[QUOTE=SomeFaggot;18195417][img]http://filesmelt.com/downloader/fpsidea.png[/img]
Take a look at this. [b]THIS[/b] is how bullet spread should be done.
When the player shoots, a trace is sent out from the tip of the gun, not the center of the players screen. Designated within the weapon script would be the farthest distance from this point a bullet could be spread. With this we can generate a radius from the center of the trace ending, and this circle would gain size depending on the distance the trace picks up. Then we randomly generate where the bullet lands within those coordinates.[/QUOTE]
Why the tip of the gun, instead of the center of the screen? It's perfectly fine and realistic...I don't want to have to aim upwards just to shoot somebody in the head...that doesn't...make...sense...
:sigh:
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;18196160]Uhm that's how randomized bullet spread works minus the really dumb invisible trace idea. It works with math.[/QUOTE]
Why the fuck should bullets go toward the center of the screen when a gun isn't pointed that way. Let's say you're sprinting. You see an enemy and press M1. Usually it'd make your character slowdown and wouldn't fire until the gun is completely aligned with the center of the screen. Now in the way I pointed out, the bullets would trace from the gun's tip, not just from the center of a players screen. You would start firing, while the gun would swing from your side up to your shoulder. How fast you were moving would effect the angle bullets were coming out, but the DIRECTION the barrel was pointed. The bullets could only stray so far from the spot the gun is pointed towards and no farther, while the direction they were pointed towards could vary depending on how much the players gun is moving.
Many guns are much more accurate than they are portrayed in games. It's really unrealistic when your gun remains in the center of the screen yet bullets are coming out at very strange angles. The aim would be dependent on where the gun model's tip was aimed, not the center of a players screen.
There's nothing BAD about the way it's currently done, I'm just saying a more realistic approach could be taken. Now if we could make it fun and realistic that'd be great.
[editline]06:10PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=FFStudios;18205330][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZmtFsDxkis[/media][/QUOTE]
That's amazing.
[QUOTE=SomeFaggot;18210671]Why the fuck should bullets go toward the center of the screen when a gun isn't pointed that way. Let's say you're sprinting. You see an enemy and press M1. Usually it'd make your character slowdown and wouldn't fire until the gun is completely aligned with the center of the screen. Now in the way I pointed out, the bullets would trace from the gun's tip, not just from the center of a players screen. You would start firing, while the gun would swing from your side up to your shoulder. How fast you were moving would effect the angle bullets were coming out, but the DIRECTION the barrel was pointed. The bullets could only stray so far from the spot the gun is pointed towards and no farther, while the direction they were pointed towards could vary depending on how much the players gun is moving.
Many guns are much more accurate than they are portrayed in games. It's really unrealistic when your gun remains in the center of the screen yet bullets are coming out at very strange angles. The aim would be dependent on where the gun model's tip was aimed, not the center of a players screen.
There's nothing BAD about the way it's currently done, I'm just saying a more realistic approach could be taken. Now if we could make it fun and realistic that'd be great.
[editline]06:10PM[/editline]
That's amazing.[/QUOTE]
It'd be cool if you didn't call me out on something this dumb. If a gun aligns itself with the center of the screen before it shoots, that's the dev's fault.
By the way of math, a randomized bulletpath comes from the spread of a weapon. The bullets spread more and more the further they go. GUESS WHAT? It's not based off the center of the screen in many games! It's based off the location of the barrel, which the game forces to be towards the center.
So if they didn't force the barrel to be pointed at a certain location, the bullets could go astray like you said. That's assuming that they did program how I said.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;18211634]It'd be cool if you didn't call me out on something this dumb. If a gun aligns itself with the center of the screen before it shoots, that's the dev's fault.
By the way of math, a randomized bulletpath comes from the spread of a weapon. The bullets spread more and more the further they go. GUESS WHAT? It's not based off the center of the screen in many games! It's based off the location of the barrel, which the game forces to be towards the center.
So if they didn't force the barrel to be pointed at a certain location, the bullets could go astray like you said. That's assuming that they did program how I said.[/QUOTE]
Many games do the ol' trace from the player view and randomize bullet spread just based off that. Weapon accuracy just never seems right to me. But then again, I haven't played ARMA or any of its related games. Do they do it well?
[QUOTE=SomeFaggot;18211918]Many games do the ol' trace from the player view and randomize bullet spread just based off that. Weapon accuracy just never seems right to me. But then again, I haven't played ARMA or any of its related games. Do they do it well?[/QUOTE]
They do it perfectly fine in my opinion. It's really easy to tell that the bullet is coming from the gun but it isn't hard to aim. The guns are REALLY accurate when your standing still but shooting while walking is a whole different story since you have gun sway.
Another thing that irks me, why are shotguns always LOL INACCURATE?
Because most game designers use buckshot instead of freaking slug rounds.
[QUOTE=SomeFaggot;18213124]Another thing that irks me, why are shotguns always LOL INACCURATE?[/QUOTE]
Stalker two-barrel shotgun + Dart ammunition = Sniper Rifle.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;18165496]...though some elements, like tunnel vision (soldiers under heavy fire forgetting everything around them and focussing on the location the fire is coming from) could still be shown, but in moderation as to not make it annoying for the player.[/QUOTE]
Way I see it, if you get the atmosphere right, Tunnel Vision will come naturally. And you won't need to vignette it in.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;18165496]That said, in order to be realistic, we would need some sort of cover system.[/QUOTE]
No.
Hugging cover is a really shit idea. You're much better off keeping your distance from cover. It's worth remembering that you don't need to be pressed against a wall for it to protect you against gunfire. As long as it's between you and the enemy, it'll work.
Real soldiers will never hug their cover, and this is true of games as unrealistic as Counter Strike aswell.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;18165496]The problem is that many players could be reluctant to play in squads. What I think would be a good idea, is splitting each map into "zones". A zone belongs to whichever team is currently there or had soldiers there before it became empty. A single player, the commander, should be able of giving orders to squad leaders. The commander could tell a squad leader to attack a zone with a church, for example. The score of the commander and squad (both leader and members) are increased if the squad fights in this zone, and ultimately, they also get a decent bonus if they completely conquer the entire zone. The squad leader, in turn, can also give orders. Let's say that the squad is fighting its way in the church. The entire squad has a score multiplier because they're in the church, plus the points they get for killing enemies, resupplying or reviving teammates. The squad leader can then order the MG gunner to give suppressive fire from a certain location, or tell the grenadier to breach a certain door. Whenever they do such a task, they either get another multiplier (as with the MG gunner) or an instant bonus (such as breaching the door).[/QUOTE]
You're talking about adding an RTS side to it too, which... Actually, excuse me while I change my trousers for a clean pair.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;18165496]The idea is that, essentially, the more complex orders are given, the more the players (ALL players) are rewarded. A player simply killing an enemy would, for example, get 5 points. But this player, fighting in the right zone (X2), completing a certain objective (I.E. destroying a tank = 20 points + 5 points for each member inside the tank, let's say an entire squad = 5x6), with a certain vehicle (order was given to use a tank of his own = X2 again) after being ordered to do so by the squad leader (x2) would get: 20 + (5x6) x2 x2 x2 = 400 points instead of the 5 points he would have gotten if acting alone.[/QUOTE]
The more complex the order is rewarded, or the more well it's followed? It seems what you're describing is rewarding people for doing things right. Which sounds perfectly fair to me. No point giving bonus points to the guy who shoots the most birds out of the sky, since he hasn't been of any use to the team.
As John Goodman once said, "once a plan starts to get complicated, things start to go wrong"... Albeit in a film you shouldn't take seriously, I still feel it has a good point.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;18165496]The maps will have all kinds of gamemodes, excluding deathmatch, team deatchmatch and other gamemodes where players could play alone. The team that wins is the one that completes all its objectives first or within a certain time (or preventing the enemy from doing the latter, of course).[/QUOTE]
Maybe one way to do it is to have several 'key locations' which each team must capture, maybe UT2k4 double domination style or something. Whoever controls them all wins, or the most within a time limit. Or something again like UT's assault game mode.
More crates and barrels.
[QUOTE=johanz;18220698]More crates and barrels.[/QUOTE]
And overturned barrels.
[editline]08:36AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Taaro;18213959]Because most game designers use buckshot instead of freaking slug rounds.[/QUOTE]
But even then, buckshot wouldn't make it THAT inaccurate.
COD4 campaign
ArmA is pretty realistic, but I don't get fucking blinded by HDR in real life. When it's noon and shit's bright, my eyes adjust and it doesn't seem bright any more.
Also, if there was a game with realistic injuries and ballistic physics, that would be nice. Like, if I get shot the the foot, I don't die, but I walk slower/have to crawl. Remember the original Operation Flashpoint? I was taking a squad to a airport in a truck, but then a tank showed up. I ordered everyone out and jumped out of the drivers seat, right as the tank fucked up my shit. I flew about 5 feet, with broken legs and I could only prone everywhere...
Before any retards make some stupid comment, yes, OpF is fun.
Answer to op: go outside.
[QUOTE=lemming77;18220674]Way I see it, if you get the atmosphere right, Tunnel Vision will come naturally. And you won't need to vignette it in.
No.
Hugging cover is a really shit idea. You're much better off keeping your distance from cover. It's worth remembering that you don't need to be pressed against a wall for it to protect you against gunfire. As long as it's between you and the enemy, it'll work.
Real soldiers will never hug their cover, and this is true of games as unrealistic as Counter Strike aswell.
You're talking about adding an RTS side to it too, which... Actually, excuse me while I change my trousers for a clean pair.
The more complex the order is rewarded, or the more well it's followed? It seems what you're describing is rewarding people for doing things right. Which sounds perfectly fair to me. No point giving bonus points to the guy who shoots the most birds out of the sky, since he hasn't been of any use to the team.
As John Goodman once said, "once a plan starts to get complicated, things start to go wrong"... Albeit in a film you shouldn't take seriously, I still feel it has a good point.
Maybe one way to do it is to have several 'key locations' which each team must capture, maybe UT2k4 double domination style or something. Whoever controls them all wins, or the most within a time limit. Or something again like UT's assault game mode.[/QUOTE]
You're a fucking genious. Go make some games. NOW!
[sp] I'm not joking, either.[/sp]
[QUOTE=BENJA5;18197464]Why the tip of the gun, instead of the center of the screen? It's perfectly fine and realistic...I don't want to have to aim upwards just to shoot somebody in the head...that doesn't...make...sense...
:sigh:[/QUOTE]
Yes it does, because when you move your head, your arms don't automatically move with it, do they? You have to move your arms as well as your head.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
