Are you sure?Originally Posted by Giralus Go to original post
You should re-read those statements in bold and try to apply them to real world examples.
Given that burst rifles are marginally harder to use, they should be marginally overall better than fully automatic counterparts.
We can modify damage values if we ignore or reduce significance of factors like recoil and spread.Originally Posted by Giralus Go to original post
If we were to have e.g. M4 and M4A1 as burst and fullauto weapons respectively, it'd make sense for them to deal the same damage, M4 would need to have advantage in other areas (e.g. handling, like being more accurate and having lesser recoil).
Random spread is absolutely a great and a predictable mechanic, spread and spread increase (or random deviation and bloom or alike, as people like using made-up terms) should be the foundation of gunplay, the advantages they provide far outweigh the community outcry that "randomness makes muh gunplay casual". If the spread is too great, move closer. If the gun gets too inaccurate as you shoot, fire shorter bursts. That's literally everything there is to it.
There also absolutely should be a mechanic to make mistimed bursts more forgiving (queueing samples, e.g if you were to try to shoot while the last shot is fired, it wouldn't jam the gun and instead fire the next burst as soon as possible).
In terms of balance, just copy BF1 mechanics and adjust them to work in PvE environment (basically just slap damage modifier on top so we can have the beloved damage inflation). Battlefield 1 is the pinnacle of shooters when it comes to gunplay as of now, though I'm looking forward to the changes done in BFV.
This is the best idea I have seen.Originally Posted by powdernitz Go to original post
Really, as long as it takes 20 hits to bring down an NPC, and hits don't slow down NPC's, burst weapons will be ignored but for those who role-play.
100% Random spread is akin to Spray and Pray nonsense.Originally Posted by BOT_Coyote Go to original post
The Moto of older Battlefield games was "Easy to Play but Hard to Master"
......that meant Time spent using a weapon meant you could learn to overcome its recoil pattern and make the weapon effective verse a player who just picked that same gun up off the ground. Time&Effort > Random spread.
Random spread means "if you use this weapon for a day or a year the outcome is the same = no learning curve and no skill required if your Lucky and the random spread on your wepon ransomly lands More hits them your opponent randomly spraying bullets = you win ... its all a 50/50 gamble.
If i have a choice on using a gun. I am going to choose a gun that allows me Land more bullets on a target that i am aiming at over a Gun that randomly sprays bullets all over the place and hitting the target is just blind luck.
Lets take a game of Darts as an example .. ..... the Point is to Hit the Target on the Dart board you are aiming at....With alot of Practice you can hit what your aiming at more times then Not...BUT... even when you Miss precisely what you were aiming at your still close to what you aimed at.
......on the Flip side , Random Spray is Playing darts Blind folded = if you hit what you were Generally aiming (or even hit the dart board at all) at its 100% random.
.... how can anything be more Casual or Unskill based than that?
Random Spray removes skill and makes everyone equal on the basis of it dont matter if you play for a week or 10 years its a roll of the dice whos going ro land more bullets first.
It's not 100% random. Spread is only random within given bounds, the bullets literally cannot exit them. It's not a binary "dead-on" and "shooting backwards" event.Originally Posted by Giralus Go to original post
Which completely explains why weapons of every refractor-era Battlefield game were ridiculously inaccurate and the gunplay is nothing short of terrible.Originally Posted by Giralus Go to original post
Take a look at RPK of BF2, stats of which were nicely provided here by Outsider. and compare them to BF4's counterpart.
If the data provided for BF2 is any accurate, BF2's variant had 0.8 base spread that wouldn't appear to be affected by anything, BF4's on the other hand has 0.2 and increases by .094 every shot.
More of BF2 stats.
Spread is only there to limit weapons to certain effective ranges by reducing their hitrate past where the weapon is supposed to excel at, if spread was to be removed we'd end up with Battlefront 2015 kind of no-spread no-recoil gameplay, how casual that is?Originally Posted by Giralus Go to original post
If you get close enough to the board you'll hit regardless of how much "random spread" there is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Originally Posted by Giralus Go to original post
It's a mechanic that makes players consider aspects of gameplay skill other than holding crosshair on a target.Originally Posted by Giralus Go to original post
If your weapon is completely incompetent beyond 20 metres and the game's balance is not completely out of whack, consider playing to its strengths because the gun ought to absolutely excel at short range. Learn to move around the playing field to consistently put enemies in the zone where you have the positional advantage, not them. It's not that difficult of a concept, is it?
If spread is so bad and removes skill from the game, then how is Counter-Strike such a competitive success?
Generally agree with this thread.
@Coyote I honestly normally agree with most of your posts as you are one of the few here who isn't hiding an undeniably destructive agenda for the game but...
I do not agree that arbitrary spread coding is the answer to engagement distance issues or the matter of burst weapon viability.
As you previously stated:
The easiest guns to use are currently the most used:
The solution to that is not to make every other weapon irrelevant/bad now as well.Originally Posted by bot_coyote
(Especially when PC and Console gameplay experiences are already so far removed from each other)
I understand there needs to be a time and place for each weapon to shine but the proposed changes would simply push people away as the intended audience of this game is:
RPG-lite, loot n shooters.
Not hard-core gun nuts like myself.
This game is so much more than just a shooter, applying mechanics to make shooting less accessible is not the way forward.
(Just look at all the Striker threads this week. Everyone could potentially have/wear it as it grants the best weapon handling in-game yet people are losing their minds.
Why?
Because aside from stacks+shotguns being a boring mechanic, I'd wager that most of these guys aren't at 100 stacks all day...and that's fine....but you want to make it even harder for them to shoot when they can't even heal anymore?)
You see what I mean?
This is the community that still thinks Rogue 2.0 gives too much advantage to rogues somehow.
I have no problem with it personally but I'm telling you: There will be riots.
I honestly don't know tb100%h.Originally Posted by bot_coyote
I love shooting but Counter-Strike is something I'd never buy personally.
I'd love to see a cross section of players who continue to play Division & CSGO though.
Spread mechanics are not the be-all-end-all solution to all gunplay and balance problems of the game, they are a part of it.Originally Posted by Midtown-Shotty Go to original post
Spread increase discourages mindless magdumping and lets weapons have more consistent damage models instead extremely dense and inconsistent damage fall-off ranges.
Spread, recoil, damage fall-off all together dictate weapon effectiveness over range.
Originally Posted by Midtown-Shotty Go to original post
Technically anything that adds any amount of depth and complexity to any mechanic makes the game ever so slightly less accessible, but at the same time we must be wary of not dumbing the experience down too much. How much fun would it be if the best and only method or firing a gun would be magdumping constantly?Originally Posted by Midtown-Shotty Go to original post
Given that Striker allows (if not outright encourages) closing the gap to an enemy I don't see how it's much of a problem. As you get closer to the target, spread and recoil matter less, such changes would still allow Striker to shine at close range while being capable beyond that given the player is skilled enough. Alternatively the player could use a long-range oriented weapon and make up for its lacking output in CQC by acquiring and preserving stacks.Originally Posted by Midtown-Shotty Go to original post
I need you to understand that spread doesn't necessarily have to be great, the mechanic doesn't need to cover all the bases of limiting weapon performance. Ideally the player should struggle with recoil more than with spread (both of which can be countered with proper firing control) but spread is just the cherry on top, the last safeguard and the last few inches of gunplay depth.
It's all up to the gameplay designers at Massive to make the final call.
Oh man...
Fact.Originally Posted by BOT_Coyote
What about my statement on the changes further devolving the relationship between PC and Console?
All I am saying is that the application of the changes above would push people away as this is not the market for CSGO mechanics.
Nor would I ever argue for CSGO to adopt tanky RPG enemies, healers or shock turrets...
One could equally argue on Overwatch's competitive success with so many characters that have/had snap to target aiming & shooting but again: not the same market.
No, everything is still bad.Originally Posted by BOT_Coyote
Some people will stop playing, some people will adapt but it's still all objectively worse if the object is to land your shots consistently.
Also as I alluded to before: it would further shrink the already dwindling console skill gap while simultaneously making less skilled players feel even worse as now (effectively) no-one is skilled in-game.
You're on PC right?Originally Posted by BOT_Coyote
Next time someone is streaming PLEASE go try "magdumping" and see if you actually kill anyone of any talent whatsoever.
I'd be happy to watch.
You missed the point entirely unfortunately.Originally Posted by BOT_Coyote
My point:
People are currently being handed more stability.
Making shooting more accessible. (Opposite of your changes)
The meta right now is pretty much: who has stacks.
You get stacks by landing consistent shots (for the most part). You see where I'm going?
Right now...the meta is all about shooting and people are mad about it.
When they have equal opportunity to partake in Striker and the Stability it comes with...
(Stability, the opposite of what you are proposing...You see what I mean.)
Everyone can wear striker. Not everyone can use it.
It is however, still objectively easier to use than anything you suggested earlier, therefore people will likely be more upset with your changes than Striker itself.)
that I more than understand.Originally Posted by Bot_Coyote
PS.
I don't see how the Devs granting you increased stability "outright encourages" facetanking at 2m
That is down to several outside factors such as the Downed State and the Responsive talent being one of the few usable DMG talents in-game.
They could just as easily make a talent for 20m and make a Hardcore mode with no Downed State and the game wouldn't have to undergo an entire weapon overhaul.
(Hell they've already made it so you only get 1 down anyway)
Sigh...