Welche bedeutung hat das programm recoil

Hello @MIkeKillson! Wanted to throw in my two cents for everyone's discussion. Kind of as a deeper dive...

As you can no doubt tell from my post linked above, I support the mechanics that BSG brings to bear on firing a weapon. Is it perfect? No (looking at you laser beam bullet hoses!). Does it still need improving? Yes, I believe so, and I've outlined my suggestions in the thread. But in my view, the underlying foundation they've established is solid. 

A number of people feel that manual recoil control is a crucial aspect of what makes an FPS competitive. Precise mouse flicks and drags are what separate skilled versus unskilled players. To them, controlling recoil, then, is in itself literally one of THE defining elements of an FPS.  Remove or deemphasize that layer of user input and we're left with something quite different, no?

And to those points, I'd say they're absolutely right! If players are meant to compete to see who can aim and shoot the best, then by all means, controlling a weapon should be front and center. Except… What if the "tried and true" methods of weapon recoil control that we've grown accustomed to do not present a very realistic picture?

The thought exercise I try to put forth may be best understood in three parts.

-----

Part One:

-----

What if BSG intends to do something different with EFT? What if, by somewhat controlling for player inputs related to aiming, the end result of what is presented to the player in a firefight actually more accurately depicts the realities of combat?

In real life, if we were to take two combat veterans who have comparable levels of training and experience, how wide of a difference would we expect to see in their performance? One a crack shot and the other a slouch? Or both relatively equal? (This is borne out in the rather slim progress bonuses, ie 2% better recoil control, etc)

To me, it seems EFT seeks to provide the player with an experience that reflects the latter -- a base level of skill among all players right from the get go. In doing so, by alleviating the burden of mastering fine-tuned-mouse-inputs-of-no-lifing-in-a-gamer-chair, it offers players the chance to embody a role. To see what it feels like to "play with the pros" where everyone is pretty darn effective. Not a means to compete, per se, but more a means to experience. To role play.

-----

Part Two:

-----

What if we've been lied to this whole time about what it is like to fire a weapon? What if, in real life, normal soldiers are not able to rip off accurate semi auto fire as quickly as they can pull the trigger? What if putting accurate rounds on target requires a slower cadence and rhythm than gamers have been led to believe after all these years? What if burst fire should feel sporadic and uncontrollable? What if full auto really is garbage at anything beyond close range and should not be as easy to overcome as mere mouse flicks and drags that span a matter of inches?

Case and point, here's some telling footage:

Here's one with an AK:

https://youtu.be/cosc-RO_oMg

Here's another with an MP5:

https://youtu.be/3XKPk6LXnS0

Here's another another with an AR-15:

https://youtu.be/K2WEvvisFfg

Annnnd my last contribution, again with an AR platform:

https://youtu.be/18kXkuoA014

Interesting to note the performance difference here between calibers/platforms too, as well as how much the shots drifted with the bipod.

Does the problem seem to be that they should just try harder to git gud? (Akshually, just learn to slide down on your mousepad a couple inches, duh!) Or does it instead seem that full auto is inherently an overwhelming-the-fine-motor-senses event? Speaking from live fire experience, to me the latter is more genuine and correct.

-----

Part Three:

-----

If we step back and take an object look into *HOW* a player controls his character, we find that we're severely limited in our inputs. We have one input (the mouse) that is abstracted to represent multiple things. It represents where our character is facing, where we're aiming our weapon, AND where we are trying to "control/counteract" the weapon's movements. In real life, each of these elements is an entirely separate motor-skill/awareness that is much more fluid, adaptable, and "unconscious" than first person shooters would have us believe.

As we all know, in real life we don't need to play a rather clumsy form digital gymnastics and hold down a modifier key to turn our head in a separate orientation from our weapon. Similarly, directing our intent for where we WANT to go is wholly separate from where we actually ARE going (picture yourself trying to mow straight lines in the grass). The act of intending to walk straight is separate from where we are actually walking, and the two aspects sort of meld/blend together in a rather seamless fashion.

In FPS's, however, we do not have this luxury of nuance and organic multi-layered inputs (or whatever you want to call it). Most FPS games weld the player's primary intent to the weapon's aim point. It's rather crude but, for the most part, it gets the job done. It seems to me, though, that EFT takes a different approach and marries the player's mouse inputs to where the player INTENDS to fire rather than to the weapon's aim point. This is a crucial distinction.

-----

Part Four (Bounus!):

 -----

In my view, it all comes down to user inputs. We've gotta mouse and we've gotta keyboard. Now, how can we use'em? In a traditional top-down RGP (or even melee based FPS's for that matter), players control the character's movement and facing, but not so much their actual attacks. The player clicks the mouse and the character swings his sword. How quickly and with how much strength the character makes the swing, though, is abstracted far from the literal motion of holding a heavy sword in your hands and swinging it around with your arms/body/etc.

And this makes sense given how widely divergent the act of swinging a sword is from moving a mouse. (Sidenote: There are some games that have allowed for the mouse movements to dictate swordplay, but they ran into the issue of, "Well, how does the player control his facing if his mouse is 'taken' by the sword controls?" The usual answer to this was to allow the player to artificially "lock on" to his target, to hand over the facing to the computer.)

The point I'd like people to consider here is it possible that, like swinging a sword, the act of controlling a full-auto weapon in real life is also too far divorced from simple mouse inputs?

Just as in the top-down RPG, what if "handing things over" to the computer/player-character allows for a more accurate representation of firing a weapon? This allows BSG to look at hard data and say, "Okay, you know what? From our research, highly trained operators typically perform around these thresholds. Let's 'give' the player that same starting point and allow some variation of improvement."

In other words, let's role-play the character's performance to some extent like a top down melee RPG handles it's attacks. Which kind of circles us back to Part One.

-----

Just because it's different, does not mean it's "wrong". It just means it's a different approach. Now, whether a person prefers one approach over another does not mean the other holds no merit.

To wrap things up (jeez this was long!), I do feel that the ultimate barometer of success is borne out in the player behavior that results from the mechanics. For the sake of discussion, let's just say that BSG is "right". Well, if the end result is that of accurately and consistently hip-firing beyond 25 meters in full auto (or whatever benchmark we set), since those results are WIDELY DIVERGENT from those we see in real life live fire events, then it may be fair to chalk it up as a faulty (again, looking at you full auto lazer beam high powered rifles, with players spraying and praying everywhere!).

Does that mean, then, that we must go back to unrealistic direct control of a weapon's aim point mixed with insane amounts of vertical recoil?

In my mind, no. I'd rather give BSG room to work and see this experiment play out a bit further. Because, as I outline in my original thread, I do think there are real and tangible ways the performance can be brought more in line with real life without throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak.

And yes, I think "forgetting" skills should come back in some form. Otherwise, what prevents someone from no-lifing the game until their max level on virtually all weapon platforms? In real-life, that's not possible. Allowing skills to "fade" while not being used is what forces players to consistently specialize if they want to achieve and maintain top-of-the-pack performance with a weapon.

Thoughts? Improvements? And all always, thank you for reading my ramblings 😀

Edited August 24, 2019 by Spectator6
update link formats, add thoughts on skill fade