leaning and a snap-to-cover system, is the amount of control I have. With snap-to, I am entirely restricted by how the system is coded. With leaning, even if it isn't perfect, I can adjust position to open better angles while leaning. I have been killed a few times in ARMA3 because I tripped over the stances and stuck my head out at a bad time, but I still loved the mechanic. Because once mastered, it gave you a lot of options and a lot of control.

There is no mastering a snap-to-cover system. The extent of practice involved is the same as every other system - Tactically selecting cover, with the additional difficulty (and worry) of ensuring the cover will actually work within the system. Assuming it is even coded, the cover animation may cause your arm to jut out and be visible from certain angles, and when you peek you may be too visible from too many targets. And this is something no amount of practice will ever fix.

With ARMA3, you can better control exposure, even with just basic Q-E leaning. You just need to practice and think about where you are standing in relation to your intended target and cover. Something snap-to-cover never allows, because it refuses control in favour of doing the work for you, and often less effectively. The only real advantage snap-to-cover has over manual control is ease of use. That's it.

You don't need to think about stances or translation, the game does it for you. Just hit the button, snap against the corner and peek when ready. I do not want an easy system, I want a fun system. I want a challenge in the game. If it's easy, it won't be fun. I would rather die ten times to an engaging, difficult fight than win a thousand times to an easy one. The satisfaction of slowly edging a corner and tactically engaging targets as appropriate far outweighs the initial fumbling of learning how to operate with a system of manual control. I've seen it dozens of times, and snap-to has never, not once, given me the same sort of enjoyment as simply doing it myself.

--

And, yes. If given the option to lean, I will ignore snap-to-cover in most situations. The only reason I used it in The Division was because we had no option to lean or crouch, which forced the system's use in most situations, otherwise you would be denied cover. That is the result of denying the player the option for manual control. I'm not asking for ARMA 3 in Wildlands. Just let me lean properly.