The argument made in the past has been "I was aiming for the head but couldn't get the kill because he shot first and hit me in the chest and messed up my aim."
Guess what? You lost because you were the worse player in that situation.
- He got the first hit
- You couldn't aim fast enough for the headshot
Then the argument switches to "Well, it's bad because it's limiting my strategies, I *have* to just react fast and go for the easy first shot instead of aiming for the head."
Nope. You could get better and land the headshot faster. It's created a dynamic where it's harder to get the fast one-hit kill. That's a rise in the skill ceiling: you now have to be better than you previously were to get the outcome you used to be able to.
Even if you do think it's just down to who shoots first, it still comes down to which player has the better reflexes and positioning and control. The aimpunch mechanic doesn't change that.
The aimpunch mechanic is symmetric. The only time it isn't is when one player has a scope; the magnified optic shooter is affected more.
The player who has better reflexes shouldn't win all the time by default, that is bad balance and makes the game completely one dimensional.
That is one of the reasons the game is such a bore to good players, they win by default. Maybe player X has some years in him but has very good aim, nope still dies every time, maybe player Y has very good tactical awareness, nope still dead.
The rich get richer with aimpunch, you already shot first, you got your damage in, that is all the advantage you should need to win the fight.
What do you guys think armour DOES exactly when a bullet with a certain level of energy stops up against it?
Video game =/= realism. Yes, realistically if you get shot you will flinch or whatever. However, realistically if you get shot on the head, some guy isn't going to slap toilet paper on you and get you back into the fight. Let's stop the realism talk. This game never made the claim of being a simulator.
Here's my challenge. List the pros and cons of how aim punch affects game play. I'd especially like to see the proponents list out the pros.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
The rich get richer with aimpunch, you already shot first, you got your damage in, that is all the advantage you should need to win the fight.
This is a consequence of an increase in skill gap. As the gap widens, there's more room for the better player to dominate. That's the rich getting richer.
How do you square your argument here with your earlier complaint that AAPG has too many elements reducing the skill gap?
I explicitly didn't say the player with better reflexes always win -- the same sentence calls out positioning (tactics) and control.
Mismatches in skill level are responsible for good players dominating weak players. I don't think changes in mechanics will significantly shift that without either "low skill, high reward" systems (that would get absolutely railed against in these forums) or skill-based matchmaking (which, frankly, isn't very realistic for 95+% of games).
The argument made in the past has been "I was aiming for the head but couldn't get the kill because he shot first and hit me in the chest and messed up my aim."
Guess what? You lost because you were the worse player in that situation.
- He got the first hit
- You couldn't aim fast enough for the headshot
Then the argument switches to "Well, it's bad because it's limiting my strategies, I *have* to just react fast and go for the easy first shot instead of aiming for the head."
Nope. You could get better and land the headshot faster. It's created a dynamic where it's harder to get the fast one-hit kill. That's a rise in the skill ceiling: you now have to be better than you previously were to get the outcome you used to be able to.
Even if you do think it's just down to who shoots first, it still comes down to which player has the better reflexes and positioning and control. The aimpunch mechanic doesn't change that.
The aimpunch mechanic is symmetric. The only time it isn't is when one player has a scope; the magnified optic shooter is affected more.
It doesn't matter how big or small the skill gap is. Unless a game is based on randomness, the more skilled and experienced player will win with there's a large discrepancy in skill.
I think skill gap more has to do with a "where do I go from here?" issue. How can I master this game in ways that may take someone else years to do? How can I become better than the next guy?
Besides aiming faster, what are the things a player can do in America's Army Proving Grounds to become a great player? What are the little intricacies that players can learn to master that the average player would take a long time to get down?
Here's the thing, I think you could take any high end FPS player, put them into AAPG and if they have guidance, they can dominate servers either right away or within a couple weeks. There's really not much to learn.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
I don't agree that making one skill set overshadow all others is increasing the skill gap.
The fun of playing is when players of all kinds find ways to defeat each other. A player with godlike aim should be on the same level of a player with insane reactions, but it isn't because it doesn't matter, shooting first matters.
As for positioning, it only matters when shots have to be accurate, every prefire beats good positioning because the other player can't fight back after being hit. A prefire headshot is great, a prefire shot to the leg should lose that exchange.
As I said, one dimensional.
I don't agree that making one skill set overshadow all others is increasing the skill gap.
The fun of playing is when players of all kinds find ways to defeat each other. A player with godlike aim should be on the same level of a player with insane reactions, but it isn't because it doesn't matter, shooting first matters.
As for positioning, it only matters when shots have to be accurate, every prefire beats good positioning because the other player can't fight back after being hit. A prefire headshot is great, a prefire shot to the leg should lose that exchange.
As I said, one dimensional.
One skill shouldn't overshadow others, but I would say that aiming and reactions kind of go together.
I think a good exercise is to list out the top 5 AAPG players and list what differentiates their skill sets from each other. I think it's a decent way of going about it.
I keep coming back to a game like rocket league where some players are ridiculous at all sorts of different things. Some of the top guys are better at different aspects of the game than others. Some of the higher end players are awesome as certain things, but then you see some other guys who are even more ridiculous.
What it kind of leads me down is to specialization. I think the lack of it is one of the major drawbacks to the game. My past ideas about front attachments, would allow for a little bit more of that.
It's also part of why I like limited classes in maps rather than everyone being able to select rifleman no matter what. Force guys to take the SAW (for example). In AA2 you always needed to have someone on your team who was good with the SAW. You couldn't get into a match and have no one who would take the SAW, it was forced on you. If you had no one who was competent with it, it was like being down a guy. Same with the M203 role. Having a guy who was top notch with it was a huge advantage in a map. Facing against a team who had one and you didn't was a huge disadvantage. Things like that are missing in the game. Not enough specialization.
We can go beyond that though and say when we are specialized, the specializations are too easy. Being a sniper is not overly difficult. Learning how to use the M24 is fairly simple. Learning how to use the DM roles are simple. Having a magnified scope on the AR makes it pretty simple. Each role needs to take time to learn and be good at. We don't have that.
So if we want to increase the appeal of the game and make a bigger skill curve, let's make it so each role takes time to learn. Make it so that players who master the non-standard roles are highly important to teams. Let's make it so that people are forced to use those roles in matches. These things are important.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
Not to go too much off topic, but I agree, there is no specialization in this game. Its the result of every thing being so dumbed down.
How can you specialize in something specific if you can master everything in a few hours?
What do you guys think armour DOES exactly when a bullet with a certain level of energy stops up against it?
Video game =/= realism. Yes, realistically if you get shot you will flinch or whatever. However, realistically if you get shot on the head, some guy isn't going to slap toilet paper on you and get you back into the fight. Let's stop the realism talk. This game never made the claim of being a simulator.
Here's my challenge. List the pros and cons of how aim punch affects game play. I'd especially like to see the proponents list out the pros.
Nobody ever in the history has reacted to a bullet going through them with a spastic attack. You folks dont even comprehend the simple physics behind bullets, their low mass and high velocity. Since it has a low mass it wont move you. You might flinch a half a second after the bullet hit but it isnt because a piece of lead went through you, it's because of something happening suddenly. So please, your who realism argument you just used and then dismissed for other points further down the post are complete garbage.
The only times people react with their bodies from bullets hitting them is a survival instinct to not want to die, hard to grasp, yeah. But it isnt because a piece of lead hit them that they were knocked off balance. They just don't feel like dying that day.
I can even think of a video where a soldier in afghan slides down a hill being shot at by AK's, he does get hit multiple times. Even in the head but he didnt start having a seizure. He was completely unmoved from the bullets. They didnt even throw him off balance because again, LOW MASS; HIGH VELOCITY.
Really, iti isnt rocket science, just basic physics.
Also, why dont you list reasons for aimpunch being necessary? We all can already agree on it being an awful feature yet there isn't a single reasoning behind it being something worth keeping.
What do you guys think armour DOES exactly when a bullet with a certain level of energy stops up against it?
Video game =/= realism. Yes, realistically if you get shot you will flinch or whatever. However, realistically if you get shot on the head, some guy isn't going to slap toilet paper on you and get you back into the fight. Let's stop the realism talk. This game never made the claim of being a simulator.
Here's my challenge. List the pros and cons of how aim punch affects game play. I'd especially like to see the proponents list out the pros.
Nobody ever in the history has reacted to a bullet going through them with a spastic attack. You folks dont even comprehend the simple physics behind bullets, their low mass and high velocity. Since it has a low mass it wont move you. You might flinch a half a second after the bullet hit but it isnt because a piece of lead went through you, it's because of something happening suddenly. So please, your who realism argument you just used and then dismissed for other points further down the post are complete garbage.
The only times people react with their bodies from bullets hitting them is a survival instinct to not want to die, hard to grasp, yeah. But it isnt because a piece of lead hit them that they were knocked off balance. They just don't feel like dying that day.
I can even think of a video where a soldier in afghan slides down a hill being shot at by AK's, he does get hit multiple times. Even in the head but he didnt start having a seizure. He was completely unmoved from the bullets. They didnt even throw him off balance because again, LOW MASS; HIGH VELOCITY.
Really, iti isnt rocket science, just basic physics.
Also, why dont you list reasons for aimpunch being necessary? We all can already agree on it being an awful feature yet there isn't a single reasoning behind it being something worth keeping.
Bro, I've been arguing against aim punch this entire thread. My whole point was that people who are claiming realism have no argument because the game isn't a simulator. A little reading comprehension goes a long way.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
Whiplash, you and many others really hate the realism argument.
Have you considered that this stand goes against your (collective) anti-random argument?
If what happens isn't what REALLY happens, who ARBITRARILY decides what happens? Imaginary, made up "I just like it that way" parameters are.....wait for it.....Random.
I've asked this...why not jump boots, power ups and low grav? This isn't a simulator after all...
And your answer will flow back to what you consider proper. "This isn't a fantasy game, after all...."
Except for the stuff we make up, of course. "We don't care about real life." Uh huh.
Body armour transmits the significant force of a bullet impact to the wearer, exchanging that blunt force trauma and bruising for the worse alternative. This gives us......MORE aimpunch....not less.
And some of you think you can actually keep your aim on target while taking hits? It takes the movement of your pulse in your cheek to make you miss and you think being shot doesn't affect your aim? (...I'm talking to you, pillow...)
______
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
The "I like it this way parameters" are a determination/discussion of what would make the game play better.
There is of course a set of parameters that the game needs to follow. The game is a military squad based shooter. So to have jump boots, power ups, etc. would not fit the game. It wouldn't make sense. There needs to be a set of parameters that the game needs to follow. That said, the game has never set out to be a simulator. Even the original games.
So when it comes to things like aim punch, suppression, supported, etc. etc. Whether such features should be in the game are more of a pros and cons situation. It shouldn't be, "well it's realistic." Just because something is realistic doesn't mean it's good for gameplay.
What does the feature add? what does it take away? How does it help the game? How does it hurt? Who does adding this feature benefit? How does it change the way firefights play out?
Things like this need to be asked and answered.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
Arbitrary decisions about what should happen is not the same as having some RNG to decide DIFFERENTLY what happens over and over again. The arbitrary decision is a one time thing, the RNG isn't. Your comparision doesn't make any sense.
What do you guys think armour DOES exactly when a bullet with a certain level of energy stops up against it?
When you get shot you go backwards not down (well.. not immediately) and your aim would go unintentionally upwards even with body armor due to physics... unless you are juicing on something.
Why would aim punch be a constant? Wouldn't that leave room for exploitation?
Whiplash, I agree wholeheartedly with your last two paragraphs (and the rest of your post in general.) My concern is that no one is willing to see the value in having more than a few variables to work out when considering the risks of an engagement.
This 'sneering at random' kick that some are on...it's as if some want it to be easy, straightforward and no decisions required.
I don't consider that good for gameplay. It's good for ONE STYLE of gameplay.
EVERY feature that is being complained about is an opportunity to outthink and out-plan an opponent, and yet people don't want to do it.
______
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
There is of course a set of parameters that the game needs to follow. The game is a military squad based shooter. So to have jump boots, power ups, etc. would not fit the game. It wouldn't make sense.
BF 2142, GR Phantoms, COD Ghosts... all military shooters with unrealistic futuristic elements like Keebler suggests.
Meanwhile, ArmA, Squad, Insurgency... all military shooters with much more emphasis on realism.
What elements a game is allowed to have isn't just based on genre. You don't want realism as a basis for game elements because you don't like realism. That's completely different from saying they don't belong in the genre.
"Realism" is a valid answer to "What does a feature add?" That you don't like the answer doesn't change that.
Finally, there's a continuum from games like, say, Unreal Tournament to the actual simulators the Army Game Studio works on. It's not a yes/no "this game simulates // this game doesn't simulate" choice. Being somewhere in the middle means you're free to move slightly more to one side or the other.
I think a lot of the features being complained about can be reworked to be made better. However, in their current state they have a negative impact on the gameplay.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
Comments
Aimpunch doesn't lower the skill gap.
The argument made in the past has been "I was aiming for the head but couldn't get the kill because he shot first and hit me in the chest and messed up my aim."
Guess what? You lost because you were the worse player in that situation.
- He got the first hit
- You couldn't aim fast enough for the headshot
Then the argument switches to "Well, it's bad because it's limiting my strategies, I *have* to just react fast and go for the easy first shot instead of aiming for the head."
Nope. You could get better and land the headshot faster. It's created a dynamic where it's harder to get the fast one-hit kill. That's a rise in the skill ceiling: you now have to be better than you previously were to get the outcome you used to be able to.
Even if you do think it's just down to who shoots first, it still comes down to which player has the better reflexes and positioning and control. The aimpunch mechanic doesn't change that.
The aimpunch mechanic is symmetric. The only time it isn't is when one player has a scope; the magnified optic shooter is affected more.
That is one of the reasons the game is such a bore to good players, they win by default. Maybe player X has some years in him but has very good aim, nope still dies every time, maybe player Y has very good tactical awareness, nope still dead.
The rich get richer with aimpunch, you already shot first, you got your damage in, that is all the advantage you should need to win the fight.
I love this community!
Video game =/= realism. Yes, realistically if you get shot you will flinch or whatever. However, realistically if you get shot on the head, some guy isn't going to slap toilet paper on you and get you back into the fight. Let's stop the realism talk. This game never made the claim of being a simulator.
Here's my challenge. List the pros and cons of how aim punch affects game play. I'd especially like to see the proponents list out the pros.
How do you square your argument here with your earlier complaint that AAPG has too many elements reducing the skill gap?
I explicitly didn't say the player with better reflexes always win -- the same sentence calls out positioning (tactics) and control.
Mismatches in skill level are responsible for good players dominating weak players. I don't think changes in mechanics will significantly shift that without either "low skill, high reward" systems (that would get absolutely railed against in these forums) or skill-based matchmaking (which, frankly, isn't very realistic for 95+% of games).
_________________________
********Bam4D********BE ALL (THAT) YOU CAN BE!
________Army 1980_________
I think skill gap more has to do with a "where do I go from here?" issue. How can I master this game in ways that may take someone else years to do? How can I become better than the next guy?
Besides aiming faster, what are the things a player can do in America's Army Proving Grounds to become a great player? What are the little intricacies that players can learn to master that the average player would take a long time to get down?
Here's the thing, I think you could take any high end FPS player, put them into AAPG and if they have guidance, they can dominate servers either right away or within a couple weeks. There's really not much to learn.
The fun of playing is when players of all kinds find ways to defeat each other. A player with godlike aim should be on the same level of a player with insane reactions, but it isn't because it doesn't matter, shooting first matters.
As for positioning, it only matters when shots have to be accurate, every prefire beats good positioning because the other player can't fight back after being hit. A prefire headshot is great, a prefire shot to the leg should lose that exchange.
As I said, one dimensional.
One skill shouldn't overshadow others, but I would say that aiming and reactions kind of go together.
I think a good exercise is to list out the top 5 AAPG players and list what differentiates their skill sets from each other. I think it's a decent way of going about it.
I keep coming back to a game like rocket league where some players are ridiculous at all sorts of different things. Some of the top guys are better at different aspects of the game than others. Some of the higher end players are awesome as certain things, but then you see some other guys who are even more ridiculous.
What it kind of leads me down is to specialization. I think the lack of it is one of the major drawbacks to the game. My past ideas about front attachments, would allow for a little bit more of that.
It's also part of why I like limited classes in maps rather than everyone being able to select rifleman no matter what. Force guys to take the SAW (for example). In AA2 you always needed to have someone on your team who was good with the SAW. You couldn't get into a match and have no one who would take the SAW, it was forced on you. If you had no one who was competent with it, it was like being down a guy. Same with the M203 role. Having a guy who was top notch with it was a huge advantage in a map. Facing against a team who had one and you didn't was a huge disadvantage. Things like that are missing in the game. Not enough specialization.
We can go beyond that though and say when we are specialized, the specializations are too easy. Being a sniper is not overly difficult. Learning how to use the M24 is fairly simple. Learning how to use the DM roles are simple. Having a magnified scope on the AR makes it pretty simple. Each role needs to take time to learn and be good at. We don't have that.
So if we want to increase the appeal of the game and make a bigger skill curve, let's make it so each role takes time to learn. Make it so that players who master the non-standard roles are highly important to teams. Let's make it so that people are forced to use those roles in matches. These things are important.
How can you specialize in something specific if you can master everything in a few hours?
Nobody ever in the history has reacted to a bullet going through them with a spastic attack. You folks dont even comprehend the simple physics behind bullets, their low mass and high velocity. Since it has a low mass it wont move you. You might flinch a half a second after the bullet hit but it isnt because a piece of lead went through you, it's because of something happening suddenly. So please, your who realism argument you just used and then dismissed for other points further down the post are complete garbage.
The only times people react with their bodies from bullets hitting them is a survival instinct to not want to die, hard to grasp, yeah. But it isnt because a piece of lead hit them that they were knocked off balance. They just don't feel like dying that day.
I can even think of a video where a soldier in afghan slides down a hill being shot at by AK's, he does get hit multiple times. Even in the head but he didnt start having a seizure. He was completely unmoved from the bullets. They didnt even throw him off balance because again, LOW MASS; HIGH VELOCITY.
Really, iti isnt rocket science, just basic physics.
Also, why dont you list reasons for aimpunch being necessary? We all can already agree on it being an awful feature yet there isn't a single reasoning behind it being something worth keeping.
Bro, I've been arguing against aim punch this entire thread. My whole point was that people who are claiming realism have no argument because the game isn't a simulator. A little reading comprehension goes a long way.
Have you considered that this stand goes against your (collective) anti-random argument?
If what happens isn't what REALLY happens, who ARBITRARILY decides what happens? Imaginary, made up "I just like it that way" parameters are.....wait for it.....Random.
I've asked this...why not jump boots, power ups and low grav? This isn't a simulator after all...
And your answer will flow back to what you consider proper. "This isn't a fantasy game, after all...."
Except for the stuff we make up, of course. "We don't care about real life." Uh huh.
Body armour transmits the significant force of a bullet impact to the wearer, exchanging that blunt force trauma and bruising for the worse alternative. This gives us......MORE aimpunch....not less.
And some of you think you can actually keep your aim on target while taking hits? It takes the movement of your pulse in your cheek to make you miss and you think being shot doesn't affect your aim? (...I'm talking to you, pillow...)
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
There is of course a set of parameters that the game needs to follow. The game is a military squad based shooter. So to have jump boots, power ups, etc. would not fit the game. It wouldn't make sense. There needs to be a set of parameters that the game needs to follow. That said, the game has never set out to be a simulator. Even the original games.
So when it comes to things like aim punch, suppression, supported, etc. etc. Whether such features should be in the game are more of a pros and cons situation. It shouldn't be, "well it's realistic." Just because something is realistic doesn't mean it's good for gameplay.
What does the feature add? what does it take away? How does it help the game? How does it hurt? Who does adding this feature benefit? How does it change the way firefights play out?
Things like this need to be asked and answered.
I love this community!
When you get shot you go backwards not down (well.. not immediately) and your aim would go unintentionally upwards even with body armor due to physics... unless you are juicing on something.
Why would aim punch be a constant? Wouldn't that leave room for exploitation?
This 'sneering at random' kick that some are on...it's as if some want it to be easy, straightforward and no decisions required.
I don't consider that good for gameplay. It's good for ONE STYLE of gameplay.
EVERY feature that is being complained about is an opportunity to outthink and out-plan an opponent, and yet people don't want to do it.
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
Meanwhile, ArmA, Squad, Insurgency... all military shooters with much more emphasis on realism.
What elements a game is allowed to have isn't just based on genre. You don't want realism as a basis for game elements because you don't like realism. That's completely different from saying they don't belong in the genre.
"Realism" is a valid answer to "What does a feature add?" That you don't like the answer doesn't change that.
Finally, there's a continuum from games like, say, Unreal Tournament to the actual simulators the Army Game Studio works on. It's not a yes/no "this game simulates // this game doesn't simulate" choice. Being somewhere in the middle means you're free to move slightly more to one side or the other.