Add inertia to hip-carried heavy weapons

[DesiQ]

For things like the AT rifle and LMGs, it should be harder to turn on a dime. The common solution to this is to decrease turning speed or sensitivity, but this doesn't work because people can just turn up their mouse sensitivity in the menu or in their OS.

Instead, I propose that heavy weapons being carried at the hip should have inertia: the faster you turn with a heavy weapon, the more it will want to keep moving in that direction unless you pull back on it. Metro 2033 had a good example of this. In the following video (where this dumb guy keeps swearing), you are piggybacking a child back to his home station while you fight off mutants. Having the kid on your back changes your centre of gravity, so turning your body (your view) makes your view continue towards the direction you were turning, and to stop it quickly you need to pull your weight back in the opposite direction to compensate. Small, controlled movements are less susceptible to this drift.

Skip to 6:30 for the piggyback sequence.
​

Let's Play: Metro 2033 - Episode 24: Piggyback Ride - YouTube

Aiming should be as normal when deployed or when using a different weapon, though. This would further encourage deployed firing, while making hipfire more challenging (but still possible).

 

[Zetsumei]

People are often forgetting that beside inertia due to mass your body actually got proprioception as well. As in you can sense the stance of your body and position of your arms through your neuromuscular system.

While instant 360 turns aren't realistic using a method that removes the ability of the client to use his proprioception used for his arms and mouse to transfer in game will make the game unrealistically difficult to control.

The heavy mg's mouse acceleration and free aim in ironsights is already too much for me to really enjoy.

I would rather see a limit where people can aim and move freely, like when aiming and shooting, and when turning past a certain radius obtain a speed limit in turning. Not restricting the mouse sensitivity but restricting the actual max character turning speed like how the tank turret rotational speed is limited.

 

[DesiQ]

People are often forgetting that beside inertia due to mass your body actually got proprioception as well. As in you can sense the stance of your body and position of your arms through your neuromuscular system.

While instant 360 turns aren't realistic using a method that removes the ability of the client to use his proprioception used for his arms and mouse to transfer in game will make the game unrealistically difficult to control.

The heavy mg's mouse acceleration and free aim in ironsights is already too much for me to really enjoy.

I would rather see a limit where people can aim and move freely, like when aiming and shooting, and when turning past a certain radius obtain a speed limit in turning. Not restricting the mouse sensitivity but restricting the actual max character turning speed like how the tank turret rotational speed is limited.

I'm only talking about hip carry. As I said, it shouldn't apply when an MG or AT rifle is deployed. While it's true that you're able to sense and counteract the movement of a weapon instinctively, it's something you still need to do — and for a 12kg MG-34 with an attached 250-round belt (whose weight I don't know, but it would probably be quite hefty), it would take real conscious effort to deal with its weight and inertia.

And as far as I can see, there is no mouse acceleration in the game (not even noticeable with Vsync). I could just be insensitive to it, though.

The idea of a max turning speed was also raised in a different thread here (the OP said that you should be able to move your view as fast as you want, but your weapon would lag behind, and that lag would be almost nothing for pistols, and ramp up as the weapon became heavier). My objection to it is that it could potentially feel like piloting a walker in Mechwarrior.

 

[DesiQ]

Bump! 77 views, 100% likes, and only two comments. Surely the idea is not so flawless that it doesn't need debate?

 

[Nezzer]

This section of the forums is kinda dead xP

 

[DesiQ]

This section of the forums is kinda dead xP

Some solid trolling happens here, though.

 

[Proud_God]

Agreed with the fact that long/heavy weapons need to be more 'clunky'. Not sure if OP's method will be good, you have to try it to believe it I guess.

 

[nuNce]

Inertia should be applied to every weapon even when in iron sight, of course with a difference based upon the weight of the weapon. Not only it would make the game more realistic, but it would take into account a weapon's handling. An MKb wich weights 5kg and it's quite a big gun, should be a bit harder to move quickly and accurately toghether, where a PPSh, smaller and lighter, should be a more easier to handle in quick engagements. I'm not talking about making shooting difficult, just the fast movements. This would make super fast aiming impossible.

 

[DesiQ]

I agree nuNce, but I'm kind of hesitant because one of the great sins of modern PC games is mouse acceleration, mouse smoothing, and otherwise floaty mouse controls.

So while I think that the weight, bulk, length, and centre of balance of all weapons should be represented somehow (like how long it takes to bring to your shoulder, for example, or how well your soldier can keep the sights aligned while turning), I think any inertia for personal weapons (which are themselves much lighter than an MG-34 with an attached 250-round belt) is a bit uncool. I can tolerate it for when I'm using an AT rifle or an LMG because I know that the weapon is very heavy: I can 'feel' it, and it makes sense. But to have a 4kg rifle (whose centre of gravity is fairly near my body) continue to drift even a little when I move it is a little too much for me.

 

[Golf33]

I agree weapon inertia effects should be stronger in the game, both from the hip and from ironsights.

As well a being more realistic, it'd be good for gameplay as it produces a better rewardfire behring onto an enemy's flank.

 

[LugNut]

Me like inertia.

Me like it more every where.

 

[DesiQ]

Me like inertia.

Me like it more every where.

I think that it should be everywhere too, but I also think it shouldn't be. It's like trying to choose between two redheads, and both of them are equally cute and nice.

 

[luciferintears]

what happened to weapon collision and all that s***, that was shown in the early RO2 vidoes?

i was kind of hoping that mechanic would reduce the effectiveness of larger weapons like the mg, AT rifle, and even the bolts in constricted and tight environments like hallways and such.

 

[DesiQ]

what happened to weapon collision and all that s***, that was shown in the early RO2 vidoes?

i was kind of hoping that mechanic would reduce the effectiveness of larger weapons like the mg, AT rifle, and even the bolts in constricted and tight environments like hallways and such.

It seems like it's not real collision; more like weapon positioning. The game repositions your weapon for you, but sometimes that even messes you up when it shouldn't. For example, try jumping onto one of the brown boxes in the garage in No Man's Land in Commissar's House, and then trying to go into ironsights. Your weapon will be all bloody crooked and you have to sprint around like an idiot to fix it.

I would rather have actual smack-your-rifle-against-a-wall collision.

 

[Filo90]

+1 inertia

 

[Temporary]

+1 MG turning speed nerf

we're getting too much Rambo now that many players learned to use it like that

 

[Vyllis]

Inertia? Yes!

 

[luciferintears]

I would rather have actual smack-your-rifle-against-a-wall collision.

this was the impression i had from the early videos. It would have been great as it would have made most of the rifles cumbersome to use indoors; thus stressing more coordination with assault teams when it comes to clearing buildings.

anyway.

+1 weapon collision and +1 inertia

 

[Zetsumei]

I'm only talking about hip carry. As I said, it shouldn't apply when an MG or AT rifle is deployed. While it's true that you're able to sense and counteract the movement of a weapon instinctively, it's something you still need to do

Of course you still need to do it, but you force people to use their eyes for feedback then you will get a huge amount of lag that you would never have with your body.

Proprioception got about a 40ms lag, vision got about 200ms lag. Adding a feature so that you have to rely on your vision for counteracting on a weight, makes things feel very unnatural. While the idea is might be nice, force feedback should not be simulated by vision.

Just limit the max velocity if you want to simulate weight in a way, but don't induce mouse acceleration like with the heavy machineguns. It just feels wrong and unnatural.