<!--quoteo(post=1753325:date=Feb 15 2010, 05:26 PM:name=Battle-Bug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Battle-Bug @ Feb 15 2010, 05:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753325"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What do you mean? What downgrade? The commander isn't researching the "more recoil" ability :)
Speaking of which, we could make "less-recoil" a skill that can be researched as an upgrade, so we can have more recoil and less in the same game. Just putting that out there...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree... it's as if after the events of NS1, the marines learned that they shouldn't send the air force in with mp5's and say it was the marines... Sorry Jack O'Neil but your p90 is equally useless. So naturally all modern weapons (after events of NS1) were still weak and worthless against the aliens because they were derivatives of the same ###### plastic bullet technology that went into the lmg/hmg combo that seems to have polluted every armory in existence... The real transit authority (TSA) marines had to go raid a museum to find some old 21th century artillery that still fired incendiary armor piercing flechette and really-damn-hard-metal bullets, and the rest was history.
Then they found that if a suppressor was attached, it would reduce the recoil significantly. Unfortunately they didn't come standard so the commander had to go on Wikipedia for a design, and after 4 minutes of research, he could provide those to the men in the field. 10 minutes after that he learned that people used to aim with scopes back in the day... and seeing as how some of his marines were dumb enough to remove the iron sights from their vintage weapons... the commander had no choice but to supply optics as well. He also learned about flamethrowers and miniguns... and realized they possessed the potential for uber pwnage... so 15 minutes later, he was able to provide those as well.
what I'm getting out of this now is, according to Focusedwolf, it doesn't take any skill to hit fast moving skulks/lerks/fades with the current NS1 minimal recoil gameplay. Focusedwolf must be quite some FPS badass since NS is just "too easy."
1) Personally I always thought aliens movement offset having such minimal recoil. The current NS1 system already greatly rewards skill of aiming (so I thought)
2) Gritty != realistic/Modern Warfare
3) ...what is this post I don't even. There are no headshots in NS; in NS1 skilled marines "can" solo fades on occasion, but it certainly shouldn't be the norm, nor the given; Onos being solo'd easily would sort of make NO sense considering hes so expensive (Why SHOULDN'T a onos be able to wreck a marine base with only one marine in it? Wtf are you saying here?); Obviously you are right and Marines are underpowered compared to Aliens in NS1 because 1 marine can not solo a Onos or Fade with ease. This has totally broken the game /massive sarcasm
<!--quoteo(post=1753325:date=Feb 15 2010, 08:26 PM:name=Battle-Bug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Battle-Bug @ Feb 15 2010, 08:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753325"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What do you mean? What downgrade? The commander isn't researching the "more recoil" ability :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> lol That made me laugh :)
what I'm getting out of this now is, according to Focusedwolf, it doesn't take any skill to hit fast moving skulks/lerks/fades with the current NS1 minimal recoil gameplay. Focusedwolf must be quite some FPS badass since NS is just "too easy."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS is an old mod. Stop trying to undermine modern game design by suggesting NS1 is a perfect model on which to base everything. When i did play NS1, i found it to be severely nerfed. Sure you can kill skulks and gorges with a lmg (lmg + full pistol mag = gorge death if you don't miss)... but higher lifeforms after that and the game goes in favor of the alien team (probably because it takes a commander to equip you with anything more powerful then a lmg... and that always was too little too late... death was swift because the aliens were capable of dealing insane amounts of damage in comparison). Fact: 1 good alien player can beat any number of marines in NS1... I've seen this many times, and you didn't play NS1 if you didn't see this as well. Don't tell me you never saw fade players get 200+ kills 0 deaths. Never played with "lolasaurusrex"? No one missed him when he was perma banned.
Btw... NS1 had recoil... or rather the pistol was the only gun without recoil.
I think what you meant to say was "NS2 != realistic/Modern Warfare". But that doesn't make any sense because who the hell would call MW2 realistic (o right you would). Next thing you're going to tell me is that MW2 is a combat simulator because you can aim with a iron sights, reflex sights, acog, or sniper rifle AND can pick a weapon from more then 4 choices. MW2 is arcadey... NS1 is horrible... NS2 is probably arcadey... Forget about MW2... the question should be... right now is NS2 Gritty? The answer is no... not from what i've seen so far. Taser anyone? Most people hated it, and the devs not only dropped the idea but have since stopped allowing us to have a say (at least that is my take on the subject... their game, which we already paid for, their way... guess we trusted them or else we wouldn't of preordered right).
<!--quoteo(post=1753377:date=Feb 16 2010, 03:28 AM:name=FocusedWolf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FocusedWolf @ Feb 16 2010, 03:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753377"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS is an old mod. Stop trying to undermine modern game design by suggesting NS1 is a perfect model on which to base everything. When i did play NS1, i found it to be severely nerfed. Sure you can kill skulks and gorges with a lmg (lmg + full pistol mag = gorge death if you don't miss)... but higher lifeforms after that and the game goes in favor of the alien team (probably because it takes a commander to equip you with anything more powerful then a lmg... and that always was too little too late... death was swift because the aliens were capable of dealing insane amounts of damage in comparison). Fact: 1 good alien player can beat any number of marines in NS1... I've seen this many times, and you didn't play NS1 if you didn't see this as well. Don't tell me you never saw fade players get 200+ kills 0 deaths. Never played with "lolasaurusrex"? No one missed him when he was perma banned.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Shotgun 1-shots Skulks and Lerks, takes down Fades in three, costs 10 res, and can be picked up off the floor if the guy carrying it dies. New players are basically cannon fodder, but in the fight of Pubstar vs Pubstar the game is balanced. Do you really think it would have been successful competitively if Aliens were that overpowered? I get my ass kicked by Fades too, but I don't blame the game for me being bad at it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think what you meant to say was "NS2 != realistic/Modern Warfare". But that doesn't make any sense because who the hell would call MW2 realistic (o right you would). Next thing you're going to tell me is that MW2 is a combat simulator because you can aim with a iron sights, reflex sights, acog, or sniper rifle AND can pick a weapon from more then 4 choices. MW2 is arcadey... NS1 is horrible... NS2 is probably arcadey... Forget about MW2... the question should be... right now is NS2 Gritty? The answer is no... not from what i've seen so far. Taser anyone? Most people hated it, and the devs not only dropped the idea but have since stopped allowing us to have a say (at least that is my take on the subject... their game, which we already paid for, their way... guess we trusted them or else we wouldn't of preordered right).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The issue isn't that NS1 was horrible so much that you were apparently horrible at it. I really can't believe you've taken this much interest in the sequel given that you don't seem to understand the original at all.
Most of the discussion has been on topics 1-3. I haven't heard anything about 4-6.
<!--quoteo(post=1753174:date=Feb 14 2010, 04:41 PM:name=Battle-Bug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Battle-Bug @ Feb 14 2010, 04:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753174"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>4.</b> All armor types should have less recoil when crouching. This is not only more realistic, but it gives an incentive to sit still instead of run around; a tactic rarely used in NS1.
<b>5.</b> All armor types could experience the same recoil propulsion as the jetpacks. We just have to be careful so that a marine can't jump much higher. If zero gravity is ever implemented (lets <b>not </b>discuss the possibility of zero gravity on this thread, please). It would be a way for a drifting (non-jp) marine to maneuver.
<b>6.</b> Running marines (non-heavy) run slower while firing, especially with higher recoil weapons. Do you think you could frantically/spastically run around while firing a 50 caliber machine gun? It aint no Nerf gun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1753382:date=Feb 16 2010, 05:16 AM:name=Voyager I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Voyager I @ Feb 16 2010, 05:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753382"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The issue isn't that NS1 was horrible so much that you were apparently horrible at it. I really can't believe you've taken this much interest in the sequel given that you don't seem to understand the original at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This.
Its an "old mod" so obviously we should just make a completely new game and remove all the core elements and gameplay experience that was good about the first and make it like every other shooter out today, and just CALL it natural selection. Obviously.
Battle-bug,
Sitting around is rarely a good thing...Plenty of it is already done when in hiding or hoping someone passes you by without noticing. I'll cite Neo Tokyo. That game is a damned ugly camp-fest, even at the "competitive" levels (ugh), because the recoil movement and damage promote sitting in one spot and waiting till someone comes around the corner, since you're going to not only have the element of surprise, but you're going to be able to fire a lot better because, well, you're just "sitting" there. Really ugly stuff.
All of these ideas just seem way too complicated and unnecessary.
And lol, Lolasaurusrex was my teammate...good memories
tankefuglOne Script To Rule Them All...Trondheim, NorwayJoin Date: 2002-11-14Member: 8641Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
Just a heads up: Recoil is in NS1 and implemented through bullet spread. This is a mechanism that "simulates" the accuracy reduction and the marine's ability to compensate for it through factors such as (but not limited to) recoil. You'll see various implementations of this in a myriad of FPS and FPS-like games. It's not an acurate simulation and it's not meant to be.
I personally find "acurate" reocil in games to be not fun (frustrating at times), and that is the big reason why I'd oppose it. I don't like battling with controls. I want to shoot where I aim, I want responsiveness. (This is also a reason why I don't like flight sims and vehicles in most FPS games.) I want the challenges to be in the playing field in front of me and through tactical choices, not through out-smarting the controls.
I loved how NS1 is all about tracking unlike cs or so. I still think COD:UO's MP44 kicks ass but I don't want to see it in NS2 in any way or form. I play OFP if I want play a realistic warfare game. Shotgun is a direct hit weapon, lmg is a tracking weapon, keep it that way. When you have recoil, you'll have to shoot a short burst to aim accurately making it more like a shotgun, thus less variety which is imo. bad.
Seriously speaking currently 90% of I&S are bull###### suggestions for realism trying to make it another mainstream new generation game, which doesn't have the superior gamplay and versatility that NS reached.
<!--quoteo(post=1753408:date=Feb 16 2010, 11:32 AM:name=Battle-Bug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Battle-Bug @ Feb 16 2010, 11:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753408"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok. Lets try to stay on topic, please.
Most of the discussion has been on topics 1-3. I haven't heard anything about 4-6.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Basically you're suggesting something that is a whole different game than NS. NS had movement as its core element. You're contradicting it heavily. I guess I could argument something based on melee vs ranged gameplay and it's need for 2 mobile teams, but most of all you're trying to turn NS into generic tactical shooter, while most people love the game exactly because it isn't one of those.
Combining the arcadey movement and mechanics of deathmatch games into a teamwork based game with quite a bit of strategy was in my opinion the most brilliant feature in the whole NS. If I want to skip the teamwork, I can go dueling in Quake. If I want to skip the arcadey, I can go play either RTS or some of the numerous tactical shooters. If I want arcadey movement, teamwork and strategy, I can only go NS.
<!--quoteo(post=1753424:date=Feb 16 2010, 07:01 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Feb 16 2010, 07:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753424"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If I want to skip the teamwork, I can go dueling in Quake.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Whoever suggested no teamwork? I don't believe I've suggested that once. Please tell me how this suggestion would decrease teamwork.
<!--quoteo(post=1753427:date=Feb 16 2010, 02:13 PM:name=Battle-Bug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Battle-Bug @ Feb 16 2010, 02:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753427"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Whoever suggested no teamwork? I don't believe I've suggested that once. Please tell me how this suggestion would decrease teamwork.
Anyone have a problem with #4 about crouching?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't mean that your suggestion in particular would hinder it. I just pointed out NS combines the three elements: movement, strategy and teamwork. I don't know any other game that does that.
Deathmatch games in general have the movement, but lack some elements of strategy and teamwork (a rough generalization there, I know about CTF, TDM and map control). Tactical shooters lack the movement and often aren't that strategical or teamwork intense either. NS has it all (although the strategy isn't the most complex around).
<!--quoteo(post=1753430:date=Feb 16 2010, 07:20 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Feb 16 2010, 07:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753430"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I didn't mean that your suggestion in particular would hinder it. I just pointed out NS combines the three elements: movement, strategy and teamwork. I don't know any other game that does that.
Deathmatch games in general have the movement, but lack some elements of strategy and teamwork (a rough generalization there, I know about CTF, TDM and map control). Tactical shooters lack the movement and often aren't that strategical or teamwork intense either. NS has it all (although the strategy isn't the most complex around).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So... ok... What do you think of #4?
<!--quoteo(post=1753432:date=Feb 16 2010, 02:26 PM:name=Battle-Bug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Battle-Bug @ Feb 16 2010, 02:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753432"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So... ok... What do you think of #4?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Isn't it exactly contradicting the core element of mobility? I don't want to encourage sitting down in NS.
In addition, crouching is already surprisingly powerful in certain situations. Right now it's actually a situational option instead of a general rule of handling a firefight.
Do we have to go through this with all the numbers or is this clear now?
<!--quoteo(post=1753433:date=Feb 16 2010, 07:32 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Feb 16 2010, 07:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753433"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Isn't it exactly contradicting the core element of mobility? I don't want to encourage sitting down in NS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Don't forget the great disadvantage of crouching. The decreased mobility makes you a sitting duck. You're trading accuracy for lifespan (potentially). So, I'd call this a very balanced idea. If we look at NS1 recoil, then this might be a bit more of a disadvantage unless you're a crack shot (rewards skill).
BadMouthIt ceases to be exclusive when you can have a custom member titlJoin Date: 2004-05-21Member: 28815Members
I'll have to dismiss all the suggestions except number 4. #4 is an interesting one, I think. Its implementation depends very much on the weapon recoil that the devs choose to give the weapons. If the recoil is already low, I do not see the need for #4. But should the recoil be moderate, then there might be a cause for it.
Take for example the LMG. Assume that is has moderate recoil, good for close to mid range encounters. At far range, you need an element of luck to hit. Implementing #4, it allows the marine to do long range shots, but only in small bursts, and not in full auto. I don't see anything wrong with that. Does it become too tactical/realistic? I don't think so. Most of the game would still be have an arcadey feel. This is just for a certain specialised circumstance.
But the question arises as to which idiot would want to crouch and fire? You'd get killed so easily. A sitting duck. That's the good thing though. There's a trade-off, between accuracy and mobility. If you want to be more accurate, be less mobile. If you want to be more mobile, be less accurate. This is not to say that normal recoil rates would be as of MW2 or CS. It would be of what the devs intend it to be, just that crouching gives you more accuracy.
I think it is an option worth giving to the player. Not everyone will use it. And not every situation will call for it. But it is an option, and more options are always a good thing.
I don't think any of them would benefit the game, if the point is to make an NS game then it needs to keep the fast paced fighting, otherwise it isn't really NS, it's call of aliens vs <strike>predator</strike> marines.
Sitting still already makes it easier to aim because you aren't moving, less movement compensation is neccesary, but being able to dodge an attack is important, otherwise it actually detracts from the game by making the game less about fast paced fighting and more like a rail shooter, you sit still and shoot at the alien, if you don't shoot it fast enough it kills you because you can't dodge, if you do shoot it fast enough you don't take any damage and it dies.
As it stands, you currently have the option of trying to outmaneuver the aliens, a leaping skulk might miss you and you can shotgun it in the arse as it flies by if you're lucking, and certainly the accuracy allows for very strong reflexive gameplay when your ability to turn round a corner, assess threats, and kill any aliens is purely your own, not a game limitation.
It would not neccesarily make it a worse game, but it would make it rather different from NS.
I should also point out that decreasing marine accuracy would probably make the game <i>easier</i> for them, because it makes it easier to aim, in NS1 your gun is perfectly capable of killing aliens, the difficulty is that it's so accurate you have to aim it carefully, the HMG doesn't kill aliens better simply because it's powerful, it kills them better because it is inaccurate so you can spray it, same goes for the shotgun.
If I have the choice to choose between being accurate or inaccurate with the same gun, that gun is going to be very powerful, or very weak, because I will always be able to hit with it. At long range the enemy can't move fast (due to parallax, things further away move slower than things close up) so I can aim easily and be accurate, if it's closer I just stand up and bullet hose the enemy, either way I get close to 100% accuracy.
The problem with that is that the power is determined by the gun, it almost completely removes the skill element because you can't dodge aliens (because you can't move and shoot) or because you don't need to aim (because your gun is a bullet hose). I am not averse to adding alternative skillsets to the game (in fact I encourage it, I'd love to have something other than only the reflex based skillset), but <i>removing</i> the skill from the game is what makes team fortress 2 unpleasant for me, it doesn't matter what I do, victory is determined by what class I am and what class the enemy is because my gun is either effective or ineffective against them.
<!--quoteo(post=1753439:date=Feb 16 2010, 03:05 PM:name=Battle-Bug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Battle-Bug @ Feb 16 2010, 03:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753439"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Don't forget the great disadvantage of crouching. The decreased mobility makes you a sitting duck. You're trading accuracy for lifespan (potentially). So, I'd call this a very balanced idea. If we look at NS1 recoil, then this might be a bit more of a disadvantage unless you're a crack shot (rewards skill).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you can't just say make up an idea and say "doing this gives you one advantage and one disadvantage, thus, BALANCE! PUT IT IN." It gets a bit more complicated than that, and you're completely ignoring Bacillus's constant reference to NS's individual gameplay experience which is elevated by its movement model.
<!--quoteo(post=1753510:date=Feb 16 2010, 03:22 PM:name=PSA)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PSA @ Feb 16 2010, 03:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->you can't just say make up an idea and say "doing this gives you one advantage and one disadvantage, thus, BALANCE! PUT IT IN." It gets a bit more complicated than that...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, this is obvious. I like to pair advantages and disadvantages so someone doesn't say "this is going to make killing so much easier for team X," or "this just sounds like a waste of time." I'm trying to provide you, the reader, with as many conflicting views as I can so that you can pick and choose to make an educated judgment. I'm not trying to sway the votes one way or the other. I'm simply seeing where everyone else stands on the ideas.
None of your suggestions are necessarily "bad" or "dumb," and I'm all for stimulating more discussion on new ideas, getting the juices flowing and such, but I feel like I alot of them are just thrown out into the fray as "it could be cool if" without really taking into account the core gameplay experience that is associated with "NS."
<!--quoteo(post=1753521:date=Feb 16 2010, 04:16 PM:name=PSA)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PSA @ Feb 16 2010, 04:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753521"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->None of your suggestions are necessarily "bad" or "dumb," and I'm all for stimulating more discussion on new ideas, getting the juices flowing and such, but I feel like I alot of them are just thrown out into the fray as "it could be cool if" without really taking into account the core gameplay experience that is associated with "NS."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't like all of my suggestions. I feel it is unethical for me to throw out an idea that could work just because I don't like it. This isn't the debate team nationals where the winner takes home the prize. I'm trying to pick everyone's brains to see where they lie on each idea. I want NS2 to be the best game ever and I'm trying to supply the devs with all the ideas and opinions that I can.
I know I just glorified the situation, but those are the most absolute codes that I try to remember when I pitch an idea and see it through.
<!--quoteo(post=1753408:date=Feb 16 2010, 05:32 AM:name=Battle-Bug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Battle-Bug @ Feb 16 2010, 05:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753408"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok. Lets try to stay on topic, please.
Most of the discussion has been on topics 1-3. I haven't heard anything about 4-6.
4. All armor types should have less recoil when crouching. This is not only more realistic, but it gives an incentive to sit still instead of run around; a tactic rarely used in NS1.
5. All armor types could experience the same recoil propulsion as the jetpacks. We just have to be careful so that a marine can't jump much higher. If zero gravity is ever implemented (lets not discuss the possibility of zero gravity on this thread, please). It would be a way for a drifting (non-jp) marine to maneuver.
6. Running marines (non-heavy) run slower while firing, especially with higher recoil weapons. Do you think you could frantically/spastically run around while firing a 50 caliber machine gun? It aint no Nerf gun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't want any recoil, so number 4 is sort of moot to discuss. However, there might be some merit in discussing reduction of bullet spread through crouching. Honestly, I'm not sure about that, anyway. I'd think that a marine standing up would have better accuracy than one crouching. Perhaps marines that are standing still have less bullet spread for 1/3 or 1/2 of a second of discharging weapons. It would take a few seconds after firing and halting to regain the decreased bullet spread by standing still(So Marines don't pwn the crap out of skulks by standing still and aiming right, just get off a few good shots).
Number 5 and Number 6: If there's no recoil in NS2, then making guns repulse marine's backward wouldn't make sense. It isn't fair to argue in this way, so I'll actually consider your idea. I don't want weapon recoil repulsion, even if there was accuracy reduction recoil. If just hinders movement. Not only would it hinder movement, it would make backwards hopping marines fly FASTER while shooting, if the effect were noticeable.
In case you haven't noticed, NS1 is about arcade movement, shooting, jumping. This isn't necessarily better or worse than generic tactical FPS "realism". Just different. It's a core of what NS1 is. If you take that away in NS2, then NS1 is going to lose some of its charm. NS2 can't compete with COD commercially. I don't think Unknown Worlds is going to try to copy COD's recoil model, movement model, or jumping model for that reason (and also that it would be a huge change from NS1). In my opinion, the arcade-ness of NS1 is a good thing.
Just stop trying to defend this. It's not going to go through and you're just pushing people to more energetically defend how NS1 is, which won't actually generate new thought or discussion. Basically, the discussion is over, the suggestion will never be implemented, and this thread is eventually going to end in flaming + locking if the argument continues.
<!--quoteo(post=1753537:date=Feb 16 2010, 05:54 PM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Feb 16 2010, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753537"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just stop trying to defend this... and this thread is eventually going to end in flaming...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You've done our work for us :)
<!--quoteo(post=1753537:date=Feb 16 2010, 05:54 PM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Feb 16 2010, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753537"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...there might be some merit in discussing reduction of bullet spread through crouching. Honestly, I'm not sure about that, anyway. I'd think that a marine standing up would have better accuracy than one crouching...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I encourage you to go to a rifle range with a rifle and dial in the sights so that it's accurate. Then fire three shots each at a precise target in prone, crouching, and standing positions. You'll notice that prone is typically the most accurate and standing is the least. Do a Google search. Here's two of the first results I got: <a href="http://www.rifle-accuracy-reports.com/shootingpositions.html" target="_blank">http://www.rifle-accuracy-reports.com/shootingpositions.html</a> <a href="http://www.hunter-ed.com/sc/course/ch3_shooting_positions.htm" target="_blank">http://www.hunter-ed.com/sc/course/ch3_sho...g_positions.htm</a>
"The kneeling (crouching) position is best to use when seconds count, you're out in the open and you still need better accuracy than standing can give you. "
"The standing position (also referred to as the offhand position) is the least accurate and least stable of the four shooting positions from which to shoot, but sometimes is necessary."
You can argue that kneeling isn't crouching, but then that'd be going more towards realism than arcade.
<!--quoteo(post=1753560:date=Feb 16 2010, 09:17 PM:name=Battle-Bug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Battle-Bug @ Feb 16 2010, 09:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753560"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I encourage you to go to a rifle range with a rifle and dial in the sights so that it's accurate. Then fire three shots each at a precise target in prone, crouching, and standing positions. You'll notice that prone is typically the most accurate and standing is the least. Do a Google search. Here's two of the first results I got: <a href="http://www.rifle-accuracy-reports.com/shootingpositions.html" target="_blank">http://www.rifle-accuracy-reports.com/shootingpositions.html</a> <a href="http://www.hunter-ed.com/sc/course/ch3_shooting_positions.htm" target="_blank">http://www.hunter-ed.com/sc/course/ch3_sho...g_positions.htm</a>
"The kneeling (crouching) position is best to use when seconds count, you're out in the open and you still need better accuracy than standing can give you. "
"The standing position (also referred to as the offhand position) is the least accurate and least stable of the four shooting positions from which to shoot, but sometimes is necessary."
You can argue that kneeling isn't crouching, but then that'd be going more towards realism than arcade.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I concede the point. You're more knowledgeable about the subject and I was pretty much guessing.
I wasn't trying to flame. I actually read what you posted and then responded in the manner that you asked. I tend to meet perceived belligerence with an insulting tone, so I'm sorry that I got smarmy with you. Hopefully we can agree to disagree.
<!--quoteo(post=1753564:date=Feb 16 2010, 09:23 PM:name=PSA)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PSA @ Feb 16 2010, 09:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753564"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I hate to do this but I'm going to go back to "nanites."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Honestly, I'll have to second this. Its worth repeating. If human technology has advanced so far that we have nanites floating in the atmosphere which can instantly convert energy into mass and make complex structures (Marine buildings) or guns, then its fair to say that recoil would not exist. Especially since contemporary humans have guns without recoil. I haven't the faintest clue why such a technologically advanced race wouldn't have guns that don't recoil.
And the game just wouldn't work well with it. Tracking would become impossible and we'd have to slow the aliens down (a la Halo, dear god in valhalla) to make tracking possible. And if we slow down blinking/leaping/flying aliens to make them easier to shoot, then we've just lost a gigantic amount of exactly what makes gunners vs. quick melee fun. Footwork and tracking are the key skills in NS1 combat; decrease tracking ability by increasing recoil and you've changed the game pretty much fundamentally. Add too much recoil and you've screwed tracking. Don't add enough recoil to make a difference and there's no point. Its a no-win situation unless you want to gut NS1 combat. And because people still play NS1 seven years after release, I think there's something to its combat paradigm.
On the other hand, weapon discharge repulsion is not physically possible to get rid of. There's an actual argument based on realism for putting it in the game. It just doesn't belong in NS2 because NS2 isn't trying to be fun because of realism. It's entertainment lies in the fact that combat is inherently outside of the real world (fades, lerks, jetpacks).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Honestly, I'll have to second this. Its worth repeating. If human technology has advanced so far that we have nanites floating in the atmosphere which can instantly convert energy into mass and make complex structures (Marine buildings) or guns, then its fair to say that recoil would not exist. Especially since contemporary humans have guns without recoil. I haven't the faintest clue why such a technologically advanced race wouldn't have guns that don't recoil.
And the game just wouldn't work well with it. Tracking would become impossible and we'd have to slow the aliens down (a la Halo, dear god in valhalla) to make tracking possible. And if we slow down blinking/leaping/flying aliens to make them easier to shoot, then we've just lost a gigantic amount of exactly what makes gunners vs. quick melee fun. Footwork and tracking are the key skills in NS1 combat; decrease tracking ability by increasing recoil and you've changed the game pretty much fundamentally. Add too much recoil and you've screwed tracking. Don't add enough recoil to make a difference and there's no point. Its a no-win situation unless you want to gut NS1 combat. And because people still play NS1 seven years after release, I think there's something to its combat paradigm.
On the other hand, weapon discharge repulsion is not physically possible to get rid of. There's an actual argument based on realism for putting it in the game. It just doesn't belong in NS2 because NS2 isn't trying to be fun because of realism. It's entertainment lies in the fact that combat is inherently outside of the real world (fades, lerks, jetpacks).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this. I wish I could word it like you. and I wish the Devs would put up a HUGE announcement called: "Don't post anything based on Realism or other games except NS1."
and Could people stop Using MW2 for fuc.. s sake? MW2 MEANS MECHWARRIOR 2! it was there first! Modern warfare doesn't have any rights to these letters!
also, 90% of this thread is Crud. 90% of this whole forum is crud. hell, we could make a rule out of that! (sarcasm)
<!--quoteo(post=1753567:date=Feb 16 2010, 09:50 PM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Feb 16 2010, 09:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753567"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Honestly, I'll have to second this. Its worth repeating. If human technology has advanced so far that we have nanites floating in the atmosphere which can instantly convert energy into mass and make complex structures (Marine buildings) or guns, then its fair to say that recoil would not exist. Especially since contemporary humans have guns without recoil. I haven't the faintest clue why such a technologically advanced race wouldn't have guns that don't recoil.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets start with this... Why guns like that which exist today? Because the devs thought that energy weapons (were 0% recoil would be expected) is not what they like. They want "gritty". Actually i think the REAL REASON NS2 HAS GUNS is to make it easier for people to get involved with the game... It's something they know how to use... it's not some weapon that fires from mixing chemicals and applying an electrical charge... you slap in a new magazine and you kill the enemy as fast as possible. Another reason is the movie Aliens (which explains the flamethrower).
Back on the topic of "gritty". Apparently everyone has there own idea of what "gritty" means. In keeping with the devs decision that marines have weapons like grenade launchers, rifles, flamethrowers a bazillion years from now... my idea of "gritty" is:
1. recoil
2. aiming not spraying
3. aimpoints
4. deadly weaponry where burst fire kills
And while i agree that #1 and #3 may not exist, atleast not as we know them today... Well this is a game. The devs want it to be like counterstrike (buying guns and arcadey)... I hate CS so i say make it more like Americas Army (slower where bullets are very deadly). I want NS2 to be more about the atmosphere and less about taking orders from 3 different commanders... zzz NS2 is going to be a zoo.
<!--quoteo(post=1753702:date=Feb 17 2010, 03:06 PM:name=darktimes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (darktimes @ Feb 17 2010, 03:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753702"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->and Could people stop Using MW2 for fuc.. s sake? MW2 MEANS MECHWARRIOR 2! it was there first! Modern warfare doesn't have any rights to these letters!
also, 90% of this thread is Crud. 90% of this whole forum is crud. hell, we could make a rule out of that! (sarcasm)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ya i agree on the MW2 ###### that people keep slinging. I'm very sorry but their's no way in hell that NS2 will be more popular then MW2... sorry it ain't going to happen.
And Every time someone comes along with the "That will never work because NS1 didn't' have it"... well we do our best to beat them down with a 2x4 but it can get really messy sometimes. xD
The realism argument is kind of moot considering you're playing a game set in the future, in space, fighting aliens, where everything quite obviously happens by magic and both sides are clearly devoting a lot of time into not being unfair to the other side.
I think realism kind of went out by the time I got to 'space' in that sentence.
Comments
Speaking of which, we could make "less-recoil" a skill that can be researched as an upgrade, so we can have more recoil and less in the same game. Just putting that out there...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree... it's as if after the events of NS1, the marines learned that they shouldn't send the air force in with mp5's and say it was the marines... Sorry Jack O'Neil but your p90 is equally useless. So naturally all modern weapons (after events of NS1) were still weak and worthless against the aliens because they were derivatives of the same ###### plastic bullet technology that went into the lmg/hmg combo that seems to have polluted every armory in existence... The real transit authority (TSA) marines had to go raid a museum to find some old 21th century artillery that still fired incendiary armor piercing flechette and really-damn-hard-metal bullets, and the rest was history.
Then they found that if a suppressor was attached, it would reduce the recoil significantly. Unfortunately they didn't come standard so the commander had to go on Wikipedia for a design, and after 4 minutes of research, he could provide those to the men in the field. 10 minutes after that he learned that people used to aim with scopes back in the day... and seeing as how some of his marines were dumb enough to remove the iron sights from their vintage weapons... the commander had no choice but to supply optics as well. He also learned about flamethrowers and miniguns... and realized they possessed the potential for uber pwnage... so 15 minutes later, he was able to provide those as well.
what I'm getting out of this now is, according to Focusedwolf, it doesn't take any skill to hit fast moving skulks/lerks/fades with the current NS1 minimal recoil gameplay. Focusedwolf must be quite some FPS badass since NS is just "too easy."
1) Personally I always thought aliens movement offset having such minimal recoil. The current NS1 system already greatly rewards skill of aiming (so I thought)
2) Gritty != realistic/Modern Warfare
3) ...what is this post I don't even. There are no headshots in NS; in NS1 skilled marines "can" solo fades on occasion, but it certainly shouldn't be the norm, nor the given; Onos being solo'd easily would sort of make NO sense considering hes so expensive (Why SHOULDN'T a onos be able to wreck a marine base with only one marine in it? Wtf are you saying here?); Obviously you are right and Marines are underpowered compared to Aliens in NS1 because 1 marine can not solo a Onos or Fade with ease. This has totally broken the game /massive sarcasm
Just. Stop.
lol
That made me laugh
:)
what I'm getting out of this now is, according to Focusedwolf, it doesn't take any skill to hit fast moving skulks/lerks/fades with the current NS1 minimal recoil gameplay. Focusedwolf must be quite some FPS badass since NS is just "too easy."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS is an old mod. Stop trying to undermine modern game design by suggesting NS1 is a perfect model on which to base everything. When i did play NS1, i found it to be severely nerfed. Sure you can kill skulks and gorges with a lmg (lmg + full pistol mag = gorge death if you don't miss)... but higher lifeforms after that and the game goes in favor of the alien team (probably because it takes a commander to equip you with anything more powerful then a lmg... and that always was too little too late... death was swift because the aliens were capable of dealing insane amounts of damage in comparison). Fact: 1 good alien player can beat any number of marines in NS1... I've seen this many times, and you didn't play NS1 if you didn't see this as well. Don't tell me you never saw fade players get 200+ kills 0 deaths. Never played with "lolasaurusrex"? No one missed him when he was perma banned.
Btw... NS1 had recoil... or rather the pistol was the only gun without recoil.
<!--quoteo(post=1753347:date=Feb 15 2010, 07:14 PM:name=PSA)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PSA @ Feb 15 2010, 07:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753347"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2) Gritty != realistic/Modern Warfare<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think what you meant to say was "NS2 != realistic/Modern Warfare". But that doesn't make any sense because who the hell would call MW2 realistic (o right you would). Next thing you're going to tell me is that MW2 is a combat simulator because you can aim with a iron sights, reflex sights, acog, or sniper rifle AND can pick a weapon from more then 4 choices. MW2 is arcadey... NS1 is horrible... NS2 is probably arcadey... Forget about MW2... the question should be... right now is NS2 Gritty? The answer is no... not from what i've seen so far. Taser anyone? Most people hated it, and the devs not only dropped the idea but have since stopped allowing us to have a say (at least that is my take on the subject... their game, which we already paid for, their way... guess we trusted them or else we wouldn't of preordered right).
Shotgun 1-shots Skulks and Lerks, takes down Fades in three, costs 10 res, and can be picked up off the floor if the guy carrying it dies. New players are basically cannon fodder, but in the fight of Pubstar vs Pubstar the game is balanced. Do you really think it would have been successful competitively if Aliens were that overpowered? I get my ass kicked by Fades too, but I don't blame the game for me being bad at it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think what you meant to say was "NS2 != realistic/Modern Warfare". But that doesn't make any sense because who the hell would call MW2 realistic (o right you would). Next thing you're going to tell me is that MW2 is a combat simulator because you can aim with a iron sights, reflex sights, acog, or sniper rifle AND can pick a weapon from more then 4 choices. MW2 is arcadey... NS1 is horrible... NS2 is probably arcadey... Forget about MW2... the question should be... right now is NS2 Gritty? The answer is no... not from what i've seen so far. Taser anyone? Most people hated it, and the devs not only dropped the idea but have since stopped allowing us to have a say (at least that is my take on the subject... their game, which we already paid for, their way... guess we trusted them or else we wouldn't of preordered right).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The issue isn't that NS1 was horrible so much that you were apparently horrible at it. I really can't believe you've taken this much interest in the sequel given that you don't seem to understand the original at all.
Most of the discussion has been on topics 1-3. I haven't heard anything about 4-6.
<!--quoteo(post=1753174:date=Feb 14 2010, 04:41 PM:name=Battle-Bug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Battle-Bug @ Feb 14 2010, 04:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753174"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>4.</b> All armor types should have less recoil when crouching. This is not only more realistic, but it gives an incentive to sit still instead of run around; a tactic rarely used in NS1.
<b>5.</b> All armor types could experience the same recoil propulsion as the jetpacks. We just have to be careful so that a marine can't jump much higher. If zero gravity is ever implemented (lets <b>not </b>discuss the possibility of zero gravity on this thread, please). It would be a way for a drifting (non-jp) marine to maneuver.
<b>6.</b> Running marines (non-heavy) run slower while firing, especially with higher recoil weapons. Do you think you could frantically/spastically run around while firing a 50 caliber machine gun? It aint no Nerf gun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This.
Its an "old mod" so obviously we should just make a completely new game and remove all the core elements and gameplay experience that was good about the first and make it like every other shooter out today, and just CALL it natural selection. Obviously.
Battle-bug,
Sitting around is rarely a good thing...Plenty of it is already done when in hiding or hoping someone passes you by without noticing. I'll cite Neo Tokyo. That game is a damned ugly camp-fest, even at the "competitive" levels (ugh), because the recoil movement and damage promote sitting in one spot and waiting till someone comes around the corner, since you're going to not only have the element of surprise, but you're going to be able to fire a lot better because, well, you're just "sitting" there. Really ugly stuff.
All of these ideas just seem way too complicated and unnecessary.
And lol, Lolasaurusrex was my teammate...good memories
I personally find "acurate" reocil in games to be not fun (frustrating at times), and that is the big reason why I'd oppose it. I don't like battling with controls. I want to shoot where I aim, I want responsiveness. (This is also a reason why I don't like flight sims and vehicles in most FPS games.) I want the challenges to be in the playing field in front of me and through tactical choices, not through out-smarting the controls.
Seriously speaking currently 90% of I&S are bull###### suggestions for realism trying to make it another mainstream new generation game, which doesn't have the superior gamplay and versatility that NS reached.
Most of the discussion has been on topics 1-3. I haven't heard anything about 4-6.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Basically you're suggesting something that is a whole different game than NS. NS had movement as its core element. You're contradicting it heavily. I guess I could argument something based on melee vs ranged gameplay and it's need for 2 mobile teams, but most of all you're trying to turn NS into generic tactical shooter, while most people love the game exactly because it isn't one of those.
Combining the arcadey movement and mechanics of deathmatch games into a teamwork based game with quite a bit of strategy was in my opinion the most brilliant feature in the whole NS. If I want to skip the teamwork, I can go dueling in Quake. If I want to skip the arcadey, I can go play either RTS or some of the numerous tactical shooters. If I want arcadey movement, teamwork and strategy, I can only go NS.
Whoever suggested no teamwork? I don't believe I've suggested that once. Please tell me how this suggestion would decrease teamwork.
Anyone have a problem with #4 about crouching?
Anyone have a problem with #4 about crouching?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't mean that your suggestion in particular would hinder it. I just pointed out NS combines the three elements: movement, strategy and teamwork. I don't know any other game that does that.
Deathmatch games in general have the movement, but lack some elements of strategy and teamwork (a rough generalization there, I know about CTF, TDM and map control). Tactical shooters lack the movement and often aren't that strategical or teamwork intense either. NS has it all (although the strategy isn't the most complex around).
Deathmatch games in general have the movement, but lack some elements of strategy and teamwork (a rough generalization there, I know about CTF, TDM and map control). Tactical shooters lack the movement and often aren't that strategical or teamwork intense either. NS has it all (although the strategy isn't the most complex around).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So... ok... What do you think of #4?
Isn't it exactly contradicting the core element of mobility? I don't want to encourage sitting down in NS.
In addition, crouching is already surprisingly powerful in certain situations. Right now it's actually a situational option instead of a general rule of handling a firefight.
Do we have to go through this with all the numbers or is this clear now?
Don't forget the great disadvantage of crouching. The decreased mobility makes you a sitting duck. You're trading accuracy for lifespan (potentially). So, I'd call this a very balanced idea. If we look at NS1 recoil, then this might be a bit more of a disadvantage unless you're a crack shot (rewards skill).
Take for example the LMG. Assume that is has moderate recoil, good for close to mid range encounters. At far range, you need an element of luck to hit. Implementing #4, it allows the marine to do long range shots, but only in small bursts, and not in full auto. I don't see anything wrong with that. Does it become too tactical/realistic? I don't think so. Most of the game would still be have an arcadey feel. This is just for a certain specialised circumstance.
But the question arises as to which idiot would want to crouch and fire? You'd get killed so easily. A sitting duck. That's the good thing though. There's a trade-off, between accuracy and mobility. If you want to be more accurate, be less mobile. If you want to be more mobile, be less accurate. This is not to say that normal recoil rates would be as of MW2 or CS. It would be of what the devs intend it to be, just that crouching gives you more accuracy.
I think it is an option worth giving to the player. Not everyone will use it. And not every situation will call for it. But it is an option, and more options are always a good thing.
Sitting still already makes it easier to aim because you aren't moving, less movement compensation is neccesary, but being able to dodge an attack is important, otherwise it actually detracts from the game by making the game less about fast paced fighting and more like a rail shooter, you sit still and shoot at the alien, if you don't shoot it fast enough it kills you because you can't dodge, if you do shoot it fast enough you don't take any damage and it dies.
As it stands, you currently have the option of trying to outmaneuver the aliens, a leaping skulk might miss you and you can shotgun it in the arse as it flies by if you're lucking, and certainly the accuracy allows for very strong reflexive gameplay when your ability to turn round a corner, assess threats, and kill any aliens is purely your own, not a game limitation.
It would not neccesarily make it a worse game, but it would make it rather different from NS.
I should also point out that decreasing marine accuracy would probably make the game <i>easier</i> for them, because it makes it easier to aim, in NS1 your gun is perfectly capable of killing aliens, the difficulty is that it's so accurate you have to aim it carefully, the HMG doesn't kill aliens better simply because it's powerful, it kills them better because it is inaccurate so you can spray it, same goes for the shotgun.
If I have the choice to choose between being accurate or inaccurate with the same gun, that gun is going to be very powerful, or very weak, because I will always be able to hit with it. At long range the enemy can't move fast (due to parallax, things further away move slower than things close up) so I can aim easily and be accurate, if it's closer I just stand up and bullet hose the enemy, either way I get close to 100% accuracy.
The problem with that is that the power is determined by the gun, it almost completely removes the skill element because you can't dodge aliens (because you can't move and shoot) or because you don't need to aim (because your gun is a bullet hose). I am not averse to adding alternative skillsets to the game (in fact I encourage it, I'd love to have something other than only the reflex based skillset), but <i>removing</i> the skill from the game is what makes team fortress 2 unpleasant for me, it doesn't matter what I do, victory is determined by what class I am and what class the enemy is because my gun is either effective or ineffective against them.
you can't just say make up an idea and say "doing this gives you one advantage and one disadvantage, thus, BALANCE! PUT IT IN." It gets a bit more complicated than that, and you're completely ignoring Bacillus's constant reference to NS's individual gameplay experience which is elevated by its movement model.
Yes, this is obvious. I like to pair advantages and disadvantages so someone doesn't say "this is going to make killing so much easier for team X," or "this just sounds like a waste of time." I'm trying to provide you, the reader, with as many conflicting views as I can so that you can pick and choose to make an educated judgment. I'm not trying to sway the votes one way or the other. I'm simply seeing where everyone else stands on the ideas.
I don't like all of my suggestions. I feel it is unethical for me to throw out an idea that could work just because I don't like it. This isn't the debate team nationals where the winner takes home the prize. I'm trying to pick everyone's brains to see where they lie on each idea. I want NS2 to be the best game ever and I'm trying to supply the devs with all the ideas and opinions that I can.
I know I just glorified the situation, but those are the most absolute codes that I try to remember when I pitch an idea and see it through.
Now, lets continue on topic, please.
Most of the discussion has been on topics 1-3. I haven't heard anything about 4-6.
4. All armor types should have less recoil when crouching. This is not only more realistic, but it gives an incentive to sit still instead of run around; a tactic rarely used in NS1.
5. All armor types could experience the same recoil propulsion as the jetpacks. We just have to be careful so that a marine can't jump much higher. If zero gravity is ever implemented (lets not discuss the possibility of zero gravity on this thread, please). It would be a way for a drifting (non-jp) marine to maneuver.
6. Running marines (non-heavy) run slower while firing, especially with higher recoil weapons. Do you think you could frantically/spastically run around while firing a 50 caliber machine gun? It aint no Nerf gun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't want any recoil, so number 4 is sort of moot to discuss. However, there might be some merit in discussing reduction of bullet spread through crouching. Honestly, I'm not sure about that, anyway. I'd think that a marine standing up would have better accuracy than one crouching. Perhaps marines that are standing still have less bullet spread for 1/3 or 1/2 of a second of discharging weapons. It would take a few seconds after firing and halting to regain the decreased bullet spread by standing still(So Marines don't pwn the crap out of skulks by standing still and aiming right, just get off a few good shots).
Number 5 and Number 6: If there's no recoil in NS2, then making guns repulse marine's backward wouldn't make sense. It isn't fair to argue in this way, so I'll actually consider your idea. I don't want weapon recoil repulsion, even if there was accuracy reduction recoil. If just hinders movement. Not only would it hinder movement, it would make backwards hopping marines fly FASTER while shooting, if the effect were noticeable.
In case you haven't noticed, NS1 is about arcade movement, shooting, jumping. This isn't necessarily better or worse than generic tactical FPS "realism". Just different. It's a core of what NS1 is. If you take that away in NS2, then NS1 is going to lose some of its charm. NS2 can't compete with COD commercially. I don't think Unknown Worlds is going to try to copy COD's recoil model, movement model, or jumping model for that reason (and also that it would be a huge change from NS1). In my opinion, the arcade-ness of NS1 is a good thing.
Just stop trying to defend this. It's not going to go through and you're just pushing people to more energetically defend how NS1 is, which won't actually generate new thought or discussion. Basically, the discussion is over, the suggestion will never be implemented, and this thread is eventually going to end in flaming + locking if the argument continues.
You've done our work for us :)
<!--quoteo(post=1753537:date=Feb 16 2010, 05:54 PM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Feb 16 2010, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753537"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...there might be some merit in discussing reduction of bullet spread through crouching. Honestly, I'm not sure about that, anyway. I'd think that a marine standing up would have better accuracy than one crouching...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I encourage you to go to a rifle range with a rifle and dial in the sights so that it's accurate. Then fire three shots each at a precise target in prone, crouching, and standing positions. You'll notice that prone is typically the most accurate and standing is the least. Do a Google search. Here's two of the first results I got:
<a href="http://www.rifle-accuracy-reports.com/shootingpositions.html" target="_blank">http://www.rifle-accuracy-reports.com/shootingpositions.html</a>
<a href="http://www.hunter-ed.com/sc/course/ch3_shooting_positions.htm" target="_blank">http://www.hunter-ed.com/sc/course/ch3_sho...g_positions.htm</a>
"The kneeling (crouching) position is best to use when seconds count, you're out in the open and you still need better accuracy than standing can give you. "
"The standing position (also referred to as the offhand position) is the least accurate and least stable of the four shooting positions from which to shoot, but sometimes is necessary."
You can argue that kneeling isn't crouching, but then that'd be going more towards realism than arcade.
<a href="http://www.rifle-accuracy-reports.com/shootingpositions.html" target="_blank">http://www.rifle-accuracy-reports.com/shootingpositions.html</a>
<a href="http://www.hunter-ed.com/sc/course/ch3_shooting_positions.htm" target="_blank">http://www.hunter-ed.com/sc/course/ch3_sho...g_positions.htm</a>
"The kneeling (crouching) position is best to use when seconds count, you're out in the open and you still need better accuracy than standing can give you. "
"The standing position (also referred to as the offhand position) is the least accurate and least stable of the four shooting positions from which to shoot, but sometimes is necessary."
You can argue that kneeling isn't crouching, but then that'd be going more towards realism than arcade.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I concede the point. You're more knowledgeable about the subject and I was pretty much guessing.
I wasn't trying to flame. I actually read what you posted and then responded in the manner that you asked. I tend to meet perceived belligerence with an insulting tone, so I'm sorry that I got smarmy with you. Hopefully we can agree to disagree.
Honestly, I'll have to second this. Its worth repeating. If human technology has advanced so far that we have nanites floating in the atmosphere which can instantly convert energy into mass and make complex structures (Marine buildings) or guns, then its fair to say that recoil would not exist. Especially since contemporary humans have guns without recoil. I haven't the faintest clue why such a technologically advanced race wouldn't have guns that don't recoil.
And the game just wouldn't work well with it. Tracking would become impossible and we'd have to slow the aliens down (a la Halo, dear god in valhalla) to make tracking possible. And if we slow down blinking/leaping/flying aliens to make them easier to shoot, then we've just lost a gigantic amount of exactly what makes gunners vs. quick melee fun. Footwork and tracking are the key skills in NS1 combat; decrease tracking ability by increasing recoil and you've changed the game pretty much fundamentally. Add too much recoil and you've screwed tracking. Don't add enough recoil to make a difference and there's no point. Its a no-win situation unless you want to gut NS1 combat. And because people still play NS1 seven years after release, I think there's something to its combat paradigm.
On the other hand, weapon discharge repulsion is not physically possible to get rid of. There's an actual argument based on realism for putting it in the game. It just doesn't belong in NS2 because NS2 isn't trying to be fun because of realism. It's entertainment lies in the fact that combat is inherently outside of the real world (fades, lerks, jetpacks).
And the game just wouldn't work well with it. Tracking would become impossible and we'd have to slow the aliens down (a la Halo, dear god in valhalla) to make tracking possible. And if we slow down blinking/leaping/flying aliens to make them easier to shoot, then we've just lost a gigantic amount of exactly what makes gunners vs. quick melee fun. Footwork and tracking are the key skills in NS1 combat; decrease tracking ability by increasing recoil and you've changed the game pretty much fundamentally. Add too much recoil and you've screwed tracking. Don't add enough recoil to make a difference and there's no point. Its a no-win situation unless you want to gut NS1 combat. And because people still play NS1 seven years after release, I think there's something to its combat paradigm.
On the other hand, weapon discharge repulsion is not physically possible to get rid of. There's an actual argument based on realism for putting it in the game. It just doesn't belong in NS2 because NS2 isn't trying to be fun because of realism. It's entertainment lies in the fact that combat is inherently outside of the real world (fades, lerks, jetpacks).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this. I wish I could word it like you. and I wish the Devs would put up a HUGE announcement called: "Don't post anything based on Realism or other games except NS1."
and Could people stop Using MW2 for fuc.. s sake? MW2 MEANS MECHWARRIOR 2! it was there first! Modern warfare doesn't have any rights to these letters!
also, 90% of this thread is Crud. 90% of this whole forum is crud. hell, we could make a rule out of that! (sarcasm)
Lets start with this... Why guns like that which exist today? Because the devs thought that energy weapons (were 0% recoil would be expected) is not what they like. They want "gritty". Actually i think the REAL REASON NS2 HAS GUNS is to make it easier for people to get involved with the game... It's something they know how to use... it's not some weapon that fires from mixing chemicals and applying an electrical charge... you slap in a new magazine and you kill the enemy as fast as possible. Another reason is the movie Aliens (which explains the flamethrower).
Back on the topic of "gritty". Apparently everyone has there own idea of what "gritty" means. In keeping with the devs decision that marines have weapons like grenade launchers, rifles, flamethrowers a bazillion years from now... my idea of "gritty" is:
1. recoil
2. aiming not spraying
3. aimpoints
4. deadly weaponry where burst fire kills
And while i agree that #1 and #3 may not exist, atleast not as we know them today... Well this is a game. The devs want it to be like counterstrike (buying guns and arcadey)... I hate CS so i say make it more like Americas Army (slower where bullets are very deadly). I want NS2 to be more about the atmosphere and less about taking orders from 3 different commanders... zzz NS2 is going to be a zoo.
<!--quoteo(post=1753702:date=Feb 17 2010, 03:06 PM:name=darktimes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (darktimes @ Feb 17 2010, 03:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753702"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->and Could people stop Using MW2 for fuc.. s sake? MW2 MEANS MECHWARRIOR 2! it was there first! Modern warfare doesn't have any rights to these letters!
also, 90% of this thread is Crud. 90% of this whole forum is crud. hell, we could make a rule out of that! (sarcasm)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ya i agree on the MW2 ###### that people keep slinging. I'm very sorry but their's no way in hell that NS2 will be more popular then MW2... sorry it ain't going to happen.
And Every time someone comes along with the "That will never work because NS1 didn't' have it"... well we do our best to beat them down with a 2x4 but it can get really messy sometimes. xD
I think realism kind of went out by the time I got to 'space' in that sentence.