Artificial inaccuracy is bad game design

[Narcolepta]

Title. It completely takes the player out of the act of recoil control. Weapon handling, and making sure it feels good, should be the number one priority when making a VR shooter. Let player skill and accuracy dictate who wins in a firefight, not RNG. When a player is managing the recoil, and keeping the sights directly on an enemy despite full-auto fire, they should be able to kill that enemy. If the point is nerf long range shooting, just increase the recoil and make the player fight it. Let the player realize through gameplay and using the gun that full-auto at range isn't the best choice. Currently there is little no feedback as to where your shots are going, I'm sure new players especially would be extremely frustrated to hold the sights over someone's face for half a mag only to be downed themselves, with no clear reason why.

[NitroG]

sounds like you are just bad. I don't have a problem hitting shots at all even in full auto. are you not grabbing the front of your weapon? your also insane if you think you are strong enough to shoot an ak 47 in real life on full auto and expect to have any decent accuracy beyond the second bullet. maybe if you were prone with a bipod. it's possible I guess you are sighting on the wrong eye or something. every gun has a spread pattern every shooter does this. because every gun in real life does this. Even if you welded an assault rifle to a table that was bolted to the floor there would STILL be bullet spread in the target beyond 100 meters. because the barrel will still be vibrating when the next round passes through it. The only real problem is in every FPS i've ever played the spray pattern is the same. first couple bullets on target then the same pattern of inaccuracy every time. in CS:GO people know the recoil patterns of their weapons so they can adjust the crosshair to where the bullet should go not where it's aiming.

[TheButtersEdge]

Originally posted by NitroG:

sounds like you are just bad. I don't have a problem hitting shots at all even in full auto. are you not grabbing the front of your weapon? your also insane if you think you are strong enough to shoot an ak 47 in real life on full auto and expect to have any decent accuracy beyond the second bullet. maybe if you were prone with a bipod. it's possible I guess you are sighting on the wrong eye or something. every gun has a spread pattern every shooter does this. because every gun in real life does this. Even if you welded an assault rifle to a table that was bolted to the floor there would STILL be bullet spread in the target beyond 100 meters. because the barrel will still be vibrating when the next round passes through it. The only real problem is in every FPS i've ever played the spray pattern is the same. first couple bullets on target then the same pattern of inaccuracy every time. in CS:GO people know the recoil patterns of their weapons so they can adjust the crosshair to where the bullet should go not where it's aiming.

Excellent Answer!. After 100 hours in the game, reading the OP I couldn't relate at all.

[illegal acorn]

I agree with the op I can have sights perfectly aligned and shots will go left and right of the target like what???

[Narcolepta]

Originally posted by NitroG:

sounds like you are just bad. I don't have a problem hitting shots at all even in full auto. are you not grabbing the front of your weapon? your also insane if you think you are strong enough to shoot an ak 47 in real life on full auto and expect to have any decent accuracy beyond the second bullet.

Yes, I'm doing everything correctly. That's my exact point. What the dev should do is make the bullets fire in a straight line out of the barrel. (Yes vibrations can impact the direction but that is usually many times smaller than a degree so at the distance of the game, it's negligable.) Then, rather than have a random number generator determine where your shots are going, increase the real recoil of the weapon making the shooter have to fight it to keep on target. Perhaps even on an exponential curve so the first 3-4 shots would be relativley easy to control and everything after more suited to close-range spraying.

Go into the game and stand about 20 yards away from a wall. Then spray the wall on full auto while keeping your sights directly on a single point. You'll find that due to the RNG, what looked to be controlled fire on single point, actually peppered the entire wall.

[TheButtersEdge]

Seems something is off lyuda... I sent a friend request to see if I can offer some help via message..

[Revelene]

Firearms don't work that way in real life, so I'm not sure why that should be the way they'd work in VR.

There are many factors that can affect bullet travel. They don't just go straight.

I'll agree that something seems a bit off, but it definitely shouldn't be pin point accurate like you are wanting.

[Narcolepta]

Originally posted by Revelene:

Firearms don't work that way in real life, so I'm not sure why that should be the way they'd work in VR.

Yes they do, under 100 yards the bullet pretty much fires in a straight line, and anything caused by barrel vibrations or the movement of the action are negligable.

To put it as simply as I can. Make guns actually accurate. Increase recoil of the gun so extended full-auto is useless at range. player has more fun with a logical recoil mechanic and not RNG.

[Revelene]

Originally posted by Iyuda:

Originally posted by Revelene:

Firearms don't work that way in real life, so I'm not sure why that should be the way they'd work in VR.

Yes they do, under 100 yards the bullet pretty much fires in a straight line, and anything caused by barrel vibrations or the movement of the action are negligable.

To put it as simply as I can. Make guns actually accurate. Increase recoil of the gun so extended full-auto is useless at range. player has more fun with a logical recoil mechanic and not RNG.

You were talking about full automatic fire, this comment:

"When a player is managing the recoil, and keeping the sights directly on an enemy despite full-auto fire, they should be able to kill that enemy."

The reality is that fully automatic fire is not pin point accurate. Bullets do not just travel straight. You have bullet drop, sway, etc. Even the heat of the barrel can affect bullet travel.

But the reality is that this is also a video game. There is a clear disconnect between the virtual gun and your hands. As of now, the only way to simulate is through vibration of the controller and anything else is purely visual and in-game. This clearly is not a good representation of recoil or how a firearm functions.

Until this is better realized with a more connected technology... We are limited to "artificial inaccuracies".

"under 100 yards the bullet pretty much fires in a straight line, and anything caused by barrel vibrations or the movement of the action are negligable."

That is not true. Too many factors to take into account, like barrel length, caliber, rifling, etc.

[Narcolepta]

No, you are completely wrong. An very accurate gun is considered sub-MOA, which means that free of outside factors like shooter error, due to the way the gun is designed it has a certain accuracy. Medicore guns are 3 to 4 MOA. MOA stands for minute of accuracy which is one 60th of one degree. Meaning yes, they do go where you point them. Any factors like gravity, wind, humidity, etc. are completely negligable in the distances where Pavlov is concerned (less that 100 meters).

Artifical inaccuracy is ♥♥♥♥ game design, it gives no feedback to the player gives no avenue for skill to exist. Sure there is no physical feedback, but you're not going to get that in the next 5 years for VR. The guns are already underpowered so actually making them accurate would be countered by non-existant damage, and realistic recoil.

[Revelene]

Originally posted by Iyuda:

No, you are completely wrong. An very accurate gun is considered sub-MOA, which means that free of outside factors like shooter error, due to the way the gun is designed it has a certain accuracy. Medicore guns are 3 to 4 MOA. MOA stands for minute of accuracy which is one 60th of one degree. Meaning yes, they do go where you point them. Any factors like gravity, wind, humidity, etc. are completely negligable in the distances where Pavlov is concerned (less that 100 meters).

Artifical inaccuracy is ♥♥♥♥ game design, it gives no feedback to the player gives no avenue for skill to exist. Sure there is no physical feedback, but you're not going to get that in the next 5 years for VR. The guns are already underpowered so actually making them accurate would be countered by non-existant damage, and realistic recoil.

If you think there is no bullet drop from small rounds at 100m, then whatever else you say is negligible, IMO. You may just not know, maybe. Shall I link a ballistics chart from a zero wind test environment? Small rounds will be noticeable, even at 100m or less. Larger rounds will not be as noticable.

But, I fear you are missing the point. Since the firearm cannot physically inhibit our aim, there has to be some level of artificial inaccuracy. If not, then we get lazer guns. If there is no recoil or other factors to overcome, then how can it be skill? I don't believe that having dead accurate weapons is a replacement for the damage model, either.

Aiming is not skill. Aiming, while overcoming all the physical factors (personal, weapon characteristics, and physics) that can inhibit aim... that is skill. With VR, you have none of that. So, you have to have artifical inaccuracy for there to be skill.

You remind me of the people that complained about recoil in games, once that mechanic got really popular.

[Narcolepta]

Originally posted by Revelene:

If you think there is no bullet drop from small rounds at 100m, then whatever else you say is negligible, IMO. You may just not know, maybe. Shall I link a ballistics chart from a zero wind test environment? Small rounds will be noticeable, even at 100m or less. Larger rounds will not be as noticable.

At what point did i say small rounds aren't affected? i was specifically talking about close range engagements, don't put words in my mouth.

Even then it still doesn't make a difference.
If you want charts, i'll link you charts.
http://guide.sportsmansguide.com/ballisticscharts/
http://guide.sportsmansguide.com/ballistic-chart/wballistics_180.html

There is a 4 inch drop in 9mm luger at 100 yards, I think that is what could be called negligable

Originally posted by Revelene:

But, I fear you are missing the point. Since the firearm cannot physically inhibit our aim, there has to be some level of artificial inaccuracy. If not, then we get lazer guns. If there is no recoil or other factors to overcome, then how can it be skill? I don't believe that having dead accurate weapons is a replacement for the damage model, either.

Yes, it's VR, yes, there is no physical feedback from the gun so you need some amount of fudging to not have perfectly accurate weapons. This brings it back to the whole point of game design. There are one of two ways to put in the artificial innaccuacy either A, you could have the gun bounce around from recoil and cause the bullets to follow the paths that cause from that. Or, B, just have the curve out of the barrel at random angles despite being pointed at the target. Option A, gives the player an immediate knowledge of what's happening and allows them to adjust their tactics accordingly. Option B, pretends to be option A but only after frustrating missed kills due to RNG do they realize that controlling the recoil and keeping the sights on target do nothing.

[Revelene]

Originally posted by Iyuda:

Originally posted by Revelene:

If you think there is no bullet drop from small rounds at 100m, then whatever else you say is negligible, IMO. You may just not know, maybe. Shall I link a ballistics chart from a zero wind test environment? Small rounds will be noticeable, even at 100m or less. Larger rounds will not be as noticable.

At what point did i say small rounds aren't affected? i was specifically talking about close range engagements, don't put words in my mouth.

Even then it still doesn't make a difference.
If you want charts, i'll link you charts.
http://guide.sportsmansguide.com/ballisticscharts/
http://guide.sportsmansguide.com/ballistic-chart/wballistics_180.html

There is a 4 inch drop in 9mm luger at 100 yards, I think that is what could be called negligable

Originally posted by Revelene:

But, I fear you are missing the point. Since the firearm cannot physically inhibit our aim, there has to be some level of artificial inaccuracy. If not, then we get lazer guns. If there is no recoil or other factors to overcome, then how can it be skill? I don't believe that having dead accurate weapons is a replacement for the damage model, either.

Yes, it's VR, yes, there is no physical feedback from the gun so you need some amount of fudging to not have perfectly accurate weapons. This brings it back to the whole point of game design. There are one of two ways to put in the artificial innaccuacy either A, you could have the gun bounce around from recoil and cause the bullets to follow the paths that cause from that. Or, B, just have the curve out of the barrel at random angles despite being pointed at the target. Option A, gives the player an immediate knowledge of what's happening and allows them to adjust their tactics accordingly. Option B, pretends to be option A but only after frustrating missed kills due to RNG do they realize that controlling the recoil and keeping the sights on target do nothing.

You were saying that bullet drop was negligible under 100m. This is not true and I can supply ballistics for all the calibers (that this game uses) that very well are affected.

A 4 inch drop most certainly is not negligible, considering it could mean the difference between a headshot and chest shot.

All that aside, yes, it is a VR game with no feedback. I'm glad you understand this. I agree that this game needs improvement in ballistics, but it doesn't need pin point accuracy like Star Wars. I understand you now, that you don't not want artificial inaccuracy, but rather a different form of artificial inaccuracy.

[disratory]

Originally posted by Revelene:

Firearms don't work that way in real life, so I'm not sure why that should be the way they'd work in VR.

There are many factors that can affect bullet travel. They don't just go straight.

I'll agree that something seems a bit off, but it definitely shouldn't be pin point accurate like you are wanting.

:) glad to know there are at least a few other VR gamers that have handled weapons irl

[Revelene]

Originally posted by disratory:

Originally posted by Revelene:

Firearms don't work that way in real life, so I'm not sure why that should be the way they'd work in VR.

There are many factors that can affect bullet travel. They don't just go straight.

I'll agree that something seems a bit off, but it definitely shouldn't be pin point accurate like you are wanting.

:) glad to know there are at least a few other VR gamers that have handled weapons irl

Firearm safety, small arms tactical, and CCDW instructor.

Though, the OP isn't completely wrong. He is right that something is off with this title.

The closest I've seen to realism in a video game has been ArmA, but that physics system (and the entire game engine) is too performance heavy for VR in its current form.

[disratory]

Originally posted by Revelene:

Originally posted by disratory:

:) glad to know there are at least a few other VR gamers that have handled weapons irl

Firearm safety, small arms tactical, and CCDW instructor. :resmile:

Though, the OP isn't completely wrong. He is right that something is off with this title.

The closest I've seen to realism in a video game has been ArmA, but that physics system (and the entire game engine) is too performance heavy for VR in its current form.

:P its supposed to be a little off for balance purposes. you know as well as I do if aiming were dead on accurate 99% of people wouldnt have a chance to have fun in this game.