Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Amaterasu

Reduce Or Remove Flinching.

Recommended Posts

 every gunfight feel to rng for my taste. combo no light sources so enemies are completely dark with pulsating sights and fliching that messes ur aim up makes gunplay frustrating. directional damage is fine but it shouldnt cause any flinching.

Edited by Amaterasu
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Amaterasu said:

 every gunfight feel to rng for my taste. combo no light sources so enemies are completely dark with pulsating sights and fliching that messes ur aim up makes gunplay frustrating. directional damage is fine but it shouldnt cause any flinching.

No light sources? Bring a flashlight.

Your arms are going to move around a bit when there're bullets tearing through them, and your head and chest is going to get pushed around when bullets are transferring their kinetic energy into the armor covering them. Aimpunch is annoying, but landing an entire 5-round burst on your target only to have him snap to your head when he should practically be falling over is even more infuriating. If you're having trouble fighting back when your enemy started shooting first move to cover, then pop out and prefire where he was shooting from. You should be moving cover-to-cover anyway so you won't get caught in a situation where you're completely helpless against an attacker.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sgt.Bad-Touch said:

No light sources? Bring a flashlight.

Your arms are going to move around a bit when there're bullets tearing through them, and your head and chest is going to get pushed around when bullets are transferring their kinetic energy into the armor covering them. Aimpunch is annoying, but landing an entire 5-round burst on your target only to have him snap to your head when he should practically be falling over is even more infuriating. If you're having trouble fighting back when your enemy started shooting first move to cover, then pop out and prefire where he was shooting from. You should be moving cover-to-cover anyway so you won't get caught in a situation where you're completely helpless against an attacker.

yea i feel like the suppression system is okay in this game (maybe just a tiny bit too much, only maybe...)....

Edited by revdox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Amaterasu said:

 every gunfight feel to rng for my taste. combo no light sources so enemies are completely dark with pulsating sights and fliching that messes ur aim up makes gunplay frustrating. directional damage is fine but it shouldnt cause any flinching.

True, if you play with a pistol as secondary and got hit and you shoot in hipfire and ADS it snaps very up and you can't really compensate it with your recoil control 

Edited by Scroopi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was introduced to make the gameplay slower and more tactical. It's a semi-realistic game and if you're hit IRL you seek cover instead of instantly shooting back. Same in WW3 - When you're shot you should seek cover and return fire when safe. If we'd remove flinching the game would heavily slide towards arcade shoot'em'ups and we don't aim for that experience.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Borreh said:

This was introduced to make the gameplay slower and more tactical. It's a semi-realistic game and if you're hit IRL you seek cover instead of instantly shooting back. Same in WW3 - When you're shot you should seek cover and return fire when safe. If we'd remove flinching the game would heavily slide towards arcade shoot'em'ups and we don't aim for that experience.

I can appreciate the intent behind this but what often happens is two players will see each other at the same time, one will go for the accurate shot while the other sprays and the accurate player will lose because they get hit with a random shot and flinch before they can line up the kill, which throws off their aim completely. It's realistic but not necessarily fun or balanced.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cral said:

I can appreciate the intent behind this but what often happens is two players will see each other at the same time, one will go for the accurate shot while the other sprays and the accurate player will lose because they get hit with a random shot and flinch before they can line up the kill, which throws off their aim completely. It's realistic but not necessarily fun or balanced.

We are aware of that, if this becomes a major issue for our players we'll try to work something out. However, for the time being, we don't see it as a major problem. WW3 is meant to be a slower, more tactical shooter and we want it to stay that way while we add all of the missing features et cetera. Once that is done and it will be an issue we'll act accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Borreh said:

We are aware of that, if this becomes a major issue for our players we'll try to work something out. However, for the time being, we don't see it as a major problem. WW3 is meant to be a slower, more tactical shooter and we want it to stay that way while we add all of the missing features et cetera. Once that is done and it will be an issue we'll act accordingly.

Cool. I don't usually find it a major problem, it's just one of those features in games that is fine 99% of the time and absolutely infuriating that other 1%!

Edited by Cral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Borreh

The suppression system right now that produced the blur effect is really good and fair. You arent directly hindered in you aiming but it does make you pull back in order to repoke afterwards so you can see better. I hear that its not fully implemented yet though. As long as the suppression doesn't effect my mechanically I am OK.

IRL suppression is just the denial of area to keep the enemy form returning fire. You cans suppress already in any game but since most games you dont become a casualty after the first round it doesn't matter that much and they can return fire anyways with little risk.

 

The flinch how ever is a very big announce for me. In planetsides 2's top tier player community Flinch is very hated and caused a lot of contempt in the past between those devs and the top players. The flinch in PS2 used to be very bad in ps2 but still not as bad as WW3 in some cases.

This video is form the old flinch system.

Pretty much says what I was going to say in this video.

Flinch rewards who shoots first.

Flinches randomness factor that nerfs skill in favor of who shoots first.

Who shoots first can be determined by latency in a most situations. If I have high latency and turn the corner I could possibly get the first shot off before he is able to see me on his screen.

It hinders competitive gunplay by nerfing skill which could be used to win a fight against a less skilled player who only got the shot off first.

 

This is from after they adjusted the the flinch to be near where it is now. Its still a big issue for a lot of the players.

 

Tactics exist and can exist with out needing to be slow. Being slow just makes it easier for the slow thinking people to be tactical.

I am not in favor of hindering skill so that others can get a boost. If you cant kill the person after you get the drop on them with a flank without flinch hindering him so much he cant fight back then you shouldn't win. They already have the advantage already no need to stack them up with more advantage like the extremely low TTK to the back and to the sides along with taking away their aim with RNG.

Flinch might not be a direct RNG mechanic but it adds a huge amount of RNG which only favors the less skilled by leveling out the playing field to every one now sucks at aiming. RNG should never be a factor in competitive games especially with shooting in FPS.

 

It gets boring using "tactics" to just out flank every one to get easy farm kills and people who cant react to me because the low TTK from the side and back so when I get a head to head fight its fun to enjoy some skill based gameplay but its mared by becoming a spray fest with little skill ceiling involved.

Squad was a fun game with a little bit of competitive skill based shooting but then they updated it to  be more "tactical" by nerfing skill in the disguise of realism in way that do not replicate actual IRL gunshooting. The skill ceiling was lowered a lot in squad and now I cant enjoy it.

 

 

My closing statement is that flinch over all just lowers the skill ceiling and that tactics exist without it anyway. A little bit of flinch that effects aim can be bearable but the amount that is in game now disruptive to gamplay to a point it is not fun to have head on fights. Flinch hinders skill, dumbs down engagements and doesn't promote tactics in my opinion.

I know you guys really want to put all the systems in and then balance stuff but the flinch is way to much so if its a simple change of a value in a some files please lower it to at least 1/4 of the current system so it is in a more tolerable. It is the one thing that really holds back my enjoyment in the gunplay.

I also must say that I really dislike how most developers rely on the metrics and data the collect to balance the game. Balancing based off a excel sheet may help in a meta but not in the actual mechanical and play sense of the games.

The flinch needs to be reduced by a major amount or removed. Its not to do with arcady-ness since those games can involve tactics and slow pace as well.

Edited by TZoningHard
edit
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Borreh said:

This was introduced to make the gameplay slower and more tactical. It's a semi-realistic game and if you're hit IRL you seek cover instead of instantly shooting back. Same in WW3 - When you're shot you should seek cover and return fire when safe. If we'd remove flinching the game would heavily slide towards arcade shoot'em'ups and we don't aim for that experience.

understood. i knew it was a gameplay choice but to see my aim go from the center down to the left side next to my targets foot was.. jarring. so i knew i was getting shot from the left or right of my body with the target infront of me. i was leaning towards reduce bc i felt maybe it was overdone. apparently not. disreguard this post.

Edited by Amaterasu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sgt.Bad-Touch said:

No light sources? Bring a flashlight.

Your arms are going to move around a bit when there're bullets tearing through them, and your head and chest is going to get pushed around when bullets are transferring their kinetic energy into the armor covering them. Aimpunch is annoying, but landing an entire 5-round burst on your target only to have him snap to your head when he should practically be falling over is even more infuriating. If you're having trouble fighting back when your enemy started shooting first move to cover, then pop out and prefire where he was shooting from. You should be moving cover-to-cover anyway so you won't get caught in a situation where you're completely helpless against an attacker.

yes i understand that. it helps but not really when someone is 1 floor above me 15-20 meters away in the mall area when im below where the light cant reach them. and i do that. just to many moments moments i engage then i get popped from the sides. devs made a heavy stance it wont be changed so this is to just make conversation at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TZoningHard said:

@Borreh

The suppression system right now that produced the blur effect is really good and fair. You arent directly hindered in you aiming but it does make you pull back in order to repoke afterwards so you can see better. I hear that its not fully implemented yet though. As long as the suppression doesn't effect my mechanically I am OK.

IRL suppression is just the denial of area to keep the enemy form returning fire. You cans suppress already in any game but since most games you dont become a casualty after the first round it doesn't matter that much and they can return fire anyways with little risk.

 

The flinch how ever is a very big announce for me. In planetsides 2's top tier player community Flinch is very hated and caused a lot of contempt in the past between those devs and the top players. The flinch in PS2 used to be very bad in ps2 but still not as bad as WW3 in some cases.

This video is form the old flinch system.

Pretty much says what I was going to say in this video.

Flinch rewards who shoots first.

Flinches randomness factor that nerfs skill in favor of who shoots first.

Who shoots first can be determined by latency in a most situations. If I have high latency and turn the corner I could possibly get the first shot off before he is able to see me on his screen.

It hinders competitive gunplay by nerfing skill which could be used to win a fight against a less skilled player who only got the shot off first.

 

This is from after they adjusted the the flinch to be near where it is now. Its still a big issue for a lot of the players.

 

Tactics exist and can exist with out needing to be slow. Being slow just makes it easier for the slow thinking people to be tactical.

I am not in favor of hindering skill so that others can get a boost. If you cant kill the person after you get the drop on them with a flank without flinch hindering him so much he cant fight back then you shouldn't win. They already have the advantage already no need to stack them up with more advantage like the extremely low TTK to the back and to the sides along with taking away their aim with RNG.

Flinch might not be a direct RNG mechanic but it adds a huge amount of RNG which only favors the less skilled by leveling out the playing field to every one now sucks at aiming. RNG should never be a factor in competitive games especially with shooting in FPS.

 

It gets boring using "tactics" to just out flank every one to get easy farm kills and people who cant react to me because the low TTK from the side and back so when I get a head to head fight its fun to enjoy some skill based gameplay but its mared by becoming a spray fest with little skill ceiling involved.

Squad was a fun game with a little bit of competitive skill based shooting but then they updated it to  be more "tactical" by nerfing skill in the disguise of realism in way that do not replicate actual IRL gunshooting. The skill ceiling was lowered a lot in squad and now I cant enjoy it.

 

 

My closing statement is that flinch over all just lowers the skill ceiling and that tactics exist without it anyway. A little bit of flinch that effects aim can be bearable but the amount that is in game now disruptive to gamplay to a point it is not fun to have head on fights. Flinch hinders skill, dumbs down engagements and doesn't promote tactics in my opinion.

I know you guys really want to put all the systems in and then balance stuff but the flinch is way to much so if its a simple change of a value in a some files please lower it to at least 1/4 of the current system so it is in a more tolerable. It is the one thing that really holds back my enjoyment in the gunplay.

I also must say that I really dislike how most developers rely on the metrics and data the collect to balance the game. Balancing based off a excel sheet may help in a meta but not in the actual mechanical and play sense of the games.

The flinch needs to be reduced by a major amount or removed. Its not to do with arcady-ness since those games can involve tactics and slow pace as well.

Amazing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, TZoningHard said:

I wonde if that @'d borreh twice RIP ?

after seeing that planetside 2 flinch comparison i am not wrong at all. the flinch in WW3 is almost if not EXACTLY the same in the older planetside 2 game. its the same with bullets and explosions and tank shells. i get shot from the side it kicks my aim to the bottom left or right. if i get shot straight ahead my aim gets shot up the upper left and right. same thing is happening with tank shells and artillery too. i just had one match after seeing the video u linked and wondered why shooting players were so inconsistant. flinch is why, its part of their vision so fine, dont remove, then reduce it. the game feels unplayable to me now. u are correct once again. whoever shoots first wins. 

Edited by Amaterasu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little bit can be palatable but the way now it just over rewards flank with blur vision, higher ttk, tagging a lil bit, and flinch along with the natural advantage of shooting first.

Most of the engagements are fun but their are times where me and another dude just end up spraying at each other. Its not really engaging and fun when you cant play because the flinch knocks you way off and flinch in other games always made it meh when the shooting turned into a casino game of RNG bullets.

Out side on me thinking that the TTK is a bit too short for the side and back shots, especially with most people playing on 100-150 ping. THe flinch is the biggest issue with the gunplay system right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Borreh said:

This was introduced to make the gameplay slower and more tactical. It's a semi-realistic game and if you're hit IRL you seek cover instead of instantly shooting back. Same in WW3 - When you're shot you should seek cover and return fire when safe. If we'd remove flinching the game would heavily slide towards arcade shoot'em'ups and we don't aim for that experience.

its the teams game and i get it.  but highly recommend that the team and viewers sacrifice 10 minutes of thier time to look at TZonings valuable planetside 2 flinch before & after video. even for ww3 its to much and its defintely not fine where it is right now.

Edited by Amaterasu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TZoningHard said:

A little bit can be palatable but the way now it just over rewards flank with blur vision, higher ttk, tagging a lil bit, and flinch along with the natural advantage of shooting first.

Most of the engagements are fun but their are times where me and another dude just end up spraying at each other. Its not really engaging and fun when you cant play because the flinch knocks you way off and flinch in other games always made it meh when the shooting turned into a casino game of RNG bullets.

Out side on me thinking that the TTK is a bit too short for the side and back shots, especially with most people playing on 100-150 ping. THe flinch is the biggest issue with the gunplay system right now.

What is going on with you people, you ruin the games, you want ARCADE game, go play something else, as the DEVELOPER SAID "this game is intended to be realistic". The game is superb how it is now

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TZoningHard said:

A little bit can be palatable but the way now it just over rewards flank with blur vision, higher ttk, tagging a lil bit, and flinch along with the natural advantage of shooting first.

Most of the engagements are fun but their are times where me and another dude just end up spraying at each other. Its not really engaging and fun when you cant play because the flinch knocks you way off and flinch in other games always made it meh when the shooting turned into a casino game of RNG bullets.

Out side on me thinking that the TTK is a bit too short for the side and back shots, especially with most people playing on 100-150 ping. THe flinch is the biggest issue with the gunplay system right now.

i respect ya buddy but besides the flinching everything else seems fine at least to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AltairiaNDracoN said:

What is going on with you people, you ruin the games, you want ARCADE game, go play something else, as the DEVELOPER SAID "this game is intended to be realistic". The game is superb how it is now

if i want a realistic game i will play arma or insurgency. the levels of flinch in this game is similar to that game and the old planetside 2 build show up above. nobody plays arma bc its not fun. this isnt a tactical shooter. its a shooter with tactical elements. SO IT IS A ARCADY SHOOTER adopting hardcore elements. i play this game bc it found a nice balance to keep it fun. its the closest to battlefield 2 ill ever get that DICE will not give me.

 the game is not ok in the state it is in, and flinching is not ok dispite his response just like the developers response in the planetside 2 video. it impacts the gunplay to much. that makes me less motivated to move and camp instead to make sure i dont get shot 1st. i understood its part of thier vision they dont need to remove it. it needs to be reduced then. if u believe im so wrong even though i offered a compromise, then make ur own post and explain why then. u may get more people on ur side probably.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Amaterasu said:

if i want a realistic game i will play arma or insurgency. the levels of flinch in this game is similar to that game and the old planetside 2 build show up above. nobody plays arma bc its not fun. this isnt a tactical shooter. its a shooter with tactical elements. SO IT IS A ARCADY SHOOTER adopting hardcore elements. i play this game bc it found a nice balance to keep it fun. its the closest to battlefield 2 ill ever get that DICE will not give me.

 the game is not ok in the state it is in, and flinching is not ok dispite his response just like the developers response in the planetside 2 video. it impacts the gunplay to much. that makes me less motivated to move and camp instead to make sure i dont get shot 1st. i understood its part of thier vision they dont need to remove it. it needs to be reduced then. if u believe im so wrong even though i offered a compromise, then make ur own post and explain why then. u may get more people on ur side probably.

The thing is this way, i want REALISTIC gameplay, you want ARCADISH gameplay, you said your point of view, but there are thousands of people who may like REALISTIC or ARCADISH like you, a poll might be great. If i want ARCADISH i go play counter strike or call of duty. You want the game to be easy, to SHOOT AND KILL, with one click, that's not how it works, WE NEED flinching for people to play tactical and not JUST RUSH like call of duty, im sorry but how old are you ? Im super busy in real life, but when i play i want to play REALISTICAL play not ARCADISH

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Borreh said:

This was introduced to make the gameplay slower and more tactical. It's a semi-realistic game and if you're hit IRL you seek cover instead of instantly shooting back. Same in WW3 - When you're shot you should seek cover and return fire when safe. If we'd remove flinching the game would heavily slide towards arcade shoot'em'ups and we don't aim for that experience.

Miltary vet here, can confirm when you take fire, the first, initial response should ALWAYS be to seek cover, then identify where the rounds are coming from, THEN return fire. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this is intended to be REALISTIC or at least SEMI-REALISTIC not arcadish, this is the best game i ever got to play (Battlefield) style, if i want arcade gameplay i go play counter strike

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AltairiaNDracoN said:

What is going on with you people, you ruin the games, you want ARCADE game, go play something else, as the DEVELOPER SAID "this game is intended to be realistic". The game is superb how it is now

this game is not slow paced enough for that. but alright, full realistic, not just partially even if gameplay suffers. i guess some people dont mind having thier aim jump 3-5 inches away from thier target may it be up close. 10,15, 20+ meters away. maybe my complaint wouldnt be so bad if this game didnt have poorly placed cover everywhere plenty to use but no. we are fully exposed pretty much everywhere.

Edited by Amaterasu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AltairiaNDracoN said:

The thing is this way, i want REALISTIC gameplay, you want ARCADISH gameplay, you said your point of view, but there are thousands of people who may like REALISTIC or ARCADISH like you, a poll might be great. If i want ARCADISH i go play counter strike or call of duty. You want the game to be easy, to SHOOT AND KILL, with one click, that's not how it works, WE NEED flinching for people to play tactical and not JUST RUSH like call of duty, im sorry but how old are you ? Im super busy in real life, but when i play i want to play REALISTICAL play not ARCADISH

What's tactical about flinching though? You say it's to push tactical play instead of rushing, but I'd argue that promoting landing the first shot over landing an accurate shot is less tactical and more random; as I said above if two players see each other at the same time and one hip-fire sprays while the other tries to go for the headshot, the one who sprays has a big advantage with flinching as getting your aim disrupted means your chances of winning that fight drop close to zero. This isn't an edge case either, it's a pretty common scenario in games.

 

Realism is great when it enhances the gameplay experience but not all realistic features are fun. This game as it stands is a compelling blend of both realism and more arcadey type shooters in my opinion. The devs could remove flinching but add in real magazine management for example and it would be just as realistic but also both more fun and more tactical, it's all about finding the right balance.

Edited by Cral
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Cral said:

What's tactical about flinching though? You say it's to push tactical play instead of rushing, but I'd argue that promoting landing the first shot over landing an accurate shot is less tactical and more random; as I said above if two players see each other at the same time and one hip-fire sprays while the other tries to go for the headshot, the one who sprays has a big advantage with flinching as getting your aim disrupted means your chances of winning that fight drop close to zero. This isn't an edge case either, it's a pretty common scenario in games.

 

Realism is great when it enhances the gameplay experience but not all realistic features are fun. This game as it stands is a compelling blend of both realism and more arcadey type shooters in my opinion. The devs could remove flinching but add in real magazine management for example and it would be just as realistic but also both more fun and more tactical, it's all about finding the right balance.

Cral, i don't want to argue YOU or any other Forum member, that's not the purpose, but you are wrong, why ?

- I prefer Realistic FULL gameplay, very hard FLINCH i mean i would like if they can make it even harder then it is right now.

- You prefer more Arcadish and turned off flinching

Conclusion:
- There are players and players, many of us want flinching and many don't want flinching, i think the right way to do is create a POLL and every people that owns the game should vote, that would be fair. But in reality if you get shot at .. do you shoot back or hide for cover ? I mean if they remove flinching you will NEVER ever ever ever get cover, why do you want to turn this game in Call of duty, what will be the purpose of covering (if any) when you remove flinching, i just can't understand you guys, why would you prefer ARCADE gameplay, just CLICK the mouse and get your kill, instead of EARNING with tears and blood, the satisfaction is much greater when you play REAL HARD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...