I’ve been thinking about recoil in videogames, and noticed a problem. Most videogames only have recoil as something that changes the point of aim, and ignore any recoil that is directed into the shooter. Harsh recoil can be quite painful and distracting. What if firing guns had an effect similar to suppression in Battlefield, obscuring vision, and decreasing accuracy. Muzzle brakes would still counteract muzzle flip, but the gas being redirected toward the shooter would increase this suppression like effect. Most guns probably wouldn’t cause much of the effect, and it should build up slowly, incentivizing firing in short bursts, and making mag dumping an FAL without a bipod less viable. Maybe the effect could also be caused by grenades. (Concussion grenades anyone?)
I think this could be neat. Higher caliber guns, especially on full auto, ought to throw you off a little.
I think a good way to balance higher caliber sniper rifles (basically anything over .308) would be for this effect to play every time the gun was fired, but just for a little.
This effect happening via grenades would be nice as well, and should get more intense the closer you were (without dying).
Also, I think getting directly fired at should give the effect as well (should look a bit different though, compared to simply firing your heavy gun in full auto). LMGs would be the best at giving this effect.
What if firing guns had an effect similar to suppression in Battlefield, obscuring vision, and decreasing accuracy.
No god, that sounds incredibly unfun. Something like Rising Storm 2’s recoil could be cool - basically, the muzzle actually rises when firing - but I don’t know if Nelson would go that far. The closest we might get to that would maybe be like Squad’s new recoil, where the muzzle still actually rises, but in kind of a different way.
I wasn’t suggesting that muzzle climb would be completely replaced, just supplemented, since some guns have recoil that isn’t all transmitted in a way that is easily portrayed by just the muzzle rising.
You have to keep in mind that in the end, gameplay matters more then realism. Sometimes you have to just avoid certain things because they make the gameplay not fun.
I think the furthest that simulation of harsh recoil should go is more and faster visual recoil - basically, you know how in 3.0 (and even 4.0) how the gun visibly jerks backwards? That’s visual recoil.
Gameplay matters more than realism?
What’s all this then?
And you haven’t actually described what negative affect this would have on gameplay.
What’s all this then?
You and I both know that was about a G3 taking military magazines for quite literally no reason. And that’s another thing - there was no reason the Chimera should’ve been able to take military magazines. Or at least none that anybody outside of M2M can figure out.
And you haven’t actually described what negative affect this would have on gameplay.
Oh, alright then, here’s a few:
-
If the effect also applied to grenades or getting shot at, you’d have no idea why the effect was coming up. It’s confusing feedback.
-
Artificially decreasing accuracy while firing is pointless and dishonest when recoil is already in play. Old games had decreasing accuracy because they COULDN’T simulate recoil, and modern games only do this as cheap “balancing” attempts or in hipfire only.
-
Building off the last reason, it removes skill as a factor of recoil control. If your gun’s just gonna get more inaccurate and you can’t predict where the rounds are going, what’s the point?
-
Back to obscuring vision, it’s just annoying. Nobody likes to be half blind.
-
Recoil should be ENOUGH of a detrimental effect for people to avoid reckless spraying.
In short, it’s annoying and subverts skill for no discernible reason.
I never mentioned getting shot at, and only tentatively suggested the effect being applied via grenades. 4.X will be the first time Unturned has indicators of where damage is coming from, and we’ve managed, I imagine the effect wouldn’t be too severe from getting hit, and the point of a concussion grenade is that it disorients. Controlling recoil is phenomenally easy with a mouse. It would still require skill to control the length of bursts, and to decide when to shoot, or when to rest. And I haven’t heard a lot of complaints about the damage indicators in Unturned 3.X making people half blind, but its easier to tear apart an idea, if you imagine it goes to a polar extreme. The reason to add it is that it would introduce another way to differentiate weapons.
I never mentioned getting shot at, and only tentatively suggested the effect being applied via grenades.
Yeah, that’s why it was a conditional (‘if’) reason.
4.X will be the first time Unturned has indicators of where damage is coming from, and we’ve managed, I imagine the effect wouldn’t be too severe from getting hit, and the point of a concussion grenade is that it disorients.
…Okay, but…how is any of that relevant?
Controlling recoil is phenomenally easy with a mouse.
Have you played RS2 or Squad? I don’t know about Squad, but RS2’s recoil is phenomenally difficult to control, even with a mouse.
It would still require skill to control the length of bursts, and to decide when to shoot, or when to rest.
No. It wouldn’t. The most that would require is some semblance of calm thinking, and that’s not really skill.
And I haven’t heard a lot of complaints about the damage indicators in Unturned 3.X making people half blind, but its easier to tear apart an idea, if you imagine it goes to a polar extreme.
How is this relevant?
The reason to add it is that it would introduce another way to differentiate weapons.
Yeah, an annoying way to differentiate weapons. Would different lengths of semi/burst limiter times be a good way to differentiate weapons? Oh, the limiter in and of itself is a frustrating concept that only serves to punish people for no good reason? What a shock! It’s the same here!
It’s relevant to this
Does chess require any skill?
It’s relevant to this
It’s relevant to this #1
I never mentioned taking damage. I said when getting shot at. “Getting shot at” is a lot more broad then “getting shot”.
Also sure, the point of a concussion grenade is to disorient people. And? If it shares the effect as just firing your weapon, and you’re firing your weapon, as you likely would when in combat, how the hell are you supposed to know what caused the effect? How are you supposed to know whether or not your gun just flipped its shit?
Does chess require any skill?
One, false equivalency. Chess is a lot more then just maintaining your cool. It’s predicting the opponent’s next move(s) and paying attention to all of the board. Burst firing is literally just “lemme fire 3 rounds every second, b0ss”.
Two…debatably. Sure, you can win with skill, but you can also win just by memorizing a shit tonne of moves.
It’s relevant to this #2
Getting shot is a lot different from shooting a gun. Nobody likes to get shot regardless, and flinching for half a second is still a lot less annoying then suppressing yourself. Imagine you’re in combat and you open fire on a guy down the street. Not only do you have to deal with the recoil, now you’re half blind. Why? It just makes gunplay feel awful.
I said a concussion grenade should be disorienting, because you said that it would be confusing.
Why do you keep assuming that the visual effect would suddenly make you “half blind?” I intended it not just as part of the negative effect from firing, but also as a visual indicator that you should stop firing, similar to the red damage indicator on the edge of view in Unturned 3.X. It would only significantly affect your vision if you were doing something stupid like trying to empty a whole drum or mag dumping a Grizzly without using a bipod.
And the right move wouldn’t always be to fire a three shot burst every second, in close quarters it might pay off to fire as quickly as possible, where as at extreme range, one might need the accuracy of taking single well spaced shots.
I said a concussion grenade should be disorienting, because you said that it would be confusing.
I said it’d be confusing if two very different (re)actions had the exact same effect, which is bad, even if one is MEANT to be disorienting. If anything, that makes it worse. Firing your gun shouldn’t make you think you’re being disoriented by an enemy.
Why do you keep assuming that the visual effect would suddenly make you “half blind?”
Because otherwise it’d be pointless.
I intended it not just as part of the negative effect from firing, but also as a visual indicator that you should stop firing, similar to the red damage indicator on the edge of view in Unturned 3.X.
Again, two very different situations. Just because it works in one doesn’t mean it works in the other.
It would only significantly affect your vision if you were doing something stupid like trying to empty a whole drum or mag dumping a Grizzly without using a bipod.
Which, again, would be when recoil already comes into play, which makes the feature redundant and only serves to make gunplay less fun.
And the right move wouldn’t always be to fire a three shot burst every second, in close quarters it might pay off to fire as quickly as possible, where as at extreme range, one might need the accuracy of taking single well spaced shots.
The point I was trying to make was that Chess and some dumb pseudo-recoil “simulation” in a game are uncomparable.
They aren’t perfect comparisons, I was just trying to use a comparison that most English speaking people would understand. The comparison I was trying to make is that both require one to react calmly, evaluate their surroundings, and judge whether to attack quickly, or wait for a better opportunity.
(Completely irrelevant sidenote: Any two things can be compared, claiming that two things are uncomparable is as silly as noting that something is not noteworthy.)
The effect would be more or less consistent every time one fires any particular gun, and wouldn’t generally happen as consistently or suddenly as when one has been hit by a concussion grenade.
The only times that it would be confusing, is when you aren’t familiar with the weapon you’re using, or you’re using a weapon in a way it shouldn’t be used.
You said on a different discussion, that you wanted harsher recoil in general, but the recoil can only increase so much before it just does silly things like turn you around. If all the weapons got their recoils increased, and there is a maximum recoil that weapons can have, then the high recoiling weapons would essentially get a huge buff, since they would have recoil closer to the other weapons than before, but keep all of their advantages.
So I’m proposing a different way of portraying recoil.
I don’t see the phenomenal difference between a faint red tint on the edge of your screen ans a faint red tint, or grey tint, or distortion on the edge of your screen, that occasionally becomes more visible.
They aren’t perfect comparisons, I was just trying to use a comparison that most English speaking people would understand. The comparison I was trying to make is that both require one to react calmly, evaluate their surroundings, and judge whether to attack quickly, or wait for a better opportunity.
A purely visual mechanic in a video game versus a game about memorization and tactical thinking. No.
(Completely irrelevant sidenote: Any two things can be compared, claiming that two things are uncomparable is as silly as noting that something is not noteworthy.)
If you mean that as in it’s grammatically correct, sure. Beyond that, it gets dicey.
You said on a different discussion, that you wanted harsher recoil in general, but the recoil can only increase so much before it just does silly things like turn you around.
What? What does “turn you around” even mean?
If all the weapons got their recoils increased, and there is a maximum recoil that weapons can have, then the high recouping weapons would essentially get a huge buff, since they would have recoil closer to the other weapons than before, but keep all of their advantages.
“High recouping”? I’m not sure you know what “recouping” is. Besides, the camera would move anyways, and looking at the sky isn’t exactly useful in a firefight.
So I’m proposing a different way of portraying recoil.
In a way that isn’t fun or beneficial in any way. It’s quite literally a step backwards mixed with visual annoyance.
I don’t see the phenomenal difference between a faint red tint on the edge of your screen ans a faint red tint, or grey tint, or distortion on the edge of your screen, that occasionally becomes more visible.
The “faint red tint” only comes in for a short period of time while getting injured. It’s eye candy. You’re already going to be distracted. When you’re shooting, the tint is WHAT BECOMES distracting.
The primary effect that it would have, is decreasing accuracy/increasing spread, the visual part would be a secondary effect, and usually stay very subtle, only building up slowly when using most weapons.
Recoil that only changes where you’re aiming wouldn’t be very representative of reality. What about the AR-10? It has a lot of recoil, but that recoil is mostly transferred directly to the shooter, not causing muzzle climb.
Sorry I’m making a lot of typos, but its two letters off. You said you couldn’t figure out what I meant but I don’t think you even tried. I is right next to U and L is right under P on a QWERTY keyboard, within this context it shouldn’t have been hard to figure out. (If you still haven’t figured it out try to remember what we’ve been talking about this whole time, it’s the title of this post)
Jokes aside, I’ve got serious things to say, about RECOIL.
(I’ll finish this thought in a second)
The primary effect that it would have, is decreasing accuracy/increasing spread
Which is completely lazy. You realize that all that simulates is recoil? Recoil that is already being simulated?
the visual part would be a secondary effect, and usually stay very subtle, only building up slowly when using most weapons.
So it’s pointless.
AR-10? It has a lot of recoil, but that recoil is mostly transferred directly to the shooter, not causing muzzle climb.
Honestly if visual recoil actually effected where the bullet goes we could just use that and be done with it, since that throws off the aim in ways that aren’t easy to compensate for because they’re, ironically enough, hard to fully visualize on the fly.
Sorry I’m making a lot of typos, but its two letters off. You said you couldn’t figure out what I meant but I don’t think you even tried. I is right next to U and L is right under P on a QWERTY keyboard, within this context it shouldn’t have been hard to figure out.
…So you somehow messed up the word “recoiling” so bad I couldn’t tell what you were trying to say? Wow. That’s sad.
On top of that, it doesn’t even make sense in context. If a weapon already had high recoil proportionate to other guns, it would get even higher recoil if those other guns received higher recoil because the balance is proportional.
(I’ll finish this thought in a second)
well you didn’t mess anything up. are you just lazy?
Well shoot, you interrupted me before I could finish my thought. I guess visual recoil could work. It wouldn’t find it as cinematic or immersive, but then again most people who play Unturned just want to run and gun, and probably can’t handle to many visual effects.
We shoot, you interrupted me before I could finish my thought
if your thought wasn’t finished you shouldn’t have posted yet. that’s what’s nice about text posts. you don’t HAVE to post if you’re not ready too.
I guess visual recoil could work. It wouldn’t find it as cinematic or immersive,
oh god, are you one of those people who wants motion blur forced in games?
but then again most people who play Unturned just want to run and gun, and probably can’t handle to many visual effects.
it’s not really necessarily that they can’t handle to many visual effects, but more they don’t want to have to deal with unnecessary visual effects. this is one of the reasons why motion blur in games is so unpopular.