Weapon Inertia & Sway Feedback (dev branch)

[Ophichius 10]

It sounds like your problems with the system are purely (well, mostly) cosmetic. While that's perfectly valid, it's hardly the indictment of the core mechanics that you're making it out to be.

No it is core mechanics. If you cannot see your sights to use them, and cannot accurately estimate how far off (and in which direction) your aim is, you cannot hit anything. Watching my scope reticule drift off the top of my screen during a burst is patently absurd.

Similarly, having the rear sight drifting around robs me of any effective means of gauging how far off my aim is, and in which direction. If they implement inertia as an actual directional offset (i.e. overswing) rather than a simple increase in shot dispersion, that bit of information will be crucial in tight situations.

In a game about shooting things, sight behavior is absolutely a core mechanic and should be addressed seriously.

[drill 1]

Tried out the weapon inertia and, on my opinion, though the inertia effect is too weak (especially for heavier weapons and prone stance), overall weapon inertia is a very well done feature (with exception to some bugs/inconsistencies laready aforementioned in this topic). I hope it would survive till stable version at least at current state (and better with more amplified effects).

[froggyluv 2136]

No it is core mechanics. If you cannot see your sights to use them, and cannot accurately estimate how far off (and in which direction) your aim is, you cannot hit anything. Watching my scope reticule drift off the top of my screen during a burst is patently absurd.

Similarly, having the rear sight drifting around robs me of any effective means of gauging how far off my aim is, and in which direction. If they implement inertia as an actual directional offset (i.e. overswing) rather than a simple increase in shot dispersion, that bit of information will be crucial in tight situations.

In a game about shooting things, sight behavior is absolutely a core mechanic and should be addressed seriously.

Very valid points and mostly agree that the implementation could use some work and be less "wildly random". That said many of us are excited primarily because if you know BI, they tend to introduce a new feature in very obtuse regard only to slowly refine over many, many and many, many more updates and patches. So the mere introduction of a feature is greeted with tempered high praise.

[vegeta897 13]

Okay, so in a nutshell the answer is that you defend the intentions, not the implementation.

Sorry, I guess I misinterpreted your post a bit. The implementation is another matter indeed, but it's also one that seems far more subjective. Either you like the way it "feels" and think it's a good way to recreate the difficulty of aiming and steadying a weapon, or you do not. I don't see much value in stating justifications or rationalizations for something that is so personal. Can doing so actually change whether someone likes the way it feels or not?

I didn't intend to get into a discussion on the mechanics you delve into, so I'll politely bow out and let others respond. You raise some decent points, but I want to stress again that these mechanics are not meant to look or act like the real life version. The focus is on the end result of making shooting difficult but in an understandable way that you can get good at with practice.

[Ophichius 10]

Sorry, I guess I misinterpreted your post a bit. The implementation is another matter indeed, but it's also one that seems far more subjective. Either you like the way it "feels" and think it's a good way to recreate the difficulty of aiming and steadying a weapon, or you do not. I don't see much value in stating justifications or rationalizations for something that is so personal. Can doing so actually change whether someone likes the way it feels or not?

It can actually change how people perceive it. Part of why I was asking was that I truly did not understand how people could like the current devbranch mechanics. Froggyluv made a solid point that people are cautiously excited because it will be iterated upon many times, and you helped me understand that people are more interested in the way it affects the decision-making process of choosing weapons. I still don't really like the current mechanics, but I think I have a better understanding of why someone could like them.

I didn't intend to get into a discussion on the mechanics you delve into, so I'll politely bow out and let others respond. You raise some decent points, but I want to stress again that these mechanics are not meant to look or act like the real life version. The focus is on the end result of making shooting difficult but in an understandable way that you can get good at with practice.

I guess my question is, if the mechanics can be brought closer to real world behavior, while also presenting a complex shooting experience (i.e. realism AND complexity) shouldn't that be a better goal than 'realism OR complexity'?

[roshnak 41]

No it is core mechanics. If you cannot see your sights to use them, and cannot accurately estimate how far off (and in which direction) your aim is, you cannot hit anything. Watching my scope reticule drift off the top of my screen during a burst is patently absurd.

Similarly, having the rear sight drifting around robs me of any effective means of gauging how far off my aim is, and in which direction. If they implement inertia as an actual directional offset (i.e. overswing) rather than a simple increase in shot dispersion, that bit of information will be crucial in tight situations.

In a game about shooting things, sight behavior is absolutely a core mechanic and should be addressed seriously.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with respect to the bolded part of this quote. I just fired a long burst out of an M200 and the sights were aligned through the whole thing. I even added some horizontal movement into the second burst and the sights stayed mroe or less aligned.

Here is a video:

I also tried this with reflex sights and the RCO, but didn't record it since the effects were the same.

I was going to edit this next part into my previous post, but since we are on a new page, I'll just drop it in here:

I think one of the big problems we're having in this instance is one of communication. When people read, "The new system is dumb and makes soldiers look like they have noodle arms, Cpl. Jello Arms, etc." what they understand that to mean is "I hate the new system, I don't understand it, or I didn't give it a chance."

By contrast, this statement: "The pivot point of the gun is too far forward during sight misalignment. The same effect could be achieved in a more realistic matter if the weapon were to pivot from a point closer to the shoulder." indicates that you understand the purpose of the inertia system and would like to see a tweak to it's implementation without compromising its intent.

Edit:

I guess my question is, if the mechanics can be brought closer to real world behavior, while also presenting a complex shooting experience (i.e. realism AND complexity) shouldn't that be a better goal than 'realism OR complexity'?

Sure. But the problem is that we didn't understand that this was what you were asking for, since your initial post on the matter was this:

With this latest update the sway and recoil issues have become bad enough that I'm not likely to pick the game up again until they're fixed. It's both jarring and incredibly irritating the way that both scopes and iron sights wobble around your screen as though your soldier is Cpl. Jello Arms. A proper shooting stance does not allow that much relative movement between the eye and the rear sight.

Which comes off perhaps harsher than you intended and doesn't contain any of the constructive feedback that you have since provided.

Edited August 28, 2014 by roshnak

[-Coulum- 35]

I guess my question is, if the mechanics can be brought closer to real world behavior, while also presenting a complex shooting experience (i.e. realism AND complexity) shouldn't that be a better goal than 'realism OR complexity'?

What this boils down to is how much BI is willing to simulate. If BI try to simulate every detail like you suggest, that means BI have to simulate EVERY detail. You miss one and you throw things off the realistic balance. BI's approach is the opposite. Worry about the realistic balance first and then worry about whether things are a perfect simulation after if at all.

I would rather have abstract mechanics that achieve realistic gameplay, than a few totally realistic mechanics, that don't add up to achieve that realistic gameplay.

[Bouben 3]

I have to repeat that there has to be a sight misalignment during shooting. When your weapon kicks during shooting, your sights are going to be jumpy, that is for sure.

[-Coulum- 35]

I have to repeat that there has to be a sight misalignment during shooting. When your weapon kicks during shooting, your sights are going to be jumpy, that is for sure.

Do you mean due to recoil? I would agree. Also when you bring up the sights initially, It would be much better if the sights came into alignment via weapon inertia method rather than the way they are already in alignment as soon as your right mouse click ala now.

[CaptainObvious 95]

Also when you bring up the sights initially, It would be much better if the sights came into alignment via weapon inertia method rather than the way they are already in alignment as soon as your right mouse click ala now.

That would be great indeed, it would further increase the necessity of an smg or a carbine in tight urban environments.

[Ophichius 10]

I'm not sure what you are talking about with respect to the bolded part of this quote. I just fired a long burst out of an M200 and the sights were aligned through the whole thing. I even added some horizontal movement into the second burst and the sights stayed mroe or less aligned.

Here is a video:

I also tried this with reflex sights and the RCO, but didn't record it since the effects were the same.

I just tried this again and couldn't replicate it to the same degree, so it may have been something that the last update fixed. I was running the Armed Assault showcase, and using the MXC + RCO that you're issued. I was getting a recoil rise that put the crosshairs roughly halfway between the center of my screen and the top of the screen. Previously it actually disappeared off the top of my screen. Unfortunately I don't have access to video recording software, so I can't show a good example of it in action.

I was going to edit this next part into my previous post, but since we are on a new page, I'll just drop it in here:

I think one of the big problems we're having in this instance is one of communication. When people read, "The new system is dumb and makes soldiers look like they have noodle arms, Cpl. Jello Arms, etc." what they understand that to mean is "I hate the new system, I don't understand it, or I didn't give it a chance."

By contrast, this statement: "The pivot point of the gun is too far forward during sight misalignment. The same effect could be achieved in a more realistic matter if the weapon were to pivot from a point closer to the shoulder." indicates that you understand the purpose of the inertia system and would like to see a tweak to it's implementation without compromising its intent.

Yeah, my first post was posted in a state of disgust after 60+ minutes of running into glitches and foul-ups in the showcases, culminating in a firefight where I was fighting my weapon more than the enemy. It really feels like the gunplay has gone backwards since the alpha, and the gun bobbling all over is cartoonish, but I didn't express that clearly because at the time I was fuming over things.

[CaptainObvious 95]

@Ophichius: Are you by any chance seeing something like this?

[Ophichius 10]

@Ophichius: Are you by any chance seeing something like this?

I'm not seeing the sharp shuddering, but the overall movement is very similar, especially the way the stock of the weapon floats all over the screen.

[DancZer 65]

The easy way is making a short video and upload it somewhere. Maybe your weapon inertia effect has an issue too.

[CaptainObvious 95]

I'm not seeing the sharp shuddering, but the overall movement is very similar, especially the way the stock of the weapon floats all over the screen.

The effect shouldn't be that strong at all, but quite subtle actually, there might be something wrong with your install, or a mod is interfering with the game.

[Ophichius 10]

The effect shouldn't be that strong at all, but quite subtle actually, there might be something wrong with your install, or a mod is interfering with the game.

Well I can re-verify the cache, but I'm running vanilla, so it's not mods.

[djotacon 190]

"You mean we should open the bootcamp every once in a while and run on a treadmill to keep our avatar fit? "

I suggest you see that idea works on America's Army bootcamp to get the title of "Marksman". This is a vey good approach to my idea.

[bad benson 1733]

@Ophichius: Are you by any chance seeing something like this?

i gotta say i like jsut the visual aspect of that in hip fire mode. it may be way too much but it's noticable. gotta check the latest update still but in the first iteration i found it way too static in hip fire mode (sorry..lack of a better term). this video, eventhough it's showing a bug, kinda reminds me almost of insurgency. and i liek that :D

[twisted 128]

Do you mean due to recoil? I would agree. Also when you bring up the sights initially, It would be much better if the sights came into alignment via weapon inertia method rather than the way they are already in alignment as soon as your right mouse click ala now.

you know that's a pretty neat idea.

[Bouben 3]

Do you mean due to recoil? I would agree. Also when you bring up the sights initially, It would be much better if the sights came into alignment via weapon inertia method rather than the way they are already in alignment as soon as your right mouse click ala now.

Yes, due to recoil. It immediately caught my attention that the sights are so static during shooting.

I agree with your suggestion about applying inertia on bringing up the sights.

[chortles 263]

Yes, due to recoil. It immediately caught my attention that the sights are so static during shooting.

I agree with your suggestion about applying inertia on bringing up the sights.

Should we imagine that the idea is that carbines/SMGs/PDWs/pistols would be "least disalignment and fastest to recover" in a similar manner as BI purported for those when-turning-while-aiming?

P.S. I had a thought about SMGs being the least well off if that's the case, but then I remembered that IRL even-shorter carbines (sometimes aka "subcompact" or "subcarbine" or "short barreled rifle") have generally superseded SMGs for more or less that reason...

[Bouben 3]

Should we imagine that the idea is that carbines/SMGs/PDWs/pistols would be "least disalignment and fastest to recover" in a similar manner as BI purported for those when-turning-while-aiming?

I believe the misalignment should be based on actual properties of a weapon and not its type. You can have a pistol with a really big recoil and that should mean more misalignment.

[chortles 263]

I was referencing the "bringing up of the weapon" that -Coulum- had been talking about, recoil would be irrelevant in the case of a "first" shot for obvious reasons.

[-Coulum- 35]

Should we imagine that the idea is that carbines/SMGs/PDWs/pistols would be "least disalignment and fastest to recover" in a similar manner as BI purported for those when-turning-while-aiming?

Yeah pretty much. A carbine will be quick and easy to align (and more importantly, to properly position/grip/support) than an LMG. And ideally, using a scope with magnification would further increase the time to align as well. Though I think that having the different inertia based on scopes is problematic, because the inertia is based on the scope itself, and not the sight you are actually using (primary vs. secondary back up sights).

Yes, due to recoil. It immediately caught my attention that the sights are so static during shooting.

Yes same here. Hell even sway could look more natural with inertia effects (Front sight leads the sway while back sight kind of slowly drifts behind). It would lessen that feeling that the gun isn't properly nested on your shoulder and make it look more like it is pivoting around your shoulder, rather than the stock sliding up and down your shoulder (like it does when you are severely fatigued). I don't see it as necessary, sway is fine enough as is, but the inertia effects just make everything seem more 3 dimensional. Which is why it would be good for recoil, to get rid of the "straight up" 2d recoil we have now, as well as bringing up the sights to the eye.

I do believe that BI said that as of right now they are not going to do anything to recoil, but come the marksman DLC they might touch on it to finish off the weapon handling mechanics. We can hope.

Edited August 29, 2014 by -Coulum-

[djotacon 190]

I do not know why seeing this kind of videos dont that say that sway and inertia are very high

The idea of ​​a combat simulator to practice is not only tactics but the focus is the fight and right now the aim is losing his point.