Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Amaterasu

Reduce Or Remove Flinching.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Atom_Alchemist said:

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. 

thank u very much for your service for the country. that is true, however that is real life and games must be balanced differently. while in real life u take cover to find out where shots are coming from, flinch in games is a mechanic to help players find out what direction they are being hit from, not to make an impact on hipfire and ads accuracy. thats an added touch of realistic as far i know is exclusively implemented for sim shooters is why i am against this heavy amount in a game thats faster pace than a sim shooter. some seem to think i only want super arcady, cartoon like shooters when i rather play arma, insurgency and the battlefield games of old like battlefield 2. so this game caters to me, if they change this or not i dont care, all im thinking of is balance. i will continue to play either way. but reguardless for my want to balance a game with different pacing that feels like a battlefield shell with the chocolate insides of insurgency. the devs shown to be admant with thier choice. so for the people that want it congratz. its not changing. this will be my last post about this topic.

Share this post


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

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.

Making definitive statements like "you are wrong" and "you prefer more arcadish" isn't helping the discussion, and just because someone isn't a fan of the flinch mechanic that doesn't automatically make them a CoD player. I play Escape from Tarkov primarily, I really enjoy slower tactical play and realistic gunfights, but this game clearly isn't a milsim and is looking to strike a balance between Battlefield and something more realistic like Arma. Making one aspect of a game slightly less realistic (is flinching even realistic?) to make engagements less luck-based and more focused on skill isn't the equivalent of "I want CoD!". You haven't even made any arguments as to why flinching is actually a good thing, you just make false statements about the intent of the people you're arguing with that are easy to counter,  without addressing any of their actual points like you would in a rational discussion.

Also the last thing any game needs is polls for every feature, design by committee just leads to an incoherent mess, the devs should pursue their own vision for the game, we're just here to offer insights into how we play/enjoy the game which might help the devs to make more informed decisions.

Share this post


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

Making definitive statements like "you are wrong" and "you prefer more arcadish" isn't helping the discussion, and just because someone isn't a fan of the flinch mechanic that doesn't automatically make them a CoD player. I play Escape from Tarkov primarily, I really enjoy slower tactical play and realistic gunfights, but this game clearly isn't a milsim and is looking to strike a balance between Battlefield and something more realistic like Arma. Making one aspect of a game slightly less realistic (is flinching even realistic?) to make engagements less luck-based and more focused on skill isn't the equivalent of "I want CoD!". You haven't even made any arguments as to why flinching is actually a good thing, you just make false statements about the intent of the people you're arguing with that are easy to counter,  without addressing any of their actual points like you would in a rational discussion.

Also the last thing any game needs is polls for every feature, design by committee just leads to an incoherent mess, the devs should pursue their own vision for the game, we're just here to offer insights into how we play/enjoy the game which might help the devs to make more informed decisions.

Ofcourse flinching is realistic and must stay in the game mandatory, because it promotes TACTICAL play, just like real life who is shooting first almost wins, if someone shoots you in real life you will stand by your feet like "RAWWRRR" RAMBO ? or just take cover, in this game skill = good covering, play more focused, pay attention to your surrounding.
Now if you take out flinching everyone WILL GET RAMBO. Go in first page, DEVS said that they want SEMI-REALISTIC and semi-realistic means flinching gotta stay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, AltairiaNDracoN said:

Ofcourse flinching is realistic and must stay in the game mandatory, because it promotes TACTICAL play, just like real life who is shooting first almost wins, if someone shoots you in real life you will stand by your feet like "RAWWRRR" RAMBO ? or just take cover, in this game skill = good covering, play more focused, pay attention to your surrounding.
Now if you take out flinching everyone WILL GET RAMBO. Go in first page, DEVS said that they want SEMI-REALISTIC and semi-realistic means flinching gotta stay

You're still not explaining why the flinch mechanic promotes tactical play. As I've said, flinching rewards whoever lands the first hit, which can mean rewarding someone who sprays bullets indiscriminately over someone who tries to place their shots. The armor system in the game is a great example of something that is both realistic and encourages more thoughtful play, as getting shot in the back or sides is much more lethal, rewarding those who flank and get the drop on enemies while punishing player who aren't aware of their surroundings.

 

People don't run around in real life full auto hip-firing in every engagement for a variety of reasons, so while the flinch mechanic in isolation may be realistic it can reward an unrealistic style of play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its very realistic to have ping and latency in a real combat engagement am I right /s.

If some on pops a corner he has the latency advantage in the game leading to them being able to see you on their screen and possible shoot first before you can even have them registered on your screen. Very realistic to be shot before the person appears in front of you.

If a guy knows to peak a corner and to trigger the flinch he can feasibly do it before hes is on screen.

Not every one is a top tier player, understands game balance or dev that knows about balance and good game designs. Theres plenty of games out there where the devs are very casual and dont understand as much as their top tier players. Ive seen a dev ask what was skill ceiling and skill floor before. Granted he was a programmer and not a designer but that is a basic principle and very big principle of his genre of games.

These guys seem to know their stuff and to be real FPS gamers.

 

 

Flinch isn't a realism game point its a gameplay balance mechanic. Its a RNG based mechanic meant to hinder gameplay in favor of a different type of play. Many arcade shooters have flinch for gameplay balance/mechanics not for realism as it doesn't make the game more realistic.

Even the new COD has huge amounts of flinch.

The Idea is that flinch will slow down fights to allow people to play more tactically by making them return to cover, which isn't the case for most engagements since you would be dead before you can gain cover again from the low TTK from exposing your back and sides. Along with it making the head to head fights basically RNG based instead of skill based with the big issue of if both people are shooting each other then first to stop shooting loses because his opponent is no longer hindered.

The flinch mechanic has a purpose but it hinders so much else of the game that isn't revolving around hiding behind cover. Flinching will lead to bad gameplay meta in situation you find your self what flinch wasn't meant to disrupt and technical issues that will combined with the flinch to cause big issues for fun game play.

 

 

This isn't about wanting realism or what people like its about having solid mechanics in the game. Shooting is the main part of a FPS and hindering that by injecting uncompetitive RNG elements into what should have the determine factor skill. If you can get the flank on my, good now have the aim to back it up.

If you want to have suppression you already have it. keep my head pinned down by damaging me/preventing me from peaking while a buddy flanks. The blur vision is unrealistic but of in a games mechanics since.

 

 

I am also military and different millitary's have different SOP's on how to respond to contact and fire. I was taught to respond to the threat and return fire. Depending on the situation and s distance you would stand, crouch or prone return fire/get on line and assault though the enemy or after getting on line and returning fire you would bound back. In a close up engagement you arent going to run back to cover and put your people at risk, you will face head on and try to gain control of the situation while relying on your team to back you up. If cover is available use it but its isn't there some of the time or would take to much time to get too.

 

 

Realism games are fun for some for the immersion and RP aspect not for the competitive and gameplay aspects. They are usually low skill required and have plenty of mechanics to hinder skilled players in the guise of false realism. Most realism games are unchallenging and easy mode which leads to boredom for higher tier players.

Making a game a simulator in the attempt to portray what real combat would be like is OK but its is more like being in a story then actually a game. WW3 is aiming for tactical Playable realism not roleplaying.

 

What flinch comes down to is hindering good players and bringing up less skilled players to the same level of RNGness in a engagement. You can have skill and flank already I do it and its honestly a bit tedium when I'm killing every one with out challenge. You shouldn't need to cater to the less skilled players they should instead get better at aiming. Most of these "realism games" like squad have gone out of their way to hinder the gunplay in unrealistic manners to try and promote other gameplay aspect or to level the playing field so less skilled players arent being destroyed by very skilled players. Realism games have also messed with input with the mice in order to make it less usable as a aiming method, adding ridiculous amounts of over the top recoil like in squad, huge amounts of random sway, and purposefully messed up use of the optics in order to lessen the ability of players who spend thousand or more hours getting better so that they can keep every one on the same level for the sake of the type of game they want.

They are trying to Roleplay a character instead of rely on them selves to win. Realism like a D&D in the since that its not about skill its about the roleplaying.

 

 

You can say realism all you want but this game isn't a simulator it just has that realistic aesthetic and grounding to real life. There are so many things going on in this game that are not realistic why does realism suddenly matter so much with flinch. Having mechanics for good gameplay which is the main reason for FPS should be over making it a RolePlay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the solution should stay in the middle. Aim punch has a place in this game but there are much many more factors that makes a game different from an irl situation. 

As people said ping or soldiers' behaviour are different than irl.

Aim punch reward the one who shoots first, I have no problems with that. Shouldn't however, imo, be too debilitating: seeking cover should be the best option but not THE ONLY option. 

Personally I did not feel like it was so destruptive but apparently someone thinks so. I'll look more in to it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2018 at 2:46 AM, TZoningHard said:

[...] 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.

 

On 10/31/2018 at 12:48 PM, Cral said:

[...] 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.

Flinching as it is:

moving the crosshair

could be replaced with a

visual disturbance 

of some sort, thus we have an advantage when getting the first shot, but its not a guarantee for winning the 1v1. For example the muzzle flash could then be used to react quickly, without seeing anything else because of some blurr effect. That would nerf silencers in their visual perspective but buff the louder muzzle flashes.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...