Melee combat.

[Vesper11]

As of now it makes no difference if you have a rifle or smg in melee range, all you have to do is to fire the gun for instant profit. While I see nothing wrong with doing it if you have a pistol or smg, it seems strange if you have a rifle or MG. What I propose is that "long" weapons such as these shouldnt be able to fire inside melee range (1m, or 1.5m to counter lags) as soldier wouldnt let enemy to point it towards him. This should improve ammount of melee combat as people might prefer melee in close range rather than triing to shoot a gun that will not shoot and might lead to death. There was a lot of melee combat in WW2 on easter front (shovels were extremely popular) and I think such minor addition would be very nice for RO2.

edit: Changed title because world collision should have a greater effect in tight quarters and be a part of melee combat. As many of us agree here, rifles and other cumbersome weapons should be less effective in tight spaces by intoducing them to world collision.

 

[Murphy]

I'm pretty sure I would hate that.
And 1m is basically no range at all so it wouldn't lead to more or better melee fights but to awkward situations were your gun doesn't for no reason until you and your opponent get apart from each-other half-foot more again because you're both cirlce-strafing and then you can fire again miraculously.

I'm all for improving melee combat! I definitely agree that it should be better and that it should be used much more often. But this is really not the way to go, in my opinion.
First ridiculous things like not being able to stab a prone person need to go, just so the current melee, simplistic and stupid as it is, feels and looks even works.

To encourage it's use I think making it more realistic, more complex and more fun in terms of melee vs. ranged weapon (e.g. being able to knock an opponent's weapon away from you before you hit him with a follow up) as well as in melee vs. melee, is what needs to be done.

Having your gun not go off because you're too close to someone just seems too artificial for my taste. It's a step away from the duel mode in Star Wars: Jedi Outcast where you could enter into duels with other players, which created a forcefield around the two of you where weapons other than the light-saber didn't work...

 

[Proud_God]

As of now it makes no difference if you have a rifle or smg in melee range, all you have to do is to fire the gun for instant profit. While I see nothing wrong with doing it if you have a pistol or smg, it seems strange if you have a rifle or MG. What I propose is that "long" weapons such as these shouldnt be able to fire inside melee range (1m, or 1.5m to counter lags) as soldier wouldnt let enemy to point it towards him. This should improve ammount of melee combat as people might prefer melee in close range rather than triing to shoot a gun that will not shoot and might lead to death. There was a lot of melee combat in WW2 on easter front (shovels were extremely popular) and I think such minor addition would be very nice for RO2.

Agreed, rifles are long and impractical in close spaces, and anything that simulates this is good in my book.

 

[DesiQ]

Agreed, rifles are long and impractical in close spaces, and anything that simulates this is good in my book.

This is the WRONG way to simulate it.

All you need to do is have weapon-world collision like the Infiltration mod did: if you turn in a narrow hallway while your gun is pointing straight forward, it hits the walls and stops you from turning further. You have to lift or drop the muzzle of your gun to fit it through. There is not much of a learning curve for this, and it handily communicates the fact that short weapons are a lot better in close combat than long weapons without relying on some gamey rubbish like not allowing you to fire when an enemy is around.

 

[Vesper11]

It might not be the best idea but there's not much you can do in fast paced shooter like RO2. There's almost no hp here, you either kill or get killed thus the drastic measures like locking weapon in 1m range.

All you need to do is have weapon-world collision

This! But its harder to do so and in melee combat it will act almost the same as 1m no-fire zone. And due to lag people may still shoot you even in collision/melee range (e.g. on your PC it will seem that you got into melee range, on theirs you are still 1m away, allowing them to shoot you).

 

[[Mad_Murdock]]

As far as I understand it, there is a system for weapon-world collision in game at the moment, you can somewhat notice it on window frames etc. It just seems like it was never fully utilized, probably to fit the feel of the game or something, one of those features that never really matured into release.

 

[Justin MacDuro]

Game has world collision for weapons , the problem is that instead collide and get stuck your avatar automatically correct that moving the weapon to your chest or down , it's similar to the movement that the avatar does when you are using the cover system and you hide coruching behind a low wall .

 

[Vesper11]

The collision in game is animation only. It locks your weapon if you are too close to the wall but if you try to shoot while getting your weapon in position it will shoot center of the screen, not off screen.

 

[Wookie87]

To be honest, if someone is in my face 1m away and i have the gun pointed, its quicker to get a shot off ingame than to stab them. The CQB bullet registration issues aside, i dislike the idea of limiting it. If someone is in my face i will do whatever is in my power to kill them, if a bullet at point blank range is best for that given situation then so be it. If i fail, i get a face full of bullets as reward.

SMG's will always have the advantage in CQB. If you really want something, then the world collision sounds better. As long as it acts in a flexible manner. IE if my rifle hits against the wall and i keep on wanting to turn, my avatar will pull back/raise weapon up to try and compensate rather than get stuck and unable to turn atall until i physically reposition.

 

[Clowndoe]

To be honest, if someone is in my face 1m away and i have the gun pointed, its quicker to get a shot off ingame than to stab them. The CQB bullet registration issues aside, i dislike the idea of limiting it. If someone is in my face i will do whatever is in my power to kill them, if a bullet at point blank range is best for that given situation then so be it. If i fail, i get a face full of bullets as reward.

SMG's will always have the advantage in CQB. If you really want something, then the world collision sounds better. As long as it acts in a flexible manner. IE if my rifle hits against the wall and i keep on wanting to turn, my avatar will pull back/raise weapon up to try and compensate rather than get stuck and unable to turn atall until i physically reposition.

Pretty much what I have to say

 

[Vesper11]

Too bad I cant change the title to "Melee combat and world collision".

 

[DesiQ]

Too bad I cant change the title to "Melee combat and world collision".

You can't change it by going into Advanced editing?

 

[Krobar]

Better collision: Yes.

Disabling weapon: No.

 

[DesiQ]

This! But its harder to do so and in melee combat it will act almost the same as 1m no-fire zone. And due to lag people may still shoot you even in collision/melee range (e.g. on your PC it will seem that you got into melee range, on theirs you are still 1m away, allowing them to shoot you).

The discrepancy in player ranges due to lag is yet another reason to abandon this idea of weapon disabling.

The difference between not being able to turn in a tight hallway due to clumsy weapon handling (weapon-world collision) and not being allowed to fire from 1m away is that the former can be explained with the information available right that second: you hear your weapon hit the wall, you see it physically unable to go through the wall, and you think, "Oh, it won't go through walls in this game. I should move it out of the way, or else I should probably use a shorter weapon, like a pistol or an SMG."

Compare that to what happens if you disable firing at short range: You run up to a guy from behind, you click the mouse furiously, and your weapon just will not fire. And in that second or two of confusion, someone comes in and bayonets you. Naturally your first thought will be, "Oh geez, another firing bug."

 

[DesiQ]

If you really want something, then the world collision sounds better. As long as it acts in a flexible manner. IE if my rifle hits against the wall and i keep on wanting to turn, my avatar will pull back/raise weapon up to try and compensate rather than get stuck and unable to turn atall until i physically reposition.

How it worked in Infiltration is that weapons had a larger floating box than RO2 in both hip and ironsight modes, so if your weapon got stuck on a wall, all you had to do was move your mouse down. It would lower the muzzle enough to clear the wall without changing your view. On other geometry like narrow windows you would need to physically move backwards.

This kind of weapon collision had a good effect in Infiltration, though; where RO steadies your weapon after a short wait by detecting whether you're close to solid cover, Infiltration handled it through weapon collision: push your weapon up against any geometry object (window pane, tree roots, pile of bricks, I think also dead bodies before they disappeared), and you have instant stabilisation with instant in-game video and audio feedback to let you know, and not just a UI icon. It meant that you could use anything without it having to be specifically scripted. The weapon collision also meant that you could do things like break windows by punching the muzzle of your rifle into them, which was more stealthy than shooting and quicker than using a knife or something.

 

[Wookie87]

How it worked in Infiltration is that weapons had a larger floating box than RO2 in both hip and ironsight modes, so if your weapon got stuck on a wall, all you had to do was move your mouse down. It would lower the muzzle enough to clear the wall without changing your view. On other geometry like narrow windows you would need to physically move backwards.

This kind of weapon collision had a good effect in Infiltration, though; where RO steadies your weapon after a short wait by detecting whether you're close to solid cover, Infiltration handled it through weapon collision: push your weapon up against any geometry object (window pane, tree roots, pile of bricks, I think also dead bodies before they disappeared), and you have instant stabilisation with instant in-game video and audio feedback to let you know, and not just a UI icon. It meant that you could use anything without it having to be specifically scripted. The weapon collision also meant that you could do things like break windows by punching the muzzle of your rifle into them, which was more stealthy than shooting and quicker than using a knife or something.

Ah, now that sounds interesting not only for the general collision stuff, but also for the weapon stabilization. I've never been quite sure about RO2's weapon resting. I find it alittle hit or miss. Maybe i just need to get closer...

 

[Vesper11]

Compare that to what happens if you disable firing at short range: You run up to a guy from behind, you click the mouse furiously, and your weapon just will not fire. And in that second or two of confusion, someone comes in and bayonets you. Naturally your first thought will be, "Oh geez, another firing bug."

No one will like that, but if you add an animation, or even some effect... Like if someone is ADS (even with SMG or pistol, but lower range) and enemy gets close to him, his weapon is pushed aside not allowing him to melee or shoot for a split second, then his weapons return to normal (if its SMG or pistol) or he "too close" mode if its rifle or another "long" weapon. If enemy isnt ADS, then there would be ne such effect and rifles do their "too close" animation.

While lag reduce its effect, it should still benefit attacking/meleeing player, even if only a little.

 

[DesiQ]

Ah, now that sounds interesting not only for the general collision stuff, but also for the weapon stabilization. I've never been quite sure about RO2's weapon resting. I find it alittle hit or miss. Maybe i just need to get closer...

Yeah I find RO2's weapon stabilisation to be guesswork in some cases. You have times where you're trying to stabilise at standing posture on the corner of a wall without going into cover (because it'll get you killed), but you're just a tiny squidge too far out, so you need to do a little dance to make sure you're as close as possible while still having the firing lane you wanted.

And then there are the times where you move the mouse too far back towards cover and your muzzle jumps from above cover to behind cover (a good example is trying to shoot over sandbags that are just a tiny bit too tall). This wouldn't happen if there was weapon-world collision, since the gun would be physically unable to go below the sandbags unless you made it do so specifically by moving backwards.

Having to push the gun against the geometry also meant you could correct for muzzle climb in a reasonable way; just pull down hard as you fire to make the muzzle stay down as much as possible. It also meant that you could choose between deploying an MG bipod, or simply whacking it onto a windowsill or fence to put fire down as fast as possible. The advantage of a bipod in INF was that it allowed you to traverse across the field of fire faster (and raised the weapon to clear any obstacles).

EDIT: Or it may be that INF didn't have bipods at all, I can't quite remember. In any case, it worked super well.

 

[Sensemann]

I have a question about Melee combat. Is anybody else having the impression that at very close ranges, there is some automized movement going on?
Last time I played appartments, I have encountered several guys that were standing to me at a 90-120 degree ancle and when they used melee, they all made exactly the same movement to bayo me. Since the movement looked exactly the same all times, it looked to me as if it was a kind of script that killed me.

 

[DesiQ]

I have a question about Melee combat. Is anybody else having the impression that at very close ranges, there is some automized movement going on?
Last time I played appartments, I have encountered several guys that were standing to me at a 90-120 degree ancle and when they used melee, they all made exactly the same movement to bayo me. Since the movement looked exactly the same all times, it looked to me as if it was a kind of script that killed me.

Never noticed that. Are you sure they weren't bots? They are amazing at melee.

If you're talking about the bayonet thrust animation, it's the same animation.