Weapon accuracy and recoil -1 reply

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Exel

The stubborn Finn

50 XP

26th March 2004

0 Uploads

542 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago

I would very much like to see certain tweaks to how the FH models weapon accuracy, recoil and especially aim recovery. The rather large crosshair spread when moving and more importantly the very slow crosshair recovery make it favorable to run with a pistol or a knife and only switch to rifle only when firing, after stopping. I admit it can be amusing to an extent, but after a while it gets annoying. What I suggest is for the devs to make the recovery especially for heavier weapons a lot faster (pistols and smgs are quite fine atm). It really doesn't take that long to get a reasonably accurate shot to a short range after stopping. Anti-tank rockets and rifle grenades are the worst in that aspect, but rifles and MGs need tweaking as well. To compensate, make their aim throw off even more when running. And if possible, reduce the maximum spread for walking.




Exel

The stubborn Finn

50 XP

26th March 2004

0 Uploads

542 Posts

0 Threads

#2 14 years ago

Come on, this is important... :feedback:




Dee-Jaý

Always 1 point ahead of you

50 XP

17th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,694 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago

If you make weapons even more inaccurate while moving you´ll just find more people switching weapons while they walk.

I do agree that rifles especially good do with a bit more recoil after fireing, but otherwise I´m pretty content with thw way things are.

However I have been thinking a bit about the extreme accuracy of the rifles. You can take extremely accurate shots with the rifles even over large distances. In 1600x1200x32 you just have to keep your eyes open for a moving pixel on the horizon and you can take it out.

I think this kind of accuracy should be reconsidered. It makes the standard rifles exremely popular as most FH Maps have rather open terrain. Maybe rfiles shouldn´t be that accurate over long distances. I think Hartmann should test how it playes if the rifles crosshair dosn´t close to 100% as it does now, but only to 95%. That would make shooting over extreme distances a matter of chance. But dropping someone from a moderate-large distance should still be possible...




Exel

The stubborn Finn

50 XP

26th March 2004

0 Uploads

542 Posts

0 Threads

#4 14 years ago
Dee-JaýIf you make weapons even more inaccurate while moving you´ll just find more people switching weapons while they walk. I do agree that rifles especially good do with a bit more recoil after fireing, but otherwise I´m pretty content with thw way things are.

The main point was to make the rifles recover faster. Large(r) crosshair spread is acceptable if the rifle regains its accuracy fast (see Silent Heroes for an example). The same applies to heavy weapons as well. Their crosshair spread is already huge but they recover way too slow. It's not like it would take 10 seconds to aim your bazooka at a tank 5 meters away. roll%20eyes%20%28sarcastic%29.gif

However I have been thinking a bit about the extreme accuracy of the rifles. You can take extremely accurate shots with the rifles even over large distances. I think this kind of accuracy should be reconsidered. I think Hartmann should test how it playes if the rifles crosshair dosn´t close to 100% as it does now, but only to 95%.

I agree. 95%-98% accuracy would reduce the railgun feel of the rifles.




Eglaerinion

Vault Dweller

50 XP

22nd September 2003

0 Uploads

2,822 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago
Dee-Jaý I think this kind of accuracy should be reconsidered. It makes the standard rifles exremely popular as most FH Maps have rather open terrain.

Which is exactly the way it should be other wise everone walks around with smg and hmg which weren't as common as rifles. Rifles are already toned down first the limbs weren't 1 shot 1 kill, now we have balistics and you want to tone them down even more?




Dee-Jaý

Always 1 point ahead of you

50 XP

17th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,694 Posts

0 Threads

#6 14 years ago

I dont want their damage turned down, but they seem terribly accurate. Also the ballistics dont have much of an effect, even over extreme distances. If I see a pixel on the horizon, all I need to do is line it up and I got a frag. To me thats just UBER accurate and not very realistic. If the Rifles were as accurate as the Carabine is now, I think that would probably improve game-play a bit.

And I think in war, any Soldier would have picked an SMG over a Rifle.




Aequitas

aka [SHEEP]BrotherMaynard

50 XP

8th February 2001

0 Uploads

489 Posts

0 Threads

#7 14 years ago

Well, the thing is that the SMG's are more accurate than ever now. If they see you at anything less than extreme range, they can nail you. The Rifle has to keep it's advantage at very long distances somehow.

A *SMALL* decrease in accuracy at extreme ranges would be nice tho. It would actually give a sniper an advantage over a standard rifle.




Exel

The stubborn Finn

50 XP

26th March 2004

0 Uploads

542 Posts

0 Threads

#8 14 years ago

Well the SMGs should as well have their accuracy reduced. To compensate, they shouldn't suffer as much crosshair spread from movement. Anyhow, reducing rifle accuracy by a few percent wouldn't give away their edge over long distances - it would only lose the railgun feel.




Aequitas

aka [SHEEP]BrotherMaynard

50 XP

8th February 2001

0 Uploads

489 Posts

0 Threads

#9 14 years ago
ExelWell the SMGs should as well have their accuracy reduced. To compensate, they shouldn't suffer as much crosshair spread from movement. Anyhow, reducing rifle accuracy by a few percent wouldn't give away their edge over long distances - it would only lose the railgun feel.

100% disagree. I think we're trying to REDUCE run-n-gun here, aren't we?




Hail of Nails

I want to be like Revenge

50 XP

13th June 2004

0 Uploads

376 Posts

0 Threads

#10 14 years ago
Dee-Jaý However I have been thinking a bit about the extreme accuracy of the rifles. You can take extremely accurate shots with the rifles even over large distances. In 1600x1200x32 you just have to keep your eyes open for a moving pixel on the horizon and you can take it out.

Now how do you get BF to go that high? I can't get it to go beyond 1152 x 824, even though my computer itself can go up to 1600 x 1200.




  • 1
  • 2