Ironsights, movement, and pacing - why the game still feels too fast, even in Classic

[ross]

There are two things that really affect this that have been done to death already, and improve somewhat in classic. I don't think I've seen the third mentioned, as I only just realised it myself.

The issue is the use of ironsights while moving. I've always felt there should be more of an effect to hinder this (and make it impossible, with a scoped weapon), but I just got done playing a round on Grain Elevator (on Classic) and noticed that I was making effortlessly accurate snapshots at fairly small targets either before my sights had correctly aligned, or while actually strafing around. No wonder the game feels odd, and lacks the RO feeling even in Classic - I don't remember seeing people move and shoot at the same time with rifles often, if ever, in Ostfront.

Now this is all well and good, but this is an I&S thread, so I need to suggest some way to fix it. Well, this is where we run into trouble; without making all projectiles originate from the muzzle (which honestly, should be a thing regardless, because forehead shooting is a stupid 'mechanic' even many mainstreamers find offensive), or making the rifle freeaim violently while moving and increasing headbob while sighted to "Bad Day At The Magellan Straits" level, it is basically impossible to stop players from doing this. Obviously the former would take a lot of work. I will argue until I am blue in the face that it needs to be done, but for the purposes of fixing this first I would recommend making the weapon actually shift around a lot more while moving in irons, and also moving the player's camera slightly higher so they are looking over the sights. This better mimics the way a weapon interacts with a soldier as they move, as keeping any kind of worthwhile sight picture is difficult if not impossible but looking just over the sights still allows for rapid, fairly accurate snapshots if an enemy appears in front. What it doesn't allow is pixel-sniping while moving, or tagging the top two inches of an enemy's head in the next building over as you walk towards him.

In the case of trying to aim while using a scoped weapon, obviously the backup sights will not hold a good picture, so just have the player look over the top of the scope. While people may complain initially this should slow the game down enough to bring back the RO feeling without totally hosing up map balance or gameplay in general, and they'll get used to it. What it will do is weed out the "sprint around with semiauto or automatic, popping off long-range headshots while moving as if it is child's play" aspect of the game which really makes it feel wrong, and far too fast.

 

[Proud_God]

Yes, indeed, some good points.
I feel we should have another 'stance' for walking around in IS, looking over the sights like you mentioned. This stance would also have 0 zoom for extra close combat effectiveness.
If you want to move while in 'full IS', it should be slower than what we have now.

 

[ross]

I disagree - adding another stance simply adds needless complexity to the game, and does little to solve the issue of people making accurate shots on the move. We need to simply remove the ability to fully aim using their sights while moving - ArmA does this rather well, I feel.

 

[JakeWedd]

We just need more movement with the gun I think, Increase the sway of the muzzel end dramaticly should fix the problem with rifles, while still keeping it not to hard to manage for shorter weapons like SMG's

 

[mrman54]

We just need more movement with the gun I think, Increase the sway of the muzzel end dramaticly should fix the problem with rifles, while still keeping it not to hard to manage for shorter weapons like SMG's

Yes, more movement. If they completely removed the use of ironsights while walking it would make my soldier feel terribly restricted and unrealistic. After all, you can put your weapon up to your face while walking in real life. Just more sway is needed. If anything.

 

[LordKhaine]

The main aiming related problem in my opinion is that the transition between crouch/standing/leaning etc does not inhibit aiming in the slightest. It's so trivially easy to line up a target while crouched, and then pop up and shoot someone at a window before they can react.

 

[Gregory Corso]

Lot of talk about increasing sway, but IMO there's nothing wrong with spread penalties. Hell the SMGs probably already have one to discourage run-and-gun

Should already be intuitive that while the rifle is swaying wildly around it's not necessarily going to be dead-on accurate

 

[Nikita]

The issue is the use of ironsights while moving. I've always felt there should be more of an effect to hinder this (and make it impossible, with a scoped weapon), but I just got done playing a round on Grain Elevator (on Classic) and noticed that I was making effortlessly accurate snapshots at fairly small targets either before my sights had correctly aligned, or while actually strafing around. No wonder the game feels odd, and lacks the RO feeling even in Classic - I don't remember seeing people move and shoot at the same time with rifles often, if ever, in Ostfront.

This better mimics the way a weapon interacts with a soldier as they move, as keeping any kind of worthwhile sight picture is difficult if not impossible but looking just over the sights still allows for rapid, fairly accurate snapshots if an enemy appears in front. What it doesn't allow is pixel-sniping while moving, or tagging the top two inches of an enemy's head in the next building over as you walk towards him.

Are you talking about shooting while walking in iron sights?

Firstly, are you concerned with strafing WHILE shooting at long range targets, or strafing, stopping, shooting, then strafing again, stopping, shooting? The former is indeed difficult to do IRL, but the latter is quite viable.

IRL, you can actually hold a steady enough sight picture while walking with a rifle to be effective out to, perhaps, fifty yards while walking at a faster pace than the game allows you. In-game, the lack of precision seems well-represented to me. You certainly won't reliably score headshots at a hundred yards unless you stop to shoot.

I think the pace of Classic is fine, along with the current walking iron-sighted mechanics. The bullet actually does go where your sights are pointed while your weapon is visibly moving--if you time the shot well, you can shoot fairly accurately, but it's nowhere near precise enough to give you any advantage over an enemy in cover drawing a bead on you. Your shot can easily go wide, while you yourself are an exposed, slow moving target.

I don't think there's much of an issue here, really. I can't ever recall getting killed by anyone beyond fifty yards who was walking while using iron sights. On the other hand, I shoot people walking in iron sights all the time.

 

[ross]

Yes, more movement. If they completely removed the use of ironsights while walking it would make my soldier feel terribly restricted and unrealistic. After all, you can put your weapon up to your face while walking in real life. Just more sway is needed. If anything.

I'm not saying to completely remove the use of ironsights while walking, because there's already hipfire in the game. What I am suggesting is making the sights much less useful while moving, as they ought to be. Scopes should be virtually unuseable while moving, especially the PU and ZF 41, thanks to their small eye relief sweet spots.

Are you talking about shooting while walking in iron sights?

Firstly, are you concerned with strafing WHILE shooting at long range targets, or strafing, stopping, shooting, then strafing again, stopping, shooting? The former is indeed difficult to do IRL, but the latter is quite viable.

The former. The latter is fine, though I do believe the sights should take maybe half a second to a second to fully settle after movement/sighting in - enough for closer-range snapshots, but stopping people from popping off headshots from 200m as soon as they pop out of cover, which is ridiculous.

IRL, you can actually hold a steady enough sight picture while walking with a rifle to be effective out to, perhaps, fifty yards while walking at a faster pace than the game allows you. In-game, the lack of precision seems well-represented to me. You certainly won't reliably score headshots at a hundred yards unless you stop to shoot.

Fifty yards is a lot in a game with maps as small and as open as RO2, and holding some semblance of a sight picture in real life does not automatically equal the unerring precision in RO2 (aside from which, I have attempted to maintain one while walking with my 91/30. Open sights are really, really poor for this, which may well be part of why the US and UK moved towards apertures). At one point in aforementioned game I saw about three inches of helmet maybe 30 yards away, and hit the guy before I'd stopped strafing (and while my sights were still not fully aligned) - and it wasn't a one-off, because the same guy kept going back to the same spot. You might have enough accuracy to hit a standing man at 50yd while moving towards him at a decent walking pace, but ingame you can actually be choosy where you want to hit him. It feels too precise and far too gamey.

I think the pace of Classic is fine, along with the current walking iron-sighted mechanics. The bullet actually does go where your sights are pointed while your weapon is visibly moving--if you time the shot well, you can shoot fairly accurately, but it's nowhere near precise enough to give you any advantage over an enemy in cover drawing a bead on you. Your shot can easily go wide, while you yourself are an exposed, slow moving target.

The problem here is that this becomes most noticeable when people strafe around behind windows taking shots (which is what I was doing). Anyone standing in the open is asking to be hit regardless.

I don't think there's much of an issue here, really. I can't ever recall getting killed by anyone beyond fifty yards who was walking while using iron sights. On the other hand, I shoot people walking in iron sights all the time.

I'm not quite so willing to assume this is a symptom of the mechanics being fine rather than the incompetence of other players, honestly.

 

[Cwivey]

Honestly, I don't think it's an issue if someone can shoot some-what accuratly to 50 metres or less while walking. I just tried it out and it's not precise and requires some decent timing and not something you can do straight off. And I don't think I have actually seen anyone do this on a server out of the realms of very close range combat.

As for scopes, it's very hard to actually keep a view on what you're aiming at, the scope moves up and down, as well as twisting around left and right, it's about ten times harder to hit anything with the scopes than the open sights (At least that's how I found it). Add that to the fact walking around in the scoped view gives me motion sickenss and it's not something I'd do.

 

[jolorulz]

Much as I love the superior accuracy of my Kar98K, even when my ping drops drastically, I have to say I agree with OP's assessment. There's not enough sway for the zoom, and the "Holding Breath" button feels as if I can hold my breath forever.

 

[Nightingale]

I would prefer that the "aim down sights" speed be reduced to 80% of what it is now in the realism mode, but otherwise I am pretty satisfied with RO2's weapon handling.

I think the reason that you see this sort of strafe-shooting happening so often is because RO2's stock maps often have engagement distances of less than 50m. Let's give the TWI and community mappers more time before deciding if the sway is too much / too little.

 

[[Mad_Murdock]]

See, I don't understand why forehead shooting is even a thing, especially now that it is 2012. I figured it should have been done the day the gun became a separate object from the player camera, so shortly after Duke Nukem 3D in like, 1997.

As for the IS issues, you know, I haven't really noticed it myself, but then again Ive played maybe 4 hours of RO since the last big patch. Ill get in the game some more and then come back with what I think.

 

[Sarkis.]

See, I don't understand why forehead shooting is even a thing, especially now that it is 2012.

That is a simple one to answer. Ever played Arma II? There, the bullet will always come from the weapon muzzle. What happens then, is you will miss a LOT of shots in your own cover until you get used to it and compensate the extra height. So the reason the bullet comes from your forehead in many games is that you simply always hit what you see. And the game suddenly flows a lot more easier and people don't complain. Off course that creates all kinds of strange anomalies

 

[ross]

Considering muzzle awareness and weapon collision are actual things in RO2, it seems to me like you could really do away with it anyway. You can fairly clearly see when your rifle is clipping through your cover. Making the player slightly raise/lower their stance if necessary to aim over, say, a slightly-too-high wall or windowframe would also help, though it would potentially require considerable work. TWI have done a pretty good job of making characters adapt to their surroundings in third person (perhaps a little too well, I see people pulling off ridiculous feats of short-stocking or actually holding their rifle way out in front every now and then), but similarly adapting it to first person could be a problem.

Stuff like this does look completely badass, though.

 

[Mekhazzio]

Making the player slightly raise/lower their stance if necessary to aim over, say, a slightly-too-high wall or windowframe would also help, though it would potentially require considerable work.

There's work on the design and UI side of things for that, too. The game won't be able to make an accurate judgment of when you want to look over something and when you're just fine with the exposure as it is, thankyouverymuch. You'd be better off just implementing full manual stance control, a la Raven Shield, but making that animate right in third-person is a nightmare if you didn't build your animation system around it from the start. Frankly, I'm not sure it's worth the effort. It wouldn't get used much. It's also yet another control in a game fairly laden with them already, and it's best to cut down on those when possible.

For the record, the cover system does adjust your point of view if you're trying to aim more deeply around/over the object you're taking cover on. It can do that fairly painlessly because of the hand-placed covernodes designating that object's edges, but even then, it doesn't work well on all objects. I'm not sure if the third-person animations even match up to it, either, I've never done a side-by-side to check.

 

[ross]

I'm fairly sure they don't. I've had a friend tell me my rifle was pointed down at my toes when firing at enemies from behind specific things (inside trams, the back of the ambulances, etc.).

As for manual stance control... yeah, not sure it'd work that well as it'd be something you'd constantly have to fuss over and obviously would involve an inordinate amount of work. The cover system is a quick and dirty way of making sure your muzzle is always actually clear of what you're behind, unfortunately it also exposes you very badly. I don't use it except to peek over walls, and I make a point of advising new players not to as well. Better to have full range of motion and be more concealed than to stick to a wall and get shot the moment you pop up.

 

[Holy.Death]

The cover system is a quick and dirty way of making sure your muzzle is always actually clear of what you're behind, unfortunately it also exposes you very badly. I don't use it except to peek over walls, and I make a point of advising new players not to as well. Better to have full range of motion and be more concealed than to stick to a wall and get shot the moment you pop up.

It all depends on how you use cover system. When figthing in corrodors and tight passes (Grain Elevator) blind-fire and cover system can be quite useful to hold position for a while. On Fallen Fighters I often use sand bags on the right Soviet flanks to lean from their sides - I won't expose my head that way and can aim at anyone coming out from the Univermag building. On Mamayev you can mantle your weapon over a trench to have stable aim or - in CQC - lean when figthing inside trenches. Granted, cover system is not always good (sometimes, when your cover is too low you can still "use" it, but your head can be still exposed), but very useful in my experience.

 

[ross]

I find that in almost any case, it's actually a really good way to get shot. Covering behind the walls (particularly on the German side) of Fallen Fighters leaves just enough of your head exposed in some areas for a talented Soviet sniper to blast it off, and as soon as you pop up for a shot you do tend to expose a lot more of yourself than you need to. You can also spot people moving behind it, figure out where they're going to pop up, and shoot them as soon as they do - really playing Soviet sniper on FF is like Whack-A-Mole. You're also 'stuck' to the wall so a grenade landing nearby can spell doom as basic reponse takes over, tries to make you run away, but can't since you're jammed up to it. Leaning around corners manually also exposes a lot less of you to fire - using cover, you actually take a whole step around to the side, rendering yourself totally vulnerable.

Honestly it is more hindrance than help in almost every circumstance. Peeking and blind fire are the only times I encourage its use, and even then I don't do either of those from an obvious piece of 'stickable' cover if I can help it.