AA5 Discussion Thread (Renamed)

1444547495066

Comments

  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,123Player
    edited November 2018
    Sluggish movement is subjective. I do think you could bump the movement speeds a bit more (especially when it comes to strafing) to make moving targets more difficult to hit. However, I don't find the movement to be too bad. There's not much acceleration or anything like that that will make you feel like your player doesn't respond to your button presses.

    PUBG is a game that is also faster than AAPG and I've even heard people call that game sluggish. Same goes for CS. So it seems that you pretty much need COD level of speed to not be sluggish
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • Hey.I.Have.A.GunHey.I.Have.A.Gun Posts: 641Player
    AA3 is sluggish if you are injured, as it should be.

    The thing I would like about this, in theory anyway, is that I assume it would be a consistent reduction in speed. Are you suggesting this in place of the increased recoil or instead of it? The biggest issue I have with the increased recoil is that you're taking something that's already random and increasing it exponentially. Generally speaking I'd be more in favor of something implemented consistently that can be learned and adjusted to.
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,123Player
    The increased recoil when injured in this game pretty much makes auto fire beyond very short ranges useless. I pretty much only use semi-auto when I'm highly injured unless I expect an enemy who extremely close to me. I'd rather the slower movement speed, even increased sway (if it was the old AA2 style) vs. increased recoil.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • `xinoN`xinoN Posts: 351Player
    edited November 2018
    By the way, AA2 red bleeding speed was beyoooond slow. Reinstalled the game the other day and all I wanted was to cut my wrists. Basically you had almost zero chance to escape once you got red. Many things were affected by the amount of health you had. Not saying It's wrong, I loved it back then but trying it today...
    Oh well.
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,123Player
    `xinoN wrote: »
    By the way, AA2 red bleeding speed was beyoooond slow. Reinstalled the game the other day and all I wanted was to cut my wrists. Basically you had almost zero chance to escape once you got red. Many things were affected by the amount of health you had. Not saying It's wrong, I loved it back then but trying it today...

    I remember it being really slow. A speed that slow probably wouldn't fly in today's gaming environment.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • =IK=Doba==IK=Doba= Posts: 2,789Player
    edited November 2018
    Games ive played before:
    BF series
    Cod series
    Insurgency
    CS
    AA

    All fps games that in general you move and shoot opponents. Typically everyone takes time off games but only AAPG feels "off" when you come back. The term quicksand was brought up many many times throughout AAPGs time by returning players.
    Subjective it may be but if you think you can maintain a solid player base when that is their first reaction you're crazy.

    A solid game starts with solid fluent movements, I can start anyone of the other games mentioned and feel like I haven't taken any time off, they feel smooth.

    If I start were to start AA tonight.... Quicksand.. Not to mention extreme screen shake.

    Solid? Not even close. A solid game I could still turn on at anytime and enjoy.
    _____________________________
    #Support Comp Mode

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN4YhM6jUB2MxVj8i3b9rhw
  • .!.dgodfather.!.dgodfather Posts: 445Player
    Running in AAPG feels like a jog at best. Maybe running on ice. I don't know if the player model doesn't fit the map scale or vice versa, but yeah it's odd compared to other games.
    Fragweiser Website
    Make AA Great Again!
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,123Player
    edited November 2018
    Maybe since I've been playing a while, but it doesn't feel too awful to me. Although I will say that in general everything could use a bit of a bump. Sprinting is especially slow and since it's the fastest way to get around a map it's rough especially in terms of map creation. Bigger maps in any game mode that doesn't allow teams to camp a single objective for victory are worthless since you can't get across the map that quickly.

    In terms of screen shake I can't stand it. Any grenade that blows up anywhere in my vicinity causes me to sit behind cover for seconds at a time waiting for the shake to stop. If I were to peek out to try to shoot someone I'd have no chance at aiming. Same goes for shaking due to suppression. If a guy is spamming near where I am, peeking out is guaranteed death since my screen will be shaking too much to aim. If I get hit with a shot, I have no chance of fighting back since my screen will be shaking and aim punch will push my crosshair to the floor. The combination of the two means I have no chance of getting my crosshair back on target. The guy could be missing 75% of his shots, but I have no chance of reacquiring the target because of these two factors acting on me. I've had this happen to me so many times recently that it drives me nuts. I can't imagine how any player who doesn't have very high reflex speeds to initiate battles quickly must feel when they play this game. If I weren't initiating most of my fights, I'd probably rage quit every time I'd get shot first and then have no chance of winning a battle.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • =IK=Doba==IK=Doba= Posts: 2,789Player
    Yeah whip thats the thing with AA, it takes hrs of playing before you get used to things again because initially they're off. So for people that consistently play the game, this is something they wouldnt notice and can have feedback on.

    Again on the screen shake, I get when some players defend the feature, problem is its no longer just a feature when its constant at this point its a major part of the game and that's where its gone bad.
    _____________________________
    #Support Comp Mode

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN4YhM6jUB2MxVj8i3b9rhw
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,123Player
    edited November 2018
    I personally see no reason to have the screen shake. I get it, if an explosion goes off near you, the ground will shake. However, it's just bad gameplay since it rewards spamming grenades as a tactic to make it more difficult for enemies to aim. It's bad enough that a grenade can blow up so far away and still hurt you badly. Add that in with the fact that the recoil penalties with low health are so harsh and a single grenade is extremely powerful.

    When it comes to shooting, it's even worse. There's no basis for it except rewarding volume vs. precision. Why must my guy shake when he's being fired at? Do real soldiers shake when they get fired at? There's not even a basis in reality on this one. The blurry vision is another one. There's no basis in reality here. I can see the utility in a true team play situation, you spam fire at a guy, he gets pinned down unable to return fire, player comes in and takes him out. However, even here, the guy who's under fire can't even fight a guy who's closer to him because bullets are passing by him. It's nonsense. Suppression is never used in this capacity anyway, it's only ever used for a single guy to get an advantage over a guy that he's firing at. The guy who's being fired at is either forced to run away while getting sprayed at (where if he's out in the open he's got no chance) or try to engage with a blurry screen and hoping for the lucky kill. The threat of a guy firing bullets past your location or even aiming his sight right at you is enough of a threat. We don't need to make our soldier shake and have blurry vision and act like he's not be trained to handle these kinds of situations.

    Another thing I'm going to say that makes the game look like a joke is the self bandaging. I'd really say to either take bleeding out of the game completely or make it so that only teammates can bandage you up (and bleeding rate is greatly slowed). It's hilarious to spectate the game and seeing guys getting clipped by a grenade or a single bullet and having to stop their advance to bandage themselves (giving grenades even more potency btw, not only is spamming rewarded with easy damage to your enemy, but also it forces anyone who is impacted by a grazing hit to stop in their tracks to bandage up). Seeing a guy win a gun fight and having to stop everything to bandage himself. Constantly, guys just stopping everything to bandage themselves. It completely ruins the flow of the game and just looks awful for your overall gameplay.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,605Beta Tester
    What's wrong with the Army game being different? What's the draw to this game if it's the same as the others? Wouldn't it just be easier to go play those games, then?
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,123Player
    edited November 2018
    Keebler750 wrote: »
    What's wrong with the Army game being different? What's the draw to this game if it's the same as the others? Wouldn't it just be easier to go play those games, then?

    There's nothing wrong with an Army game being different. You also need to remember that the average gamer doesn't just play one game forever. Odds are your average player who tries America's Army has played CS, R6, PUBG, COD, BF or whatever other popular game you wish. There aren't going to be tons of never played an FPS before type people. So if you have someone who's going to try the game and it just feels off, then they'll immediately close and uninstall. You can't have such a stark difference in basic gameplay mechanics like movement compared to other games. The pillars of an FPS game are movement, netcode, and shooting mechanics. Movement should feel fluid and responsive. The game should immediately respond to a player's key presses and allow them to do whatever it is they're expecting with ease. Movement should be smooth and quick, the player should feel agile. If you want to, you can even point out that these are soldiers after all. In all honesty, I'd expect the Army to put out a game that makes you feel like you're a highly trained soldier. That you're part of the best military force in the world. So I'd expect my guys to be fit, agile, quick, and not afraid. In some instances, the game almost makes you feel like the opposite with the slower movement speeds and shaking all over the place.

    I personally don't know why people associate tactical military shooters with slow. I mean when you see real soldiers on the move, they're quick.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,605Beta Tester
    You're very close to accidentally arguing that these soldiers SHOULD be sluggish since they are kitted up with a lot of gear. :p

    But again, shouldn't the Army be trying to get a different kind of player, that APPRECIATES that the game is different than another game?

    I don't agree that the game is unresponsive, per se. I just think it's not like other games and coming back to AAPG et al is jarring BECAUSE of that. In other words, that's a normal sensation.

    I would like to see the animations and timings match the actions a little better. I find a vault or climb feels a little surreal.

    The thing about the movement or various mechanics in this game is that everyone has the same challenge....and that's fair.
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,123Player
    edited November 2018
    How many of those "different" types of players actually exist? Plus, isn't the whole point of this project to appeal to the most amount of people possible? Not just a small niche group of players who prefer a slow paced FPS? Although, I will say that slow paced is more based on maps layouts and weapon lethality than movement speed.

    I'm not saying that the game shouldn't be different. Obviously it needs to be different otherwise it will be another clone of *insert popular game here*. However, that doesn't mean that your fundamentals need to be so different that someone who comes and tries the game will not bother with it. Making movement more fluid would do nothing to harm the game. In fact, it probably wouldn't even change game play too much compared to what it is now. Maybe it would make players more aggressive, but with how easy it is to kill people, I don't see people becoming so much more aggressive that suddenly the game is all about rushing.

    I think this game's niche is to be somewhere in between CS & R6 or maybe Arma. If they do it right they can succeed and become popular. If they try to be so different as to only appeal to a certain niche group of players then AAV will be just as popular as AA3 & AAPG.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • Dct.F|LeventeDct.F|Levente Posts: 550Beta Tester
    Suppressive fire is a real thing. It is widely used in modern combat. Yes, grown man, trained, experienced soldiers can and will loose combat effectiveness if some metal pieces fly over their head at supersonic speed. If you don't believe me, read up on Wikipedia, whatever. But the fact, that I managed to find a 50 page analysis of now-public US Army research about suppression in 3 minutes tells me that suppression is indeed key in modern combat. Link the the report (I hope posting this is ot against an forum rules...): link

    In general, video games only try to imitate the IRL physiological effects by applying artificial penalties. An interesting fact is that Arma 3 - the golden standard for milsim games in many fields - does NOT have any suppression effects (of course some mods implement it I think). There is some screenshake if (large) bullets hit close, but there is no blur, no black-white vision, etc. However, in my experience Arma 3 is a lot more immersive than AAPG, so you can feel the actual physiological effects if you let yourself be immersed. Even that I knew, that I'm just playing a game, Arma gave me many moments, where I almost jumped/ducked in my chair when taking fire unexpectedly - sometimes even mumbling some profanities at my enemy - , then searching for cover in shear panic. THIS is suppression. Trust me, I was not combat effective in this situation. :D

    A good question is: in what form should it be present in AA. I fully agree with you on that grenades exploding a floor above you should not cause you to feel it's effect. However, I don't see it as bad in gunfights. Suppression doesn't make me loose my target usually, aimpunch is a different thing, but I can live with them. However, I have adapted a relatively passive and angle-holding playstyle... I can go aggressive, but it's not my preferred way, maybe because of these game mechanics. Very hard to tell.
    Theory and reality are not that different. In theory.
  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,605Beta Tester
    How many TOTAL fps gamers exist in the world? How many fps games are there?

    I think AAPG is fighting for a pretty tiny slice of the pie as it is.

    So....what would we all agree is GOOD about AAPG that sets it apart in a good way? Let's face it, if there is NOTHING....why are we playing?
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,123Player
    edited November 2018
    I know that suppression is real and highly useful in real combat, however, suppression is mainly used to allow friendly forces to advance... which honestly it doesn't really do much in this game probably because most people in public servers aren't as in sync as a real military unit. I couldn't tell you if competitive players use it to any success either. Instead, its main function in this game is to punish a player who is being shot at even more than they already are.

    I think your Arma 3 example proves the point though. Just knowing that bullets are flying by you (which great sound effects can also add to that immersion) and that a guy has his sight aimed directly at you is enough of a psychological effect to get a player into a fight or flight situation. Unfortunately, the suppression effects almost take away the fight piece. If a player wants to stick his head out when bullets go flying by and go for the head shot, then let him. If the enemy isn't good enough at holding down that position then let the better player win. The guy who has the defensive position is already at an advantage. I find it to be a big problem that a one on one fight gets completely taken over by suppression effects. Same goes for a fight where a player gets caught out in an open area. He has no way to get to cover and his only chance is to try to fight back. You've effectively taken away that option with the intense effects. Honestly my major concern with suppression is for regular one on one battles where the players clearly see each other and are firing at each other. It turns the fight into a blur fest. It has nothing to do with firing bullets past cover, it's just spraying at your enemy and hoping that one of you manages to land more shots through the sea of blurriness.

    If a guy has my position held down, I'm usually smart enough to move to another location to try to engage him at a different angle. Forcing a player to move his crosshair a few inches to try to reengage me is a much better tactic on my behalf than forcing him to adjust a few millimeters and then landing a head shot because I was arrogant enough to think I could peek out the same spot I was just being shot at two seconds ago to land a head shot.

    If anything, suppression effects should build over time. You want to use suppression? Then it should take time to get to the point where the player actually is impacted by it. Firing a few bullets at my position is much different than putting my position under a consistent stream of fire.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,123Player
    edited November 2018
    Keebler750 wrote: »
    How many TOTAL fps gamers exist in the world? How many fps games are there?

    I think AAPG is fighting for a pretty tiny slice of the pie as it is.

    So....what would we all agree is GOOD about AAPG that sets it apart in a good way? Let's face it, if there is NOTHING....why are we playing?

    In August, Fortnite had 78.3 million players.

    PUBG still peaks at 1 million players per day, once at over 3 million. Counter-strike peaks at 566K per day. Counter-Strike 1.6 still peaks at 18K. Rainbow 6 Siege peaks at 124K and that's only on Steam (there are also tons like myself who have it on Uplay only - which I hear may be the larger portion of the player base). Team Fortress 2 currently peaks at 97K. Arma 3 at 27K. Ring of Elysium at 36K. If you want we can add games like Paladins @ 28K, Payday 2 @ 25K. That's not even to mention the numbers on COD BO4 and Overwatch which I don't have the ability to look up since they're not on steam as well as whatever remnants of older Battlefield games still exist (Before BF V comes out).

    Those peak numbers aren't even unique players for the day or month, which should theoretically be much higher.

    So in all honestly you can probably place unique player numbers for PC shooters in the 90-100 million, maybe more, maybe slightly less. Even if you want to take out Fortnite to say that most Fortnite players would only play Fortnite since it's the big fad, then I'd still think you could easily put PC shooter gamers in the 10-20 million player range, I'd say much higher though. So saying we could never expect an America's Army game to average 20-30K peaks if not higher is setting your sights too low.

    New edit: Here's some supposedly leaked numbers from steam
    https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/07/steam-data-leak-reveals-precise-player-count-for-thousands-of-games/

    TF2's total unique player count was at over 50 million. CS at 46 million. PUBG at 36 million. You can even find AAPG on the list at just short of 2 million downloads (it should be worth noting that AA3 was at 3 million). So that should give you a good idea of how many FPS gamers are out there. If you want to look at a couple more comparable games, Arma & Insurgency both at 6M. In any sense, you should say well if 2 million people downloaded AAPG, why did the game never exceed 1.7K peak players (or even 1K on average except for one month)? It's a question worth asking. There must be flaws somewhere if that's the case. I can't imagine that 2M people downloaded the game and never tried it. That's a lot of people who tried the game and felt that it wasn't worth continuing to play. Why? It's the answer we really need to get to the bottom of. Saying poor marketing is not good enough, 2 million people tried the game and the vast majority didn't stick around.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • .!.dgodfather.!.dgodfather Posts: 445Player
    edited November 2018
    Keebler750 wrote: »
    But again, shouldn't the Army be trying to get a different kind of player, that APPRECIATES that the game is different than another game?

    So....what would we all agree is GOOD about AAPG that sets it apart in a good way? Let's face it, if there is NOTHING....why are we playing?

    ...different kind of player...
    At what cost? If the FPS market is thin, why have a game that slices the smallest portion of the already smallest slice of pie?

    ...what would we all agree is GOOD about AAPG...
    It isn't nearly as buggy as AA3, that's about it.

    AAV is a new subject and AAPG should have little to do with design. You can probably take lessons learned and that is all. AAV will need to check the playbook of AA2/AA3 where classes are forced and evenly balance the environment, the shooting mechanics (individual weapons and attachments), and the maps. Player movement is fluid, fits the map size, and scales appropriately to reality, while maintaining "game". The maps have to look and play great. I don't think any AAPG map looks great. Any of them, except a few from the mod community which are or are revisions of old gen AA maps. Existing maps from previous series should seriously be considered a part o AAV. Detailed mil-sim training (not just a shoot house) has to come back soon after MP is fleshed out.

    Great maps, force class, and mil training are what makes AA unique.

    It's no easy task I'm sure, but it just has to work. And it has to work like nothing AAPG or AA3 have ever seen.
    Fragweiser Website
    Make AA Great Again!
  • [Prt_Dictator][Prt_Dictator] Posts: 275Player
    Being different shouldn't come at the expense of being a good game. That excuse could be used for literally everything. "I made a game that corrupts your hard drive when opened! Hey its different give me money..."

    That said, the walk speed in PG is atrocious, people are way too slow, too easy to hit and camping is reward to an insane degree. Its like its made for people that can't aim or react.
Sign In or Register to comment.