Jump to content
Spectator6

A deep dive into recoil mechanics

Recommended Posts

vekongmaster
16 hours ago, PardTheTroll said:

Not only rare, but you would need to shoot quite a lot in a single sitting to archive something like this. I wonder where people get that overheating mechanic from? To many sci-fi games?

 

Dear @PardTheTroll,

 

Rare? So you think it's fine & safe to shoot an assault rifle in full-auto mode more often without proper cooling down, hah? So "you think let's just shoot full-auto without even giving any damn about your gun condition", hah? So you think Weapon Heat ain't a problem coz it's just a sci-fi thingy, and you can just keep shooting and do whatever da hell you want with your assault rifle, hah? So you think all the soldiers and gun owners in this world should do full-auto shooting more often coz it's easy, it's safe, and it's causing no damage to their guns, hah? 

Wow where do you get that attitude from? Too many COD & BF games? Too many action movies? :/ Chuck Norris? Rambo? lol

And fyi, In those 2 videos you showed us, that dude is actually using a high quality modified AR15 & AK (thicker chrome-lined barrels and better quality gun parts) similar to LMG. That's why those guns can survive a lil bit longer without cooling down.

 

 

Here lemme show you how a real AR & AK will end up in non-stop full auto firing (without any Cooling Down):

After shooting 480 rounds in full-auto (without proper cooling down), this AR is completely jammed and burnt. The handguard & the gas tube melt, the barrel is slightly warped and bent, the bore rifling kinda melts, and all the parts inside the receiver heat up (they expand and don't work properly anymore).

 

After shooting 260 rounds in full-auto (without proper cooling down), this AK is completely jammed. The barrel gets really hot to the point that it droops and bends slightly downward making the bolt unable to go forward all the way, hence the jam.

 

 

Weapon Heat is a real thing. The more you abuse your guns by non-stop full auto firing, the more heat you'll get and the more damage you'll cause to your fancy guns. In other words, Gun Abuse means shorter Life Span of a Gun. And I think the devs should implement Weapon Heat in EFT. The more you abuse the weapon heat, the faster your weapon durability degrade. 

Assault rifle is not design for non-stop full auto shooting. When firing full automatic, there are several things happening that can cause a jam. First, enormous heat is generated, just by the burning gunpowder. Heat is the cause of all of the woes. Increased friction creates more heat. Next, as the metal heats up, it expands. Different metals expand at different rates, so parts that once worked well together, no longer fit. If that doesn’t jam the weapon, friction is again increased, creating even more heat. Eventually, the gun gets so hot that the metal parts can actually melt and weld together. Other problems occur as well. The gun can get so hot the ammunition spontaneously detonates, called “Cooking off”, and the barrel can get so hot it sags, blocking the bullet path in the bore, and causing the barrel to explode. Overheating causes excessive metal fatigue, corrosion and oxidization. In bad cases extreme heat can bulge or warp the barrel, damage rifle grooves. and melt parts like handguards, gas tube, gas piston, springs, etc.

 

 

Thanks in advance,

-Vekongmaster-

 

p.s.: Recoil Control Skill in EFT should be reduced big time as well. How come Elite PMC has zero recoil shooting .308 cal guns in full-auto mode?! That's just plain stupid! Who do you think we are, a freaking Chuck Norris? lol XD

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PardTheTroll

@vekongmaster

Did I hit a nerv or something? Why so aggressive?

I never made a statement, that you don't need to proper take care of a weapon, so it doesn't jam. I never said, that overheating is not "problematical". So be so kind and don't put words into my mouth.

What I merely wanted to get at is, that letting guns jam after shooting just one 60 round mag because it "overheats" is not realistic. Even with those additional videos, you oh so kindly posted, my statement stands true. 

Just because we don't have wear currently in the game, doesn't mean I want guns to never jam or stop working completely because of it. I am all for it that a bad taken care of gun should not work properly or at all. I do not see any reason to implement such "unrealistic" balances, as some suggest, so weapons can't be used in full auto.

You wan't people to stop playing the full auto meta? Do it through recoil control, ammunition prices/availability and even the durability state of the weapon. But don't come here and make (new) weapons magically jam after one full mag, because you don't like being sprayed to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectator6

@vekongmaster I'm not sure if it's a language thing or what, but let's be doubly-sure that we're treating each other with respect, okay? If you have a different opinion or new information to share, by all means let us know so we can talk about it! See something you disagree with? Great, let us know! But there's absolutely no need to make personal attacks in this thread. Can we agree on that?

Maybe you were joking and it didn't come across the way you intended... Either way, I've interacted with @PardTheTroll on numerous occasions throughout this forum. He's a good guy. So let's "wiggle" at each other and get back to business, shall we?

-----

@vekongmaster Thanks for pointing out the differences in component quality, I was not aware of that! 

-----

It seems to me we agree on a lot of things here. Component wear and tear is real, and we acknowledge that overheating can be problematic to some extent. After a single 30 round magazine? Probably not. After two or three thirty round magazines? Still unlikely. But, for the sake of discussion, let's say that once we start reaching the 200-250 round mark, this is when the potential for failures of some sort may start to creep in.

Something else we seem to agree on is that high-cap magazines and poor ammo can also lead to failures, with or without overheating conditions.

(Is that a good summary of where we're at so far? Anything I missed, anything could be improved?)

-----

Now, here's something a bit off-topic from recoil that I find interesting from what you both have said... If component quality plays such a large role in weapon reliability under harsh/abusive use conditions, I wonder if it would be possible for BSG to add a mechanical element to the components. Maybe certain parts wear down more slowly than others? So that fancy handguard you choose to trick out your rifle with, not only does it help with ergonomics, it also reduces the likelihood of a failure by X%. 

Granted, BSG may need to take some artistic license with some of this for gameplay purposes, but maybe that'd be something worth exploring if/when weapon durability and condition start taking a more prominent role in EFT. 

What are your thoughts?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AdhesiveTeflon
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, vekongmaster said:

~snip~

Look at what starts the burn; the composite pieces.  No matter how high-quality the plastic is, it will still burn when subjected to enough heat.

Then comes the talk of the quality of the components. Yea, a rifle bought at a walmart from some no-name manufacture has a higher probability of failing than one made from colt or FN so it's worth mentioning the differences; are we talking about an actual M16/M4 or are we talking about an AR-15?

Again, "cooking off", something to worry about in open-bolt weapons because of how an open-bolt weapon cycles through it's ammunition, not a closed-bolt rifle .  Although there are very small chances of cooking one in a closed-bolt assault rifle, the composites on the rifle will melt to your hand long before a round cooks off in those - or buy better ammo.

FYI: A carbine barrel will never be the same as an LMG barrel.

Edited by AdhesiveTeflon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vekongmaster
4 hours ago, PardTheTroll said:

@vekongmaster

What I merely wanted to get at is, that letting guns jam after shooting just one 60 round mag because it "overheats" is not realistic. Even with those additional videos, you oh so kindly posted, my statement stands true. 

Just because we don't have wear currently in the game, doesn't mean I want guns to never jam or stop working completely because of it. I am all for it that a bad taken care of gun should not work properly or at all. I do not see any reason to implement such "unrealistic" balances, as some suggest, so weapons can't be used in full auto.

You wan't people to stop playing the full auto meta? Do it through recoil control, ammunition prices/availability and even the durability state of the weapon. But don't come here and make (new) weapons magically jam after one full mag, because you don't like being sprayed to death.

Dear @PardTheTroll,

I didn't say the gun would always jam after shooting only one mag in full auto, (yes I know Pestily exaggerates it too much) #Facepalm

What I've been trying to say to you all is The gun should jam whenever it overheats, and every gun should have different threshold before they start getting overheated. Some guns can survive non-stop shooting a little bit longer, and some guns can only survive few hundred rounds (just like we've seen in those videos). After shooting 200-400 rounds non-stop (without proper cooling down), a standard issue assault rifles like AR & AK should start getting overheated. Get the point?

This ain't no about balance, I don't care about balance. I only want realism in EFT. This is a real thing. Didn't you see the videos? After shooting couple of hundred rounds in full-auto mode non stop (without cooling down), a standard issue assault rifles will get overheated and it'll start getting screwed up. 

And from what I've seen here, the Devs are actually planning on adding overheating feature :D hopefully they do it right!.

 

I'm so sorry for the harsh language, mate. As a shooter in real life, I take Gun Safety so seriously. Gun has to be treated with respect and care for the sake of safety. I'm just trying to educate all the players here that you can't mess around with guns (especially with Heat & Weapon Malfunction), you could end up killing yourself. And it's not a science fiction thing, Gun Safety is number one priority! And yes full-auto looks cool in movies and games, but irl it's just pretty much useless, hard to do, and dangerous. Hell, even machine-gunner will only do short-burst firing to prevent overheating.

 

Regards,

-Vekongmaster-

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectator6
22 hours ago, vekongmaster said:

irl [full-auto is] pretty much useless, hard to do, and dangerous. Hell, even machine-gunner will only do short-burst firing to prevent overheating.

You're right, good point! In addition to increasing blooms, it may be nice for EFT to add another true-to-life aspect of full-auto fire into EFT. Because, as you say, heat build-up is a very real thing to contend with IRL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectator6

BSG, if you're reading this, please please please do not fall prey to the current push on Reddit to do away with automatic recoil compensation. 

In my view, it seems they are conflating weapon recoil SPREADS with the character instinctively attempting to bring the gun back on target.

Laserbeam full auto FAL's/etc in the hands of high level players are an issue. But I strongly encourage you to consider the information laid out in this thread and approach it from the standpoint of adjusting the full-auto bloom/spread rates and sizes, NOT by removing the recoil compensation.

One of my favorite aspects of EFT's gunplay is that we DO NOT have to drag our mice 10 feet across our desks to prevent some god-awful recoil method forcing our view up to the sky. This opinion is shared by EVERYONE I talk to who believes in EFT's vision and has some real life firearms experience. They see what you're trying accomplish with recoil and they "get it".

I strongly believe that if players were not able to shrink the recoil spread of a full auto high powered at range down to the size of baseball, they'd be happy.

I'm not alone when I say that you all have created a brilliant recoil system, one that is second to none throughout the entire FPS genre. Work your magic to make it even better, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectator6

Here's an excerpt from a conversation I had on Reddit that I think sums up the "two sides" of the argument nicely.

He was pushing for manual recoil control, saying that it if EFT wants to be a realistic and hardcore FPS, it should adopt a similar system and get rid of automatic recoil compensation altogether.

And I agreed! Except... I said that I don't believe EFT wants to be a realistic and hardcore FPS. I believe it wants to be an RPG that's set within the a realistic and hardcore first person genre. And that makes all the difference in the world and is why automatic recoil compensation is a must-have feature within EFT.

Here's the excerpt:

-----

Did you know that Nikita supposedly loves Arma? That’s a pretty hardcore series. And given how many times the team regularly ventures out to live-fire ranges it’s probably fair to say that he appreciates the realism of its weapon handling and stuff like that.

So why the heck then would a team with that sort of background ever feel like automatic recoil compensation would be a good fit for EFT? Why in the world would they want something like that within 100 yards of their game?

Well here’s what I think. I don’t think EFT is trying to be a hardcore, realistic FPS. I think it’s trying to be an RPG first and foremost, and a realistic, hardcore FPS second.

And it’s those pesky three letters, R-P-G, that make all the difference in the world when it comes to EFT’s recoil and weapon handling. To borrow your phrase, “If we work with that in mind…” then it’s very easy to see why EFT’s recoil mechanics need to wrestle away a certain amount of control from the player. It becomes immediately clear why something like automatic recoil compensation is a must-have feature in order to pull it off.

This is how I can hold two opinions that, from your end, may seem wholly contradictory to one another. On the one hand, I can honestly praise and applaud games like RO2 for their recoil and weapon handling mechanics, while on the other hand, praise and applaud EFT for its recoil and weapon handling mechanics. Because they’re not trying to skin the same cat and, in my view, they both do a brilliant job. I just happen to prefer EFT's all-encompassing approach.

And unfortunately, this “RPG pivot” that EFT makes is what will likely be the make-or-break for many players. Either they come into the game wanting a realistic, hardcore FPS or they come into it wanting an RPG set in an online FPS universe. In my view, it's an all or nothing proposition. There's no way for BSG to go full-on RPG in some areas but not in its recoil.

-----

In closing, let me end with an illustration… Did you ever play the old-school Fallout RPG games? They were point-and-click, top-down. And one of the ways the user could attack something was to use a system called VATS. It pulls up an image of the target with the various body parts highlighted, each displaying a chance-to-hit percentage. So if your character was good with rifles and you had a rifle, maybe he had an 85% of nailing a headshot, or a 93% chance to hit a leg, for example.

Well later down the line Bethesda comes along and makes a first-person rendition of Fallout. And they kept the VATS system. So at any time the user could pause the game and select where he’d like to try and hit the target. Except, contrary to its top-down brethren, it didn’t really work as an FPS mechanic… Because any FPS player worth his salt would say, “Why the hell would I risk a 72% headshot when I can just line up the shot myself and pull the trigger?” And more often than not, that’s what players did.

I only share this to point out that for such an input-heavy genre as first person shooters, trying to incorporate RPG mechanics might be damn near impossible. Like trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

That said, I honestly feel like the “solution” that BSG has come up with in the form of automatic recoil compensation may be one of the best “answers” to this conflict of interest. It many ways, it serves as a “guard” against the player taking too much free agency and “separating himself too much” from the character he’s supposed to be roleplaying.

-----

If I step back and try to take an objective look at it, too, even from a hardcore/realistic lens I can also appreciate what automatic recoil compensation is trying to represent. From a mechanical perspective, it also might allow BSG more options.

Because with games like RO2, that rely on manual input control, the upward recoil is one of the only things they have at their disposal for balance purposes. This is why FPS games commonly make machine guns kick upward like a mule, because for balancing reasons, they have to do something to offset the high rate-of-fire and large-ish round damage.

But in reality? An automatic machine gun is one of the easiest guns to shoot full auto. The physics and design of the weapon keep it pretty much even keel through an entire belt.

A 50 BMG? Same thing. The recoil is pretty much straight back into the shooter. Hurts, but very little actual "rise".

This is one of those "weird/unrealistic" areas of traditional manual FPS mechanics that EFT may have more wiggle room to address because they're not dependent upon upward recoil as being the primary means of balancing. Maybe. I'll give'em a chance.

Is the high level recoil skill too over-powered (I think it is)? Fine, they'll dial it back, no big deal. In my view, that type of flexibility is one of the strengths of the system.

Edited by Spectator6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jlambvo

I think this is a decent and important argument. The legitimate criticism I have with this logic however is that the presentation, specifically the perspective offered in the game, is important. 

RPGs in which as the player you manage decisions based on your character's skills rather than your own tend to be best suited to third-person perspectives, such as isometric (in classic Fallout or Jagged Alliance) or even over-the-shoulder. Having this visual separation reinforces the separation between player and character. When presented in the first-person, you are being inserted into the world, which is why I believe it can be jarring and frustrating to have artificial interference with your own input--especially where there is some learning curve and tactile manipulation taking place. Sitting in this halfway point is very challenging from a design and play perspective.

That said, I think there is another line of argument here, which is that EFT simply trades off one aspect of modeling recoil for others by decoupling the weapon from the "cursor," and implements an interface that is actually much more natural to the PC + mouse user interface. 

As implied, it's not like exaggerated vertical kick counteracted by dragging the mouse is particularly realistic--we've just become accustomed to it as a UI "language" for recoil in games. It was a large step up in many ways from random cone fire. One of the shortcomings is that it treats us as if our faces are duct taped to the gun barrel (or perhaps that we are shooting with our eyes, and our head is recoils from it). It really doesn't make much sense, but it's a limitation of the input and output devices. In reality the experience of shooting controlling for recoil involves tension and force across multiple dimensions which are hard to capture on the computer.

What the vertical kick mechanism does is force something corresponding to the continuous tension you'd actually need to employ to absorb and respond to the recoil of a weapon firing. But the problem is that a mouse is (1) a 2D control obviously, and (2) its movements correspond to an absolute difference of angle. In other words, a movement of 3 inches might map to a 45 degree change in focal point. In contrast, with something like a joystick, a movement corresponds to a rate of change of angle, like 5 degrees per second.

This latter would actually be somewhat more appropriate in simulating the continuous holding of tension while firing. But the former is much more natural for controlling your focal point and interactions. After all, when you look around and interact with the world in real life, you are probably not really consciously operating your joints like servos with a mental joystick. When you look at something to your right, you don't think to your self "increase rate of change in view angle to the right..... aaaaand..... stop," even if this is happening biomechanically. You just look at that thing to the right. 

I think that the decoupling of the weapon from the visual focal point allows for potentially richer recoil and handling mechanics, and is important in feeling like you are holding a weapon that has its own physics. This keeps the input interface consistent with indicating your focal point and intention rather than the servos in the character's body.

As it is now, the system allows for potentially richer recoil mechanics (as well as realistic control limitations), and builds on the fact that you would never be able to really perfectly offset or mitigate recoil in reality (or at least should never--which is really the problem right now), but you can anticipate and plan on the fly for that fact.

The only question is whether you should really not have any ability to offset or counteract what the weapon is doing--I would actually be curious to see how it would feel if while firing the mouse flipped to a sort of joystick-like mode which adjusted rate of change zeroed on the initial point-of-aim. This would leave you more or less locked into a sort of narrow range of motion while shooting full auto, but I think that would be realistic an appropriate. 

Edited by jlambvo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectator6

Wow 😲 excellent rundown @jlambvo! You hit the nail on the head, my friend!  You did great job explaining how, when it comes down to it, trying to reduce such a tactile/instinctive interplay of live-fire events to the 2D plane of a mouse is rather absurd. I agree completely that we've been lulled by our suspensions of disbelief and convinced ourselves that 'active' mouse movements are somehow realistic, when actually they may be nothing more than an accepted vidyagame trope. Your servos illustration highlights this distinction very well!

That said, since it is the medium we must contend with, in my view both sides of the argument would be well-served to acknowledge we're dealing with a series of trade-offs and abstractions. And since all input representations fall short, there may be something to be said for trying to "get out of the game" altogether of allowing the user to micromanage recoil. Which, to me, is what makes this a great move by BSG.

On 9/12/2019 at 5:15 PM, jlambvo said:

The only question is whether you should really not have any ability to offset or counteract what the weapon is doing--I would actually be curious to see how it would feel if while firing the mouse flipped to a sort of joystick-like mode which adjusted rate of change zeroed on the initial point-of-aim. This would leave you more or less locked into a sort of narrow range of motion while shooting full auto, but I think that would be realistic an appropriate. 

Hmmm... Very interesting observation here! If I'm reading you correctly, you're essentially describing a way for the user to indicate a level of "tension" applied to the weapon. To avoid the "runaway recoil" problem that's so apparent (and unrealistic) with traditional manual recoil systems, why not interpret the mouse offset position as a sort of rate-of-change, kind of like how a joystick is handled? (Do I have that right?)

Here is the first observation that comes to mind... 

  • How would this transition between the mouse controlling the player's view vs controlling the "tension" factor? If the player begins firing then wants to adjust his aim to the down and to the right to track a moving target, for example, what lets the recoil system differentiate that *those* mouse movements should adjust his view and not his recoil "tension" setting? Would he have to stop firing in order to "re-aim" somewhere else? If so, if players get somewhat "locked-in" to their current orientation while firing, would that do a great disservice in representing the dexterity that comes with, say, a small frame SMG like the MP7?

Thoughts?

-----

Here is a suggestion that may or may not be worth our discussing further...

  • To avoid the above confusion related to separating visual/facing and weapon aim inputs, what if the user is able to "preset" his desired tension amount in advance? I'm picturing a sort of radar looking box with a dot in the middle kind of like how a joystick is calibrated. The user picks a point and then, after firing, if it's drifting a bit too far up and to the left, maybe he goes back in and tweaks his setting further, trying to find the right "balance point" for the particular weapon… After repeat trial and error, he'll eventually find the sweet spot, per say.
    • Maybe there are limits tied to the PMC's stats that dictate the extent to which the character is able to compensate for? So let's say weapon XYZ is a real heavy-hitter that's very hard to rein in. This could be represented by the user wanting to select a very distant point, but being unable to due to lack of weapon mastery, etc.
    • Also, rather than the user's setting being an immediate "on/off" decision, what if it instead served to dictate HOW his character will try to improve his groupings going forward? So for example, say the user indicates that for this rifle configuration, the character should try to "apply tension" (not sure what words to use here?) in a certain manner, and as he plays with those settings, the character will over time "learn" and "improve" toward that end goal. This notion of gradually learning may also serve to prevent a one-size-fits-all routine where a person can share a picture of a "perfect" gun tension setting on the web, everyone just copies-and-pastes it into the game, and immediately everyone is shooting top tier.
    • Perhaps these factors are further influenced by character skill/traits? So that a level 4 strength player will require a different "setup" than, say, a level 7 strength player.
    • It is worth noting too that, contrary to efforts to re-introduce mouse inputs into the equation, this idea still largely tries to "remove" the player's own agency to a large degree. As we've discussed at length, whether this is a good or bad thing may be up to the eye of the beholder and his interpretation on the proper "role" or user input in EFT and FPS games in general.

Here's an illustration, may get the idea across better...

NOTE: My use of Level 1, 2, 3 is just to show a progression, not necessarily that I feel there should be that much improvement from level to level

rect5726.thumb.png.1404fb7cea630e4b65ed1cca0b1bbbbb.png

Now if we take a step back for a second, we may see that this too starts to look a bit ridiculous. I'm struck by the comparison of a bird vs an airplane. The bird is operating on pure sensory input and is fine-tuned to adapt to the aspects of flight on semi-conscious/unconscious levels. Take away those inputs though, and we're left with the engineering amalgamations we see before us in airplanes. Radios, sensors, fly-by-wire systems, etc etc. All designed to cope with the fact that we as humans are largely robbed of the bird's innate sensory inputs related to wind, pressure, et al.

Is it fair to say we can fly? Kind of. Like a bird? Not in the slightest. 

And that's kind of how I see it in regard to trying to finagle an appropriate level of manual controls with respect to recoil. Can it be done? Kind of. With a lot of weird nuts and bolts and completely unnatural "helpers" in place. But to say it somehow represents what it is like to "be a bird" and shoot in real life? Not in the slightest.

Yet, as said at the outset, for better or worse these are the constraints we must contend with :)

Thoughts? Improvements?

Edited by Spectator6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectator6

@jlambvo Thinking more about your ideas... What if the level of recoil "focus/tension" from the player influenced his movement?

For example, if the player wants to be fully braced and ready for automatic fire, what if his movements are made to be likewise more focused and deliberate? One way this might be represented is by lowering his movement speed and reducing his turning speed. If he wants a bit more "reactive" ability to make larger movements a bit quicker while still trying to maintain a relatively decent hold on his weapon, he can then go to a "medium" setting. For those moments when he was maximum flexibility and movement, he can go to a lighter setting still. The caveat being, however, that as he increases his speed and overall range of motion, he sacrifices his recoil control.

One "issue" with this would be how to convey this to the player. Maybe it's set similar to how movement speed is controlled, the user can flick through Full, Medium, Free (or whatever we call it).

Another potential issue would be that it may not feel very natural. If I'm in "Full" mode, braced and ready, moving slowly... if I'm startled and want to quickly look to my left in a sort of reactionary fire type thing, it may feel very odd if I'm not able to at least turn quickly. Even if my recoil control goes to crap, I'd at least want to try and face my attacker. 

Ideally, the game would be able to interpret a certain speed/range of mouse movement as "exiting" the full mode and entering into "free" mode...

And on the flipside, if I'm currently in "free" mode, see a target, take precise aim and start sending rounds downrange, what if I simply "forget" to switch to "full" mode to indicate I want maximum focus/attention? Does EFT really need another setting/button to worry about? Because in real life obviously these sorts of adjustments are made on-the-fly without any sort of fiddly button presses or mouse wheel scrolls.

Again, it all circles back to the pesky issue of control inputs and how they are interpreted...

Thoughts? Improvements?

Edited by Spectator6
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AdhesiveTeflon

@Spectator6 Those feelings go back to 1.) training and 2.) adrenaline and adrenaline is hard to implement on a natural scale.  Some games try to get it close like in Battlefield when a tank shoots a wall near you or rounds fly by really close and your screen goes all blurry but they really only give you three stances, standing, crouch, and prone; nothing in between with no speed adjustment.  EFT kind of improves on the movement with being able to adjust your movement speed and height but like you said, it's impossible to do it fluently with a KB/M compared to real life.

Maybe EoD players will get VR edition goggles and rifles.....:D

Edited by AdhesiveTeflon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jlambvo
9 hours ago, Spectator6 said:

Hmmm... Very interesting observation here! If I'm reading you correctly, you're essentially describing a way for the user to indicate a level of "tension" applied to the weapon. To avoid the "runaway recoil" problem that's so apparent (and unrealistic) with traditional manual recoil systems, why not interpret the mouse offset position as a sort of rate-of-change, kind of like how a joystick is handled? (Do I have that right?)

Here is the first observation that comes to mind... 

  • How would this transition between the mouse controlling the player's view vs controlling the "tension" factor? If the player begins firing then wants to adjust his aim to the down and to the right to track a moving target, for example, what lets the recoil system differentiate that *those* mouse movements should adjust his view and not his recoil "tension" setting? Would he have to stop firing in order to "re-aim" somewhere else? If so, if players get somewhat "locked-in" to their current orientation while firing, would that do a great disservice in representing the dexterity that comes with, say, a small frame SMG like the MP7?

Thoughts?

That's pretty much it exactly, and raises the dilemma of course in managing the transition between the two. I was trying to imagine how such a mechanism would feel; I'd be curious to find a way to prototype it down the road. So a couple responses:

1. To adjust aim, in this "tension" mode you would still be capable of turning--it would just be joystick-like movement, and would of course be competing with horizontal and vertical recoil components. If you are trying to track while firing, you would move the mouse to the left or right (or up down of course) to a degree where you are turning more or less quickly, and then move the mouse the opposite direction to slow down or stop turning. So small movements would be used to counteract recoil. Overdoing it would introduce a force greater than recoil resulting in change of angle. 

With something like this, you could also implement recoil less as an absolute jump in angle  (equivalent to a move of the mouse) and instead a "nudge" that pushes up/down or side to side. Of course it would need to be a very sharp impulse and naturally dampen quickly to the point of being only slightly different from jump recoil, but I think would feel more realistic.

2. I just realized that this would also imply decoupling mouse from movement direction, so if you were shuffling at the same time you would have to continue in the same direction as before I suppose; treating it more like a "free look" mode. That may or may not feel terrible. A question here is, how dextrous realistically should/can one be while firing even an SMG if you are stabilizing it at all?

3. Thinking on it further--and this again could result in frustrating mis-clicks unless a convenient modifier button were available--you could have this not kick in just while firing (which would apply pretty much only to full-auto fire), you might hold down a button that toggles this mode. Say if right-click toggles shouldering, and holding right mouse entered this joystick stabilizing/tracking mode, so you could apply it to single-fire mode or anticipate recoil before it occurs.

Ultimately I'd like to follow a design principle called NORG, or Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay, which I believe was coined by someone at Blackfoot Studios, which had made the fantastic Infiltration mod for the original UT and is currently developing a mil sim shooter Ground Branch. The basic idea of this is to rather than try to forcefully constrain available actions to the image of realism, you implement realistic consequences and mechanics from which realistic behavior should emerge.

For example instead of forcing movement speed to half while aiming, allow players to run with their weapon shouldered--just make it useless or dangerous while doing so. What are similar mechanics we can implement for recoil? 

9 hours ago, Spectator6 said:

Here is a suggestion that may or may not be worth our discussing further...

If I understand correctly you'd essentially between combat occasionally adjust your character's target point of compensation, presumably based on what you're seeing in your shot groupings? This seems like it adds a layer to the current system to make it slightly less automated, as it currently attempts to make this adjustment based on your recoil and weapon skill.

If this is correct, may main hesitation is that it seems like something you'd maybe set once and forget, or interact with very infrequently--and when you do, there's clearly going to be an optimum point to set it at, like having to periodically do a visual "least squares" calculation. It also certainly reinforces the separation between player and character. That separation is interesting if there's a decision or trade-off to make as the player that depends on character. I wonder if there's something in this that could incorporate some kind of tactical choice, if you were to go that route, rather than a periodic re-optimization?

9 hours ago, Spectator6 said:

Is it fair to say we can fly? Kind of. Like a bird? Not in the slightest. 

Great analogy, illustrates the design challenge very well. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectator6
5 hours ago, jlambvo said:

Ultimately I'd like to follow a design principle called NORG, or Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay, which I believe was coined by someone at Blackfoot Studios, which had made the fantastic Infiltration mod for the original UT and is currently developing a mil sim shooter Ground Branch.

Oh yeah, small world! I know exactly what you're talking about with NORG, frequented the old boards waaaay back in the day myself! John and all those guys are excellent. I still rave about Infiltration. IMO, its pacing is excellent. The movement, the in-rig time during reloads, free aim, weapon resting/collision, etc etc. All these little details really add up. It was WAY ahead of its time and a complete shame that it hasn't been built-on much since then by other developers.

GB is coming along, but still has a loooong way to go. The rail and molle systems are really well done!

------

Back to your joystick idea. So what you're envisioning is not something separate to recoil control per se, but tied also to the player's view while in this mode.

A few more follow-up questions...

  • If the player were to do nothing and provide no further input during full-auto fire, what would happen with respect to the muzzle direction?
  • Conversely, if the player were to "get it right", let's say, and offset his mouse the proper amount during a full auto course of fire, what then? Is there a potential for the gun to be "on rails" with very little to any recoil induced muzzle deviations? ie would the player be able to consistently "beat" the recoil system?
  • As we've alluded to throughout this thread, we all seem to be in agreement in that precision with regard to the player's intent is a critical factor. With this joystick-like approach, what prevents it from feeling too muddy and sluggish? For example, if we look at console controllers in FPS shooters, there's a noticeable lack of precision when compared to M/KB. And, we need to keep in mind, that's also *WITH* the physical touch feedback of the stick's "return spring", which definitely aids in the player quickly moving "back to center". A mouse however, loses that sense of touch, so how can we be sure the player will not feel "lost" on a sheet of ice while continuously trying to fuss out where "center" is?
    • I can't recall what flight game uses this mouse-as-a-joystick approach, but I remember it feeling really muddy without first establishing a dead-zone to make up for my fumbling.
  • What would happen if the view were always controlled by this joystick-like input? Would eliminating the freelook vs joysticklook divide be less jarring to the player? Would that help with your no 2?

-----

6 hours ago, jlambvo said:

If I understand correctly you'd essentially between combat occasionally adjust your character's target point of compensation, presumably based on what you're seeing in your shot groupings?

Yeah... It could even be something the player could bring up in-raid as a means of fine-tuning things.

6 hours ago, jlambvo said:

it seems like something you'd maybe set once and forget, or interact with very infrequently--and when you do, there's clearly going to be an optimum point to set it at, like having to periodically do a visual "least squares" calculation.

Exactly, that's what I was afraid of too. One remedy to this could be to tie it to the player's passive skills (what I was trying to show with the progressively increasing size of the "control circle") that way one-shoe wouldn't automatically fit everyone.

Honestly, I'm not too big on the idea one way or the other. It feels awfully gimmicky. And from a practical standpoint, there's no reason the character would not be able to come to grips with these adjustments himself. The first time I handled a full-auto AK, it got a way from me a little bit. But after that initial experience, I immediately knew what to do and was able to bring it on-line much more consistently after only a few more trial and errors at grips/positioning/etc. I'd expect an even more refined and timely response from my trained PMC.

So with that said, turning recoil control into a sort of separate "pick the right spot" mini-game may wholly unnecessary. In comparison, it's making me appreciate EFT's current approach more already 😛

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectator6

@jlambvo Sorry, I just noticed that my earlier attempt at pinging you didn't go through. There are a couple replies not too far up from this one. Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectator6

Here's an excellent video posted by @Alter on a separate thread. I think it does a great job highlighting how much of a factor "preparing" and "bracing" for fully automatic fire can be. And yet how, even with that preparation, it's very common for the weapon to still "get away from you" a bit.

Applying these types of stances/preparation phases to shooting reasonably accurate full-auto groupings may be a worthwhile aspect for EFT to explore. This is kind of what I was after by having several different bracing/tension modifiers a few posts above. Taking the time to widen your stance and lean into the weapon is a very real "delay" (small, but real nonetheless). Should it be differentiated from someone who is walking around haphazardly and trying to fire tight groupings (either semi or full auto) without first taking the time to brace/prepare for it?

Though again, as I said above, the fly in the ointment may come down more to a matter of user interface, control interface, etc.

  • How might something like this be implemented without it feeling too clunky or UN-intuitive? 
  • Is this why it's "better" to simplify things down a bit and stay with one firing stance, to overcome the very real side-effects related to the user control experience?

 

Edited by Spectator6
formatting, expand points
  • Like 1
  • Hot 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanExert

Great to see such respectful and insightful conversation on the forum!

I'll continue to lurk... keep it up!

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectator6
34 minutes ago, DanExert said:

Great to see such respectful and insightful conversation on the forum!

I'll continue to lurk... keep it up!

Ahh, so *THAT* explains the shining aura I feel wash over me from time to time. It's your lurking! Ha!

Always good to have you @DanExert 

*toast*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jlambvo
18 hours ago, Spectator6 said:

Oh yeah, small world! I know exactly what you're talking about with NORG, frequented the old boards waaaay back in the day myself! John and all those guys are excellent. I still rave about Infiltration. IMO, its pacing is excellent. The movement, the in-rig

A few more follow-up questions...

  • If the player were to do nothing and provide no further input during full-auto fire, what would happen with respect to the muzzle direction?
  • Conversely, if the player were to "get it right", let's say, and offset his mouse the proper amount during a full auto course of fire, what then? Is there a potential for the gun to be "on rails" with very little to any recoil induced muzzle deviations? ie would the player be able to consistently "beat" the recoil system?
  • As we've alluded to throughout this thread, we all seem to be in agreement in that precision with regard to the player's intent is a critical factor. With this joystick-like approach, what prevents it from feeling too muddy and sluggish? For example, if we look at console controllers in FPS shooters, there's a noticeable lack of precision when compared to M/KB. And, we need to keep in mind, that's also *WITH* the physical touch feedback of the stick's "return spring", which definitely aids in the player quickly moving "back to center". A mouse however, loses that sense of touch, so how can we be sure the player will not feel "lost" on a sheet of ice while continuously trying to fuss out where "center" is?
    • I can't recall what flight game uses this mouse-as-a-joystick approach, but I remember it feeling really muddy without first establishing a dead-zone to make up for my fumbling.
  • What would happen if the view were always controlled by this joystick-like input? Would eliminating the freelook vs joysticklook divide be less jarring to the player? Would that help with your no 2?

😛

Nice to meet another Inf/GB follower! It's a small community but I shouldn't be so surprised to see some overlap with EFT. It's one of the closest modern experiences I've found that compares.

All good points and questions! Again a challenge to imagine in the hypothetical, but in my proposal I'd expect that the muzzle would climb and recoil side to side without any intervention similarly to most games. So it admittedly wouldn't necessarily be too different from common systems, except that you'd be using this joystick-like input to compensate rather than continuous dragging or "absolute" corrections (that is, recoil sent me to (+x, +y) so now I move the mouse (-x,-y)). 

If recoil on each shot were stochastic, you would then not be able to simply find the the right mouse position and negate it perfectly, rather each shot would be slightly different--you could at best find the right "average" position but there would still inevitably be some natural spread (so in that respect it would actually be somewhat like your proposal but finding that point manually in real-time). Movement could likewise amplify or add other competing impulses to further make it more difficult to accurately fire while moving. 

The advantage in my mind over conventional mouse-drag recoil control is that you would inherently have some trade-off (I think) between precision of control, and tracking/turning while in that mode, because rather than making an absolute correction after each shot you would naturally be over or under compensating in the optimal rate of change in angle. This would hopefully correspond to reality in that you generally need to brace/stabilize for shooting into a fairly narrow beaten area and give up some mobility to do so. 

5 hours ago, Spectator6 said:

Here's an excellent video posted by @Alter on a separate thread...

So this made me think of a much, much simpler alternative to all this: integrate the "hold breathe" function with a more global "stabilize" function, where the recoil control only kicks in when you are holding down shift or alt or whatever. This could straight up be disabled while moving at all and you only have some limited window to apply it, and/or it would drain and be linked to stamina. You can still shuffle or even jog and fire full auto, it just will suffer full uncompensated recoil. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectator6
11 hours ago, jlambvo said:

So this made me think of a much, much simpler alternative to all this: integrate the "hold breathe" function with a more global "stabilize" function, where the recoil control only kicks in when you are holding down shift or alt or whatever. This could straight up be disabled while moving at all and you only have some limited window to apply it, and/or it would drain and be linked to stamina. You can still shuffle or even jog and fire full auto, it just will suffer full uncompensated recoil. 

Ahhh good one!

Why not even take it one step further? Let's work from the assumption that at all times, the player is trying to shoot his best grouping (as he well should be!). The deciding factors, then, as to how tight that grouping is allowed to be would not rely on a "tension/stance" setting or a button press, but rather be fully governed by the interaction of several different factors:

  • Movement speed
  • Mouse movement speed. Slower mouse movements would benefit. Fast mouse movements would momentarily suffer during the motion, but quickly "recover" as the pace is modulated slower
  • Weapon ergonomics
  • Player stamina

Taken together, this mix may cover a wide range of situations and circumstances.

I'm reminded here of the old original Rainbow 6 from Red Storm Entertainment (which, correct me if I'm wrong here @jlambvo, but didn't John over at Blackfoot come from there?). Note in this clip how sensitive the "bloom" rates are while the character is moving, aiming, etc.

Might such a sensitive and responsive system be used in EFT to dictate the player's own "readiness" as it applies to his shot groupings?

Now, a caveat... It's possible that one of the reasons R6's system translates so well to gameplay is due to the direct feedback loop offered to the player in the form of the visual crosshair. With every jot and tittle, the player was immediately informed of the implications his actions had on his aim quality. This helped inform the player of the direct risks/rewards of certain playstyles, thus serving to "guide" the player's action toward the gameplay style the developers intended for the game.

EFT, on the other hand, eschews hud elements almost entirely. The question, then, may be whether similar repercussions would make sense and be acceptable to the player if it were merely going on "in the background", so to speak, out of the player's view (after all, there's only so much feedback you can give the player in the form of weapon model movement/sway, head bob, etc).

My initial response is that, with or without a crosshair, these sorts of implications for recoil control are grounded in common sense and therefore, the risk/rewards will be intuitive if not outright expected by the average player (especially in a game like EFT that touts words like "hardcore" and "realism").

Thoughts? Improvements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectator6
1 hour ago, Spectator6 said:

it just will suffer full uncompensated recoil. 

Sorry I meant to clarify your point here further and I've passed the edit time on my previous post... 

In keeping with my interpretation of EFT's intended purpose of the mouse position -- that it represents INTENT of aim, not direct control of the firearm itself -- I feel *ALL* recoil control should be influenced by automatic recoil compensation.

Implementing something akin to the original R6's movement/mouse-movement sensitivities may be something as simple as

Fast movements (both foot speed and mouse speed) may translate into

  • larger "bloom"
  • more pronounced "cursor displacement"
  • slower re-leveling of the firearm

Whereas on the flip-side,

Smooth and controlled movements (both foot speed and mouse speed) may translate into

  • tighter "bloom"
  • less pronounced "cursor displacement"
  • faster re-leveling of the firearm

In this way, an original R6-like approach, would tie in and build upon the recoil mechanics already present in EFT rather than replace them entirely.

The direct implication here is that for someone who is engaged in full-auto fire, if he then starts to "swing" the gun around, his shot groupings would suffer for it. And perhaps it can go one step further and also adversely affect how tight the bloom can return to once it's has settled on a target. The visual here is that someone laying down full-auto fire on a single, isolated target will have a tighter "final grouping" (ie the grouping after recoil compensation has fully kicked in) throughout the course of fire than another player who lays down full-auto fire for the same length of time, but spread across multiple targets. 

This feedback alone may go a LONG way toward curbing the current mag-dump meta where players simply hold down the trigger, then "dart" their muzzles around in wide arcs from target to target, etc.

Edited by Spectator6
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sadstuart

heres a video i thought you guys might find interesting, i personally havent shot a 5.45 rifle but from most the videos ive seen theyre alot more controllable than even portrayed in tarkov as seen here with a semi auto rifle of all things lol . Now you should know bump firing youre really only holding the rifle with your hands without shouldering it. Its very rare that you get to see a video of so much unedited rapid fire.  check out the "pattern"

I do own a 5.56 saiga without a compensator and oh man does it recoil haha

 

Edited by sadstuart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vekongmaster
On 9/17/2019 at 10:34 PM, Spectator6 said:

 

 

 

Dear Lord Nikita and BSG Devs,

This video pretty much concludes our discussion on recoil. No more recoil ninja in EFT, please! No more Chuck Norris in this game!

Nerf the recoil control skill (both horizontal and vertical) big time! 

Add more shot dispersion and sight sway or something when our PMC shoots full auto! And add weapon overheating!

Let's make Semi-Auto great again! ^_^ 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starioshka

Since when does EFT have Bloom?

I want that off immediately and all files related to it deleted.

My gun will only shoot where it is pointing not based on a dice roll.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectator6
Posted (edited)
On 9/28/2019 at 3:23 AM, Starioshka said:

Since when does EFT have Bloom?

I want that off immediately and all files related to it deleted.

My gun will only shoot where it is pointing not based on a dice roll.

 

Hello @Starioshka!

Yes, bullets in EFT do come out of the weapon's barrel and I'm sure we all agree that's a good thing :)

It may help to look at "bloom" within the context of EFT as more of a loose concept. Either the bullets disperse (more traditional FPS games) or the barrel angle/etc "disperses" (EFT, Arma, etc). Aside from a few edge cases, the end result is largely the same in that there is a variance/deviation added away from the player's original point of aim.

EDIT: And if we're really splitting hairs here, EFT does have a very small amount of "traditional bloom" represented by each weapon's accuracy rating. This gives a very small variance of impact regardless of the barrel's direction/orientation. In my personal opinion, this is a good thing and entirely warranted within EFT's weapon mechanics.

Edited by Spectator6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...
b38e7c858218a416ef714554dce933a2