Make Conclave Fast Again! (And add Aim Assist to make it engaging)

[Tachmag]

20 hours ago, ByroSphere said:

 

But would it make other strategies viable? Bullet Jumps after wall jumps + optional melee dash certainly is the "main meat" in what makes the hit and run tactics effective... But even without them, if the idea is to just run away after landing potshots, you could still do more or less the same with just normal doublejumps/walljumps + aimglide and slide, and it would do a good enough job if done in tight corridors/platform heavy areas where you can wall jump a lot, especially if it's still hard to kill agile targets with weapons who doesnt have high AoE/is 1HK. 

The idea isn't so much to nerf the hit and run tactics, so much as it is to buff the chasing, and just generally encourage people to fight each other head on while performing crazy but planed stunts... When I feel that the parkour will never be encouraged to that level, if random jumping is good enough to be considered high tier.

 

I see. Well, if DE can make it work, then maybe it could be a decent solution, but wouldn't adding some kind of wide "hitscan area" directly tied to player's weapon crusor be a better alternative? Think it would be at least easier to apply, while allowing players to have more consistent accuracy, firing about as well in any situation where a target is on the sights, instead of being poor in one moment but supper accurate in others. 

If you have trouble killing people who do nothing but double jump then I think you just need to get better at the game.

[ByroSphere]

@Tachmag

Agreed, tho the effort to shoot someone who double jumps + wall jumps on platform heavy areas, would be about as much as it'd take to shoot someone who dashes around tight macelike corridors. But well, how much effort would you put on improving in a game mode where the rewards feel unsatisfying?

When I say rewards, I dont just mean items you get after the match, but also stuff like the feeling you get when you manage to win a round or beat another player.

Edited October 25, 2019 by ByroSphere

[Tyreaus]

5 hours ago, ByroSphere said:

Like for example, if you got 100% precision and shoot at a target who is at the left side of your bullseye cursor (which is the Aim Correction Area ), the bullet will shoot at the center (the 100point mark of a bullseye) but leaning left to where the target is. While if you do the same but with 50% precision, the bullet will lean left but where it is like 50points (going by bullseye terms). Note that these are examples, the actual numbers could be adjusted so that it works that way in the game.

This "leaning left" phrasing sounds like it's moving this mechanical bullseye toward the target, at least in terms of hitscan weapons (maybe projectiles curve in some weird way, IDK). So by the sounds of it, accuracy relates to maximum adjustment the game can make for aiming.

What's still confusing me, or perhaps just isn't clear thusfar, is the behaviour of recoil and bullet spreads. If a target is, e.g., at that 50 point mark on this mechanical bullseye, do all the bullets lean in that direction, even the ones that would land on the other end of the 50 point mark? Or do they 'lean' at a maximum of bullseye-to-50-point in that direction? The former seems a bit broken because it can undo accuracy as a balancing mechanic, the latter has the 'snap' issue I mentioned earlier (and, ironically, can also undo accuracy if one aims directly at the target, since all the bullets that would hit near the edges venture all the way to the bullseye). Which would likely make auto rifles very, very preferable...

I could be misunderstanding something, but that seems really "ehhhhh".

5 hours ago, ByroSphere said:

Yeah, I’m definitely noticing that this really will take more work than the variable hit box you are suggesting... But at the same time, I still feel that at least that much needs to be done, or else, the changes willl be nothing but like what @ixidon92 said, “a clutch [which]  doesn't solve the problem, it just masks it”.

There doesn’t need to be any new animated manuevers outright, but to make it seem like it makes sense for a bullet to travel a certain way, it gotta look like the shooter is turned towards the direction that the bullet is fired at. Me using Mesa’s animation for the 4th ability as an example, is just to make visual sense for the rapid change in directions that rapidly shooting a moving target would have, if you could shoot a guy that is on the far right by simply covering with the edge of the ACA bullseye (bullet travels to the right even tho players aim cursor points forward), the frame shouldn’t look like they are firing forward, but rather turn to the side along with their weapon.

That you've admitted that A: variable hitboxes sizes at least could work and B: this ACA mechanic is seeming like a lot of overhead makes me wonder if the ACA system might just be overkill for what the endgoals are.

As for the animations, you have to remember that we're talking about ACAs that are maybe the width of a lancer at the widest? The actual movement of the Warframe to account for that discrepancy at the average range Conclave combat takes place in is going to be measured in a few pixels. I'm all for accuracy but when you're talking about that small of movement, nobody's gonna notice. The recoil animations will be larger than those, lol.

5 hours ago, ByroSphere said:

The problem tho, is that since players will generally move very fast while quickly changing animations, the enlarged hit points may not remain large enough to change the strategy of aiming only with focus.

Losing sight of your surroundings to better hit a specific target is indeed a nice trade off for sniping. But when that is the only viable way to kill someone, or rather, when that is the very best way to kill someone compared to anything else, it limits the ways that people will scout the area while returning fire, reducing the types of assaults people will perform without taking much advantage of their mobility.

I reiterate: where's this flak for aiming coming from? Moreover, given ADS increases zoom and lowers DPI, it makes it much harder to hit a fast moving target when ADSing. And most weapons in Warframe, barring a few rifles and snipers and bows, don't have severe accuracy penalties when not aiming down sights (though it does reduce a little bit of recoil). For the ones that do have bigger issues with that, e.g. the Zenith, the bigger hitbox largely negates that. So if someone's bum-rushing around like a spaz, there's not much benefit in that system to ADSing - but ADS remains pertinent for more stationary targets. They retain their niches.

At the end of the day, though, I really don't understand what the issue is you're talking about here. ADS is for aiming - that's kind of a general shooter principle in any shooter game in the modern decade. If you want stable aim and less screw-ups made from directional inputs, you ADS to lower your movement. You might blindfire for lower accuracy so you can hit those faster-moving targets, of course, and Warframe has that uniqueness to it. But like...ADS is for aiming. People using ADS to aim is kind of what it's there for. It's like using guns to deal damage. That's...what you do. Changing that would just be, in a nutshell..."what?"

5 hours ago, ByroSphere said:

For example, in todays meta game, people move too fast for normal aiming to be viable. So people naturally sacrifice the view of their surroundings to have better accuracy with focused aim, limiting their moves to only move erratically whenever they are not trying to kill someone.

Um...ADS is normal aiming. ADS doesn't provide some kind of magical magnetism to hit fast-moving targets. It just zooms in and lowers player's movements, both in crosshair and character. How is non-ADS aiming compromised with fast movements, yet ADS aiming isn't? I don't mean to be rude but what in the hell are you talking about?

Also, I mean...limiting moves to move erratically when not trying to kill someone - that's just a basic balance of offense and defense. You can run around like a spaz and have less controlled aiming capabilities or slow down for more controlled aiming capabilities.

5 hours ago, ByroSphere said:

The ACA bullseye system, would in contrast not only make it easier to hit targets in general, but normal aiming will actually start to have a practical edge over focused aiming. Namely, that while the former will be better at hitting fast moving targets, the focused aim will be better at hitting slow targets/specific points.

Normal aiming doesn't just have a practical edge in the ACA system, it overrides the system. It literally allows people to bullet-jump-spam around a map like a lunatic and have their aim helped. It entirely removes the role of micro movements to avoid precision weaponry, because just about anything becomes precision weaponry.

I am utterly bewildered here. This entire system you've devised is founded on some idea that ADS ... IDK, provides a kind of aim-bot? I have zero idea where the logic that ADS is better at hitting moving targets is coming from.

5 hours ago, ByroSphere said:

These will ad more gameplay variety, because now, since shooting a moving target without focus aim is better than with it, players will be incentivized to gun down speeding targets without obstructing their vision of the surroundings...

But this isn't adding, it's changing. It's replacing this idea of "ADS for everything" with "never ADS". They don't coexist - they can't, logically.

5 hours ago, ByroSphere said:

And since each weapon class will also have more specified ranges of utility than before, the players are now incentived to use each of them differently. Cause why should you use a machine gun with aim glide if it aims better with fast falls and quick jumps? It’d certainly be like a parallel to the mindset for “why use sniper rifle without focus aiming if you hit better with it?”

Thus, naturally invoking gameplay variety with Warframe’s existing weapons.

The problem is this assumes everything remains equal. Snipers and auto weapons, for example, would require different technical inputs. But when you're giving aim-correction to auto-weapons, the drawbacks of their accuracy disappear. And if an auto-weapon is going to out-DPS a sniper rifle because of this ACA system, and they'd very likely at least have very comparable DPS outputs as they do now, who in their right mind would use a more technically difficult and limiting (since ADS slows movements) sniper rifle? Path of least resistance.

5 hours ago, ByroSphere said:

Considering that most of this judgement is based on a misunderstanding... Has it changed your mind, now that I have made it a bit clearer?

I'm just going to be blunt with you:

No. It's not a good solution.

The topic you quoted was talking about, generally, fast movement being too ubiquitous. If you make these adjustments, you make faster targets easier to hit.

You also make slower targets easier to hit. You make everything easier to hit.

At the end of the day, all the technical bullocks aside, whether the ACA thing works one way or some other way, whether it jitters or not, whether certain weapons have more of it or less of it, whether it completely upends the feel of PvP to the point where people flat out wouldn't accept it at all, that's the problem. If everything is easier to hit, all by the same amount, then the best option remains the best option. Nothing changes.

You might make people use weapons a little differently. You might also end up changing the meta so that auto rifles end up stupendously ubiquitous because the game does a good portion of the aiming for you and you end up garnishing max DPS by aiming in the target's vicinity. All with a system whose ease of implementation is questionable at best. All that could also depend on whether you alter how the system works.

But that does nothing for the topic you quoted.

[ByroSphere]

17 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

This "leaning left" phrasing sounds like it's moving this mechanical bullseye toward the target, at least in terms of hitscan weapons (maybe projectiles curve in some weird way, IDK). So by the sounds of it, accuracy relates to maximum adjustment the game can make for aiming.

What's still confusing me, or perhaps just isn't clear thusfar, is the behaviour of recoil and bullet spreads. If a target is, e.g., at that 50 point mark on this mechanical bullseye, do all the bullets lean in that direction, even the ones that would land on the other end of the 50 point mark? Or do they 'lean' at a maximum of bullseye-to-50-point in that direction? The former seems a bit broken because it can undo accuracy as a balancing mechanic, the latter has the 'snap' issue I mentioned earlier (and, ironically, can also undo accuracy if one aims directly at the target, since all the bullets that would hit near the edges venture all the way to the bullseye). Which would likely make auto rifles very, very preferable...

I could be misunderstanding something, but that seems really "ehhhhh".

It's not so much moving the mechanical bullseye, but adjusting the projectile's trajectory so that their path crosses around the target within the bounds of the mechanical bullseye, instead of the projectile simply being directed at to where the player is aiming.

The idea that I had in mind, is that the range of the bullseye as a whole, would be the width of maximum projectile spread of your weapon type (guess I was just too dumb to point that out from the get go). Just that depending on your precision points, the bullets will tend to shoot more often at certain areas of the bullseye than in others. But that when a target is within the bullseye, bullets will be spreadout within the area that the target covers, but more shots will land on within the circle that your precision points falls on.

If we are going to use a visual example, and pretend that this bullseye goes all the way into 100 at the center in a 1/10 scale (an invisible 9 can be place between the center dot and the 8s, for simplicity sake), and say that the target is the red smudge marked in the picture. If your precision points is at 10%, then the majority of the bullets will be spread around the outest circle but covering the area that the target is in. If you got 20% precission, then the bullets will shoot around both the 10p circle and 20p circle but the majority will fall in the 20p circle, while if you have 30% you will hit 10, 20 and 30p with the majority of projectiles falling on the 30p ring, so on and so forth. But it all will still mainly be focused on the area that the target is within. 

While if we say that your precision is like 60% or higher (which is outside the area the target is covering), you will hit all areas up to your precision point, but most bullets focused up to your precision points (so depending on your precentage, the player might need to change up a bit how they use their aim).

So the bullet spread could look like something like this: https://ibb.co/Q6MN33Z  (it changing up depending on where the target is on the bullseye). While if the player used focused aiming, it will reduce the size of the bullseye to a third of its size (or about as small as a head so that it wont be too small), so that you get a smaller bullet spread.

Edit: Forgot to mention that if you have 100% accuracy, and the target is on the dead center, all projectiles will hit the center, because 100% favors the center which will make the shots concentrated there.

Edit2: If you had only like 20% accuracy but the target covers more than just the 10p and 20p rings, then the shoots will be concentrated only at the edge where the target is... It will create some form of "snapping" effect as you are talking about, but that's where the shrinking ACA for the ADS come in to make up for it. Still will make it quite innacurate for slow/stationary target, but it would give the more low fire rate but high precision weapons like snipers an edge over rapid firing weapons in that area, so people will use them differently.

The visual part of this bullseye could be like, make our current weapon cursors act as the indication of the center, but then also ad like a transparent circleline that indicates the very limit (the edge of the outest circle) of your weapon spread/Aim Correction Area. So that the player will have a better idea by how much their bullet's trajectory will change relative to their aim and the target.

17 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

That you've admitted that A: variable hitboxes sizes at least could work and B: this ACA mechanic is seeming like a lot of overhead makes me wonder if the ACA system might just be overkill for what the endgoals are.

Depends on what the endgoals are then. If the goal is to simply make it easier to hit people and nothing else, your suggestion is indeed the better one... But I kinda also want to change up how the game is played, so that the Conclave becomes more engaging with a higher push for variety of playstyles for variety of weapons, and that requires more work.

17 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

As for the animations, you have to remember that we're talking about ACAs that are maybe the width of a lancer at the widest? The actual movement of the Warframe to account for that discrepancy at the average range Conclave combat takes place in is going to be measured in a few pixels. I'm all for accuracy but when you're talking about that small of movement, nobody's gonna notice. The recoil animations will be larger than those, lol.

Well, if the ACA is too small for the animation to change according to how the bullets are fired, then I guess it's fine if the animation don't change much. Pretty much had the idea that it would only use standard aiming animation eitherways, just changing directions to lineup with bullet trajectory as opposed to aiming trajectory (when not using focused aiming).

The recoil will still have a role, in that it will shake up the bullseye cursor like it shakes your aim right now. Tho the projectile's trajectory will generally be affected in the way as described.

17 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

I reiterate: where's this flak for aiming coming from? Moreover, given ADS increases zoom and lowers DPI, it makes it much harder to hit a fast moving target when ADSing. And most weapons in Warframe, barring a few rifles and snipers and bows, don't have severe accuracy penalties when not aiming down sights (though it does reduce a little bit of recoil). For the ones that do have bigger issues with that, e.g. the Zenith, the bigger hitbox largely negates that. So if someone's bum-rushing around like a spaz, there's not much benefit in that system to ADSing - but ADS remains pertinent for more stationary targets. They retain their niches.

At the end of the day, though, I really don't understand what the issue is you're talking about here. ADS is for aiming - that's kind of a general shooter principle in any shooter game in the modern decade. If you want stable aim and less screw-ups made from directional inputs, you ADS to lower your movement. You might blindfire for lower accuracy so you can hit those faster-moving targets, of course, and Warframe has that uniqueness to it. But like...ADS is for aiming. People using ADS to aim is kind of what it's there for. It's like using guns to deal damage. That's...what you do. Changing that would just be, in a nutshell..."what?"

 ADSing may in theory make it harder to shoot moving targets than firing without it, but as things are right now, there is no practical difference, because even None ADS is unreliable to tag moving enemies, while ADS has an edge in that you have a clearer view on specific target + slowers your mobility so that your aim lines up with target much easier + reduce in general  recoil + allows you to aim glide for increased mobility, only draw back is that is obscures your surroundings and makes you move in a predictable line.

As things are right now, you have every reason to use ADS to shoot targets, but you practically have no reason at all to shoot without ADS even though you "technically" could. What this means, is that since ADS is no good at firing mobile targets, while none ADS (what I call normal aiming) is unreiable at it, players wont bother to shoot highly mobile targets unless they want to waste bullets/test their luck in landing hits, or trust their accuracy enough that they can time high precision shots effectively with ADS (limiting the amount of playstyles that people will take).

So in essence, you have to snipe with every single weapon, including weapons that were not meant for sniping. Why is that a problem? Well, snipers have the advantage in that they only need to hit 1 or 2 shots to be lethal, so they can risk missing multiple shots so long as you land a highly precise one. Weapons like machineguns or assault rifles however, unless you land at least 20 out of 50 shots, your damage output might not even be high enough to break through your target's shields, so every miss they make would be a greater penalty than it'd be for the snipers/bow types, so they are in a higher need to be able to shoot down even highly mobile targets as opposed to just slow moving ones or specific pinpoints.

Snipers are currently considered more op than the average rifle in main meta for that very reason: Snipers can live with wasting most of their ammo, the few shots they have left will still be enough to kill their enemies anyway. Same can't be said for machineguns where every bullet counts, when the play of the game is that it's very hard to hit people more than a couple of times.

17 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

Um...ADS is normal aiming. ADS doesn't provide some kind of magical magnetism to hit fast-moving targets. It just zooms in and lowers player's movements, both in crosshair and character. How is non-ADS aiming compromised with fast movements, yet ADS aiming isn't? I don't mean to be rude but what in the hell are you talking about?

Also, I mean...limiting moves to move erratically when not trying to kill someone - that's just a basic balance of offense and defense. You can run around like a spaz and have less controlled aiming capabilities or slow down for more controlled aiming capabilities.

True, ADS doesn't provide some magical magnetism to hit fast moving targets. The point; neither does none focused aiming. So in practice, nobody except highly skilled people shoots mobile targets... Which in turn means that players will mainly only use hit and run tactics, which means everyone will use more or less the same strategy, which means there is little to no variety in the ways a match can go. Which is what I want to change, because no variety in how a match plays out, makes the game feel pretty stale.

17 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

Normal aiming doesn't just have a practical edge in the ACA system, it overrides the system. It literally allows people to bullet-jump-spam around a map like a lunatic and have their aim helped. It entirely removes the role of micro movements to avoid precision weaponry, because just about anything becomes precision weaponry.

I am utterly bewildered here. This entire system you've devised is founded on some idea that ADS ... IDK, provides a kind of aim-bot? I have zero idea where the logic that ADS is better at hitting moving targets is coming from.

Normal aiming wont exactly override the system, because only weapons that deal low damage per projectile will have the benefit of a considerably big ACA (which is the majority of Assault Rifles/Machinegun types). Snipers/Bows that deal high damage in few shots, will still have the advantage in that they can waste most of their ammo and still kill people with the remaining few. And since Snipers and Bows are generally weapons that have mostly only been used by veterans or people with really good aim, that crowd won't be affected much since they will largerly work the same but get a minor correction buff when not ADSing (thinking of and ACA size no wider but a few mili meters in normal aim than when ADSing).

The rapid firing weapons practically gets a major buff, but considering that they generally have done badly in current meta when not used against players who are simply moving in a straight line, this buff is nothing but welcome.

17 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

But this isn't adding, it's changing. It's replacing this idea of "ADS for everything" with "never ADS". They don't coexist - they can't, logically.

They will coexist, because high damage precision weapons will still have an advantage over low damage assault weapons. Especially since by the way the ACA works, high precision weapons will have a easier time hitting slow/stationary targets than fast moving ones, which means a lot when they can also kill you faster with fewer hits.

17 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

The problem is this assumes everything remains equal. Snipers and auto weapons, for example, would require different technical inputs. But when you're giving aim-correction to auto-weapons, the drawbacks of their accuracy disappear. And if an auto-weapon is going to out-DPS a sniper rifle because of this ACA system, and they'd very likely at least have very comparable DPS outputs as they do now, who in their right mind would use a more technically difficult and limiting (since ADS slows movements) sniper rifle? Path of least resistance.

Except, auto weapons do not have comparable DPS outputs right now, because sniper weapons deal all/most of their damage in single shots, so if you land that shot, you dealt a lethal dose of damage. While auto weapons however requires you to follow up your shots closely with each other to do any considerable damage, which is hard to do if any random bulletjump/roll/aimglide/slide/melee dash is enough to throw off your aim. ACA would help with that, since it practically gives autoweapons a mobility dependent AoE, so that it will have an advantage besides high firerate.... Which isn't really much of an advantage in of itself when the drawbacks (low damage per projectile, high recoil, low accuracy + general player difficulty in tracking mobile targets) outweights it as a whole.

17 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

I'm just going to be blunt with you:

No. It's not a good solution.

The topic you quoted was talking about, generally, fast movement being too ubiquitous. If you make these adjustments, you make faster targets easier to hit.

You also make slower targets easier to hit. You make everything easier to hit.

At the end of the day, all the technical bullocks aside, whether the ACA thing works one way or some other way, whether it jitters or not, whether certain weapons have more of it or less of it, whether it completely upends the feel of PvP to the point where people flat out wouldn't accept it at all, that's the problem. If everything is easier to hit, all by the same amount, then the best option remains the best option. Nothing changes.

You might make people use weapons a little differently. You might also end up changing the meta so that auto rifles end up stupendously ubiquitous because the game does a good portion of the aiming for you and you end up garnishing max DPS by aiming in the target's vicinity. All with a system whose ease of implementation is questionable at best. All that could also depend on whether you alter how the system works.

But that does nothing for the topic you quoted.

As far as I can see, it would achieve the goal of not only hitting mobile targets, but changing up the game enough so that other strategies besides hit and run will be used, because it will also give auto weapons a buff that makes them more viable without overtaking the sniper role of precision shooting. The game may have had some form of balance, but that "balance" relies more on stuff like player experience than practical use (everyone use hit and run tactics, but while newbes generally use weak autoweapons, veterans will generally use more precise weaponry, or use AoE weapons that newbes have no access to), making the playstyle unveriable, and to that extent unengaging.

Edited October 26, 2019 by ByroSphere
Adding important points, grammar

[Sevek7]

What's with all the recent forum threads about making conclave easier? I thought we had PvE for that.

[ByroSphere]

@Sevek7

I'm only asking to make it easier in the sense that all players on average will have higher kill counts... But it would also make it harder to survive with low death counts. Not to mention the push for playstyle variety for different weapons, instead of needing to use all of them like snipers with different stats.

[Tyreaus]

5 hours ago, ByroSphere said:

It's not so much moving the mechanical bullseye, but adjusting the projectile's trajectory so that their path crosses around the target within the bounds of the mechanical bullseye, instead of the projectile simply being directed at to where the player is aiming.

Okay, based on the pictures you provided, it is moving the "mechanical bullseye". Or, at least, it might as well be, because the approximate number of shots that would hit that given target seems to be very similar to the number of shots were the aim on-target and I cannot imagine the headache associated with trying to replicate that exact pattern with individual bullets curving in particular ways against recoil and natural spread.

Pardon me while I skip down to...

5 hours ago, ByroSphere said:

 ADSing may in theory make it harder to shoot moving targets than firing without it, but as things are right now, there is no practical difference, because even None ADS is unreliable to tag moving enemies, while ADS has an edge in that you have a clearer view on specific target + slowers your mobility so that your aim lines up with target much easier + reduce in general  recoil + allows you to aim glide for increased mobility, only draw back is that is obscures your surroundings and makes you move in a predictable line.

As things are right now, you have every reason to use ADS to shoot targets, but you practically have no reason at all to shoot without ADS even though you "technically" could. What this means, is that since ADS is no good at firing mobile targets, while none ADS (what I call normal aiming) is unreiable at it, players wont bother to shoot highly mobile targets unless they want to waste bullets/test their luck in landing hits, or trust their accuracy enough that they can time high precision shots effectively with ADS (limiting the amount of playstyles that people will take).

I reiterate: what's the problem? ADS is for aiming. That's general shooter principle right up there with "guns are used for killing".

I remain utterly bewildered that, out of all the problems with high mobility, ADS is what you target. 

5 hours ago, ByroSphere said:

So in essence, you have to snipe with every single weapon, including weapons that were not meant for sniping. Why is that a problem? Well, snipers have the advantage in that they only need to hit 1 or 2 shots to be lethal, so they can risk missing multiple shots so long as you land a highly precise one. Weapons like machineguns or assault rifles however, unless you land at least 20 out of 50 shots, your damage output might not even be high enough to break through your target's shields, so every miss they make would be a greater penalty than it'd be for the snipers/bow types, so they are in a higher need to be able to shoot down even highly mobile targets as opposed to just slow moving ones or specific pinpoints.

Snipers are currently considered more op than the average rifle in main meta for that very reason: Snipers can live with wasting most of their ammo, the few shots they have left will still be enough to kill their enemies anyway. Same can't be said for machineguns where every bullet counts, when the play of the game is that it's very hard to hit people more than a couple of times.

This has, quite literally, nothing to do with ADS. It (mostly) correctly attributes why there is a current sniper meta, especially with Snipetron. The only part that's missing is that the accuracy of snipers makes them have no damage fall-off over distance, while auto rifles, like shotguns, do due to spread (ironically, something the ACA mechanic doesn't actually fix based on the images you showed). But you don't "have to snipe with every single weapon".

5 hours ago, ByroSphere said:

True, ADS doesn't provide some magical magnetism to hit fast moving targets. The point; neither does none focused aiming. So in practice, nobody except highly skilled people shoots mobile targets... Which in turn means that players will mainly only use hit and run tactics, which means everyone will use more or less the same strategy, which means there is little to no variety in the ways a match can go. Which is what I want to change, because no variety in how a match plays out, makes the game feel pretty stale.

Points to the larger hitbox concept that would lower the skill required to hit moving targets while retaining the skill factor within 'regular' combat. Which addresses the "nobody shooting mobile targets" issue without fussing with ADS mechanics.

I reiterate again: why the ADS flak? You can literally throw on this ACA mechanic onto auto rifles, ADS or not, and exclude it with sniper rifles. That seems to be your main slant. ADS doesn't do anything against that.

5 hours ago, ByroSphere said:

The rapid firing weapons practically gets a major buff, but considering that they generally have done badly in current meta when not used against players who are simply moving in a straight line, this buff is nothing but welcome.

Here's the thing I think you're missing:

The reason snipers and semi-autos are heavily preferred is because they don't have damage fall-off over distance. Every other weapon, from beam weapons with a strict range limit to shotguns with an explicit damage fall-off to rifles with the recoil and spread to make more shots miss at longer ranges, has damage fall-off. The only exception comes with projectile weapons, but those are flat out much harder to aim with without much benefit.

ACA does one of two things:

1. If it auto-aims and adjusts all bullets into perfect accuracy on a target when a target is at or very near the centre, it removes the damage falloff over distance. This is not what your images show.

2. If it adjusts the spread pattern so that there's still a spread but it's (mostly) centred around a target in a given area, the damage falloff remains and nothing changes. This is what your image shows.

5 hours ago, ByroSphere said:

As far as I can see, it would achieve the goal of not only hitting mobile targets, but changing up the game enough so that other strategies besides hit and run will be used, because it will also give auto weapons a buff that makes them more viable without overtaking the sniper role of precision shooting. The game may have had some form of balance, but that "balance" relies more on stuff like player experience than practical use (everyone use hit and run tactics, but while newbes generally use weak autoweapons, veterans will generally use more precise weaponry, or use AoE weapons that newbes have no access to), making the playstyle unveriable, and to that extent unengaging.

If you're going to ask a question, then dismiss my findings with your own opinion, then I see no reason to have asked the question in the first place, and question the fruitfulness of us even having a conversation.

Your ACA system flat-out fails. It has a clunky implementation. It's unwieldy even for you to describe without diagrams. It messes with ADS unnecessarily (different ACA values among weapons works just fine). It doesn't address one big reason players use sniper rifles (consistent DPS over range). Given you're increasing the speed of targets to match PvE, it doesn't even certainly increase the ability to hit extremely mobile targets, because those targets are probably spending an equitable amount of time in the targeting area for those auto-weapons. The still-random bullet-spread means maybe you'll land a few shots on them in that minuscule time-frame. But that's what you said was a problem. So not even that gets solved.

I was assuming your ACA system worked like an aimbot in a small area instead of just shifting the spread, because that actually changes things up a substantial amount. But if it just relocates the spread area, and (importantly) doesn't relocate it beyond the original spread area? It's the same shtick with auto weapons just being a tiny bit easier to aim and sniper rifles still dominating because of zero range dropoff.

You want more ability to hit mobile targets? Increase the hitbox size. You want auto-rifles to play better against snipers? Zero recoil and spread (or very, very minimal spread) when aiming down sights. Both weapon types are, generally, balanced with similar TTKs in ideal situations (i.e. every bullet lands), so that's all you'd have to do. Or just increase auto rifle damage. As nice as it might look on paper, they don't need to have identical TTKs, because things like spread do alter a weapon's efficacy. You just think sniper rifles are too dominating? Increase headshot damage, lower base damage so precision headshots are more valuable. You want to lower hit-while-running tactics? Lower accuracy as speed increases. You want to lower hit-then-run tactics? Increase the hitbox size so players running become easier targets.

The aim adjustment mechanic here does nothing to shake things up the way you think it does, and certainly doesn't change as much as its complicated nature may suggest.

Edited October 26, 2019 by Tyreaus

[Sevek7]

4 hours ago, ByroSphere said:

@Sevek7

I'm only asking to make it easier in the sense that all players on average will have higher kill counts... But it would also make it harder to survive with low death counts. Not to mention the push for playstyle variety for different weapons, instead of needing to use all of them like snipers with different stats.

I understand what you're saying, and generally I agree - in principle. However, we've seen a sad trend in warframe over the last few years where good aim is actively discouraged thanks to weapons like ignis, arca plasmor, catchmoon (thank goodness this one is finally getting a nerf, I hope it ends up only being effective in melee range!), etc... having across-the-board better stats than similar weapon types that require actual aiming. Conclave is the only place where a tenno's aim is important. You're right that it would be good to increase overall kill counts and reduce the number of times skilled players end a match with 25 kills and 2 deaths. Thankfully, proper matchmaking that pits players against others of similar skill would also fix that without needing to discourage aiming properly in conclave too. 

[ByroSphere]

6 minutes ago, Tyreaus said:

Okay, based on the pictures you provided, it is moving the "mechanical bullseye". Or, at least, it might as well be, because the approximate number of shots that would hit that given target seems to be very similar to the number of shots were the aim on-target and I cannot imagine the headache associated with trying to replicate that exact pattern with individual bullets curving in particular ways against recoil and natural spread

It's not moving your mechanical bullseye, because the bullseye wont move around based on the target's location.  It's the projectiles that wil hit different parts of the bullseye depending on where a target is within the bullseye (gave diferent colors to the dots to showcase where different levels of accuracy would hit the target, relative to the target's position inside bullseye sighting, although 100% would have that spread if it's a big ACA). Think of it as a form of homing mechanic, without the bullets being directly homing. The bullseye itself is something that the player moves with the mouse, as it will act as a larger cursor that can target a wider area in contrast to how it is now, where the bullets only cover a small spread that moves in a fixed position independent from targets.

 

15 minutes ago, Tyreaus said:

I reiterate: what's the problem? ADS is for aiming. That's general shooter principle right up there with "guns are used for killing".

I remain utterly bewildered that, out of all the problems with high mobility, ADS is what you target. 

ADS is what I target, because of the effect that they have in a game all about mobility. In cover shooters it's not much problem, because you are supposed to move slow and carefully, while most of the strategies in there, comes with the multiple ways you can position yourself across the map, which you use to assault, snipe, retreat and scout differently, *with each weapon type capitalizing on these different playstyles*

But in Warframe, the whole gameplay involves moving around at high speeds, but if you have to obstruct your vision to effectively fight, then in essence you only have one way to really fight despite having multiple types of weapons and multiple ways that you can move around.

Is there something wrong with wanting more ways to fight *effectively,* other than exclusively Aiming Down in your Sights? We are supposed to be psychic space cyborg ninjas, why do we have to limit the ways that we use our arsenal to the conventional way? Or is there something that I'm not understanding with your point?

22 minutes ago, Tyreaus said:

This has, quite literally, nothing to do with ADS. It (mostly) correctly attributes why there is a current sniper meta, especially with Snipetron. The only part that's missing is that the accuracy of snipers makes them have no damage fall-off over distance, while auto rifles, like shotguns, do due to spread (ironically, something the ACA mechanic doesn't actually fix based on the images you showed). But you don't "have to snipe with every single weapon".

What I mean with that "you have to snipe with every weapon", is that you have to rely on the precision aiming ability to reliably shoot targets down, because of how hard it is to track down highly mobile targets with limited view of your suroundings, while the none focused aiming is too unreliable as of now to work in those situations.

The ACA would work as a bigger crusor that targets a wider area than the standard one, while adjusting your aim so that you personally don't have to be pixel accurate to hit targets who are moving fast. Basicaly making unfocused aiming reliable at hitting fast moving targets, so that the more presice ADS will have a more specialized use (hitting specific pinpoints instead of general proximities). Right now ADS has it's specialized use, but the other way to fire is too unreliable to be used for anything other than maybe scaring off noobs or killing predictable opponents (which you already can easily do with ADS).

Damage falloff over distance means little, when the majority of the fights takes place at midrange due to the warframe's mobility. And I don't want to restrict the mobility, because the mobility is what makes Warframe, Warframe.

There are already games like Armored Core V, where you can use a form of ADS with Sniper weapons, while less precsision reliant weapons simply use a form of aim assist that doesn't restrict your view/mobility, why can't Warframe borrow some of those traits?

1 hour ago, Tyreaus said:

Points to the larger hitbox concept that would lower the skill required to hit moving targets while retaining the skill factor within 'regular' combat. Which addresses the "nobody shooting mobile targets" issue without fussing with ADS mechanics.

I reiterate again: why the ADS flak? You can literally throw on this ACA mechanic onto auto rifles, ADS or not, and exclude it with sniper rifles. That seems to be your main slant. ADS doesn't do anything against that.

Well, because these enlarged hitboxes are supposed to only take place at specific animations instead of a general constant, or based on weapon used, players would still need to relay on manually adjusting to their speed... While so far as the game is made, the best way to do that is via the aimglide, since then the players can align their aim along with their own movement much better than with normal falling speeds or dash movement. But since aimglide is tied to the ADS, it naturally comes with the obstruction of general vision and movements, leading players to relay on the same tactics of mutually exclusively preferring to either move erraticly, or shoot while moving predictably. Which would have been fine if it was just for one weapon type that this tactic was prominent with, but if the ease of hitting the target will be roughly the same for all of them, then the tactics there won't change much in a general sense.

Or is there some error in my assessment? What about ADS have I missjudged?

1 hour ago, Tyreaus said:

Here's the thing I think you're missing:

The reason snipers and semi-autos are heavily preferred is because they don't have damage fall-off over distance. Every other weapon, from beam weapons with a strict range limit to shotguns with an explicit damage fall-off to rifles with the recoil and spread to make more shots miss at longer ranges, has damage fall-off. The only exception comes with projectile weapons, but those are flat out much harder to aim with without much benefit.

ACA does one of two things:

1. If it auto-aims and adjusts all bullets into perfect accuracy on a target when a target is at or very near the centre, it removes the damage falloff over distance. This is not what your images show.

2. If it adjusts the spread pattern so that there's still a spread but it's (mostly) centred around a target in a given area, the damage falloff remains and nothing changes. This is what your image shows.

The ACA is indeed intended to be like what you mentioned in 2. The difference in effect is not supposed to be much on the damage fall-off-over-distance, but rather to increase the DPS stability(?) for the lack of a better word. Sniper rifles can maintain their DPS fairly well even with misses, because most of the damage are dealt with single shots. While assault weapons however, relay on you being able to chain up your shots to maintain a high DPS, but because the tracking of targets is very hard, it's easy to break the chain, so in practice you end up with a lower DPS output even when the rifle has a potentially higher DPS than the sniper if you had consistently landed your shots.

The ACA could make the rifle incredibly dangerous with a skilled user since you can *reliably* deal higher DPS *over time,* but the point is that even when the rifle/machinegun types becomes more viable with this bullseye system, the snipers still have their niche in being the better prescision shooters which deal higher bursts of DPS with fewer shots. Allowing both to coexist but used for different specializations. Thus variety in playstyle which I'd argue is the most important part of my goal, as of now.

1 hour ago, Tyreaus said:

If you're going to ask a question, then dismiss my findings with your own opinion, then I see no reason to have asked the question in the first place, and question the fruitfulness of us even having a conversation.

I didn't have the intention to dismiss your findings directly, but so much of your findings seems to be based on a completely different system than what I was trying to explain, that I didn't really know how to address those points other than futher explaining my idea, as well as the intentions with said ideas.

Like, the ACA you seemed to talked about, sounds like it automatically softlocks the players aim onto a target whenever said target is nearby the crusor. While the ACA I have been trying to convey, is more like the cursor that the player manually aims, but with a much bigger cover area that will alter the concentraction and trajectory of projectile spread depending on where the target is on the cover area, but without affecting the movement of the crusor itself (if that makes sense).

Seeing as how obviously different those versions of the ACA are from each other, I just wanted to know if you hold the same points that you have raised on the "softlocking" one, with the "large cursor" that I'm trying to describe.

 

That said, I guess I was too focused on that, so I failed to notice the importance of your last point. So I apologise and will try to address it now 

On 2019-10-25 at 9:49 PM, Tyreaus said:

The topic you quoted was talking about, generally, fast movement being too ubiquitous. If you make these adjustments, you make faster targets easier to hit.

You also make slower targets easier to hit. You make everything easier to hit.

At the end of the day, all the technical bullocks aside, whether the ACA thing works one way or some other way, whether it jitters or not, whether certain weapons have more of it or less of it, whether it completely upends the feel of PvP to the point where people flat out wouldn't accept it at all, that's the problem. If everything is easier to hit, all by the same amount, then the best option remains the best option. Nothing changes.

You might make people use weapons a little differently. You might also end up changing the meta so that auto rifles end up stupendously ubiquitous because the game does a good portion of the aiming for you and you end up garnishing max DPS by aiming in the target's vicinity. All with a system whose ease of implementation is questionable at best. All that could also depend on whether you alter how the system works.

But that does nothing for the topic you quoted.

Yes, I want to make everything easier to hit, it's just more on the "how" it's going to make everything easier to hit that I'm kinda trying to work with. Like, you should be able to hit both stationary and high moving targets, but to fulfil the goal of *"variety in playstyle"* I wanted there to be like a separate ways to hit them, with each of those ways having drawbacks that the other covers. The "snaping" that a unmoded low precision weapon would have with ACA, was supposed to invoke a drawback in dealing with stationary targets, so that even when the ACA is great with dealing moving targets the ADS would still be better at hitting specific pinpoints... Making it not just "possible" for players to play differently, but giving them a practical reason to *actually play differently.* If their accuracy stats is too poor to even work with ADS, while not having high precision sidearms to hit slow targets accurately eitherways, they could always put their gun asaide and start using their melee to compensate.Thus more varying playstyles that would come with different loadouts, which I personally think makes the game more engaging.

There will always be a better "option" than another, but my point is that one weapon class doesn't have to be better than the other *on the same circumstances.* Just because the Sniper is better than Rifle on precision shots, it doesn't mean that it also has to be better at dealing with targets who are speeding away, for example. Or just because the open ended ACA is great at being used on the move, it should not mean that it gotta be comparable to the focused ADS when it comes down to hitting enemies straight infront of you. That's my point with all of these "technical bullocks".

What exactly about this seems to be "out of place(?)" compared what I qouted as the topic?

2 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

Your ACA system flat-out fails. It has a clunky implementation. It's unwieldy even for you to describe without diagrams. It messes with ADS unnecessarily (different ACA values among weapons works just fine). It doesn't address one big reason players use sniper rifles (consistent DPS over range). Given you're increasing the speed of targets to match PvE, it doesn't even certainly increase the ability to hit extremely mobile targets, because those targets are probably spending an equitable amount of time in the targeting area for those auto-weapons. The still-random bullet-spread means maybe you'll land a few shots on them in that minuscule time-frame. But that's what you said was a problem. So not even that gets solved.

 Well, if the ACA messes up the ADS too badly to be used for everything, but still being fine enough with different weapon values when done unfocused... How about if the ACA was only active for autoweapons when not ADSing? Snipers and general AoE weapons with projectile/blast radius wider than 0.5m can work like they have always done, while the  autoweapon types will momentarily turn it off for higher presicion when aiming down the sights.

The problem does have to do with the consistency of DPS, but what I'm trying to solve is not the damage fall off over -distance- persey, but the consistency involved with how much damage you can do *whilst tracking your target.* Snipers dont only have an edge over Rifles in that they can fire at longer ranges, but that they also don't have to spend nearly as much time tracking a target to deal considerable damage, since only a couple shots will be needed to deal peak DPS.

Since rifles deal little damage per shots but makes up for it with a higher ammo count, their DPS would only be equal or higher than the sniper's *over time.* So my solution for that, was to have the ACA cover a much wider targeting area than the Snipers, so that you can maintain consistent hits for a longer period of time, as opposed to deal lots of damage in a short period of time.

Is the size of a Lancer's torso too small for this? Or does the ACA system fail at that in a more fundamental level?

3 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

I was assuming your ACA system worked like an aimbot in a small area instead of just shifting the spread, because that actually changes things up a substantial amount. But if it just relocates the spread area, and (importantly) doesn't relocate it beyond the original spread area? It's the same shtick with auto weapons just being a tiny bit easier to aim and sniper rifles still dominating because of zero range dropoff.

The reason as to why only relocate the spread and not so much the spread area, is because I still want to give the player most of the control when it comes to the aiming. The skill bar will be made lower, but it's supposed to be light and easy going enough that the player can still use their personal skill and innovation to compensate any system fauls with aiming techniques/playstyle, instead of "being controled by the system" so to speak.

Snipers will still dominate when it comes to sniping, but since it becomes easier at tracking and hitting targets with auto weapons, don't you think that the rifles will start becoming better than the sniper at pressuring opponents with consistent hits and dealing a higher total amount of DPS per clip? Most of the fights will take place in midrange where the rifle is at it's best, so damage fall off over distance wont be much issue, if you can consistently land shots while chasing at the same time (closing the distance).

3 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

You want more ability to hit mobile targets? Increase the hitbox size. You want auto-rifles to play better against snipers? Zero recoil and spread (or very, very minimal spread) when aiming down sights. Both weapon types are, generally, balanced with similar TTKs in ideal situations (i.e. every bullet lands), so that's all you'd have to do. You just think sniper rifles are too dominating? Increase headshot damage, lower base damage so precision headshots are more valuable. You want to lower hit-while-running tactics? Lower accuracy as speed increases. You want to lower hit-then-run tactics? Increase the hitbox size so players running become easier targets.

The aim adjustment mechanic here does nothing to shake things up the way you think it does, and certainly doesn't change as much as its complicated nature may suggest.

But what if the goal is not so much so "making auto rifles play better against snipers" -in a general sense- , nor "nor being able to hit mobile targets" -in a general sense-, but rather have some kind of variable solution that makes any of those options true but only *circumstantially?* Like, I want to apply a "rock, paper, scissors" factor instead of "gun beats all", if I make any sense. I thought that the ACA would be that, but if it fails at that, I still dont quite understand how.

[ByroSphere]

40 minutes ago, Sevek7 said:

I understand what you're saying, and generally I agree - in principle. However, we've seen a sad trend in warframe over the last few years where good aim is actively discouraged thanks to weapons like ignis, arca plasmor, catchmoon (thank goodness this one is finally getting a nerf, I hope it ends up only being effective in melee range!), etc... having across-the-board better stats than similar weapon types that require actual aiming. Conclave is the only place where a tenno's aim is important. You're right that it would be good to increase overall kill counts and reduce the number of times skilled players end a match with 25 kills and 2 deaths. Thankfully, proper matchmaking that pits players against others of similar skill would also fix that without needing to discourage aiming properly in conclave too. 

Yeah, I agree with your sentiment, espeically in that they have too many "across-the-board" better stats, although from what I see that is kinda a problem with weapon types in general, as some weapons just have way to many advantages compared to others (like the sniper vs rifle classes). But instead of taking the typical approach of nerfing and taking away things off the game, I was thinking more along the lines of buffing the weak or changing the powerful to have more like circumstancial advantages, instead of general advantages.

Rather than nerfing mobility so that aiming can work with less skill, I planed to change how aiming works for autoweapons (which are the weapon class that suffers the most cause of it), so that they will be circumstancially better, and work within this high speed game.

[Uhkretor]

On 2019-10-24 at 12:06 PM, ByroSphere said:

I thought that maybe they could make Conclave as fast as normal Warframe game modes, but add varying levels of aim assist depending on weapon type, so that you can kill people with other weapons besides 1hk snipers or AoE nukes.

Any thoughts?

... In a nutshell, while automatically ignoring the aim assist suggestion outright because it sounds dumb (to put it mildly)?

 

... Aim better...

... Someone also suggested to actually play more than 10 matches, but I would've suggested just to play more than 1... because in those 10 matches (or more) you get people using everything besides those two examples you've mentioned in your opening post.

Edited October 26, 2019 by Uhkretor

[ByroSphere]

2 minutes ago, Uhkretor said:

... In a nutshell, while automatically ignoring the aim assist suggestion outright because it sounds dumb (to put it mildly)?

 

... Aim better...

... Someone also suggested to actually play more than 10 matches, but I would've suggested just to play more than 1... because in those 10 matches (or more) you get people using everything besides those two examples you've mentioned in your opening post.

Before shooting someone’s idea down while suggesting that they play longer than they have, how about reading before sounding dumb (no offense)?

I mean, does my reasoning for the suggestion (which you can read through this thread) sound like something an inexperienced newbe would have?

[Tyreaus]

2 minutes ago, ByroSphere said:

It's not moving your mechanical bullseye, because the bullseye wont move around based on the target's location.  It's the projectiles that wil hit different parts of the bullseye depending on where a target is within the bullseye (gave diferent colors to the dots to showcase where different levels of accuracy would hit the target, relative to the target's position inside bullseye sighting, although 100% would have that spread if it's a big ACA). Think of it as a form of homing mechanic, without the bullets being directly homing. The bullseye itself is something that the player moves with the mouse, as it will act as a larger cursor that can target a wider area in contrast to how it is now, where the bullets only cover a small spread that moves in a fixed position independent from targets.

As I said: "Or it might as well be".

3 minutes ago, ByroSphere said:

But in Warframe, the whole gameplay involves moving around at high speeds, but if you have to obstruct your vision to effectively fight, then in essence you only have one way to really fight despite having multiple types of weapons and multiple ways that you can move around.

You've failed to illustrate what this "one way" is beyond "aiming down sights". Which is akin to saying CoD has "one way" to fight effectively because you also ADS.

Indeed, it being a game about mobility means there's a reason not to ADS - when you're not shooting at something.

Is that the "one way" to fight you mean? Because if it is, then it's something that "plagues" every shooter, including the successful ones.

9 minutes ago, ByroSphere said:

Damage falloff over distance means little, when the majority of the fights takes place at midrange due to the warframe's mobility. And I don't want to restrict the mobility, because the mobility is what makes Warframe, Warframe.

I have to stop here. I don't think you understand how weapons, especially auto-weapons, function. I don't think you understand why people pick snipers, or low-recoil weapons like Baza, despite them having equitable TTKs under ideal circumstances. If you actually think damage falloff over distance means little, yet have a problem with snipers being so prevalent, and want to change the basic shooter functions of a shooter but "heaven forbid they change mobility", then flat out: you need to re-evaluate something. Because I honestly do not believe you can look at the recoil of a non-ADS Zenith that'll miss around 20-50% of its shots at mid-range and say "damage falloff over distance due to recoil means little". Same for a Braton. Same for various other weapons at various ranges.

You even said it's about damage consistency. Why do you think that is?

And flat out, it is paradoxical that you don't want to mess with "what makes Warframe Warframe", but are perfectly fine messing with something that's been part of Warframe since beta, but many modern shooters, by f$#king with ADS mechanics.

I am going to skip to one last point:

17 minutes ago, ByroSphere said:

Is the size of a Lancer's torso too small for this? Or does the ACA system fail at that in a more fundamental level?

It fails at a fundamental level, as I've said twice before. I've explained why. I will reiterate: it's because the actual DPS of auto-weapons, due to auto-weapon spreads and recoils, is not the ideal DPS, but the weapons are balanced based on ideal DPS. This does not alter this discrepancy in a major way.

If you want a rock-paper-scissors fashion, then I'd suggest a few things:

1. Abandon your distaste for ADS. That's a core part of the game, not just Conclave. You'll find little purchase trying to change that.

2. Figure out exactly what you want to change, list that, and sort out a list of individual fixes for those first. One solution for multiple problems is seldom, if ever, born out of thin air. And moreover, your reasons for this change are scattershot. It's ranging from "Snipers are too ubiquitous" to "rifles need to be easier" to "we need to track fast moving enemies easier".

3. Look at the suggestions I listed. A mixture of those can probably create the exact same RPS mechanic.

4. If no combination of those suggestions works, try adding a damage fall-up for sniper rifles so that they only reach their actual damage potential when the damage potential of rifles diminishes. Thus, shotguns for close range, rifles for mid range, snipers for long range. This is pretty much what Halo 1 was based on.

I highly emphasize #2 here. In a way, your system is fundamentally flawed because it's not modular. You want this system to do so much with ADS and rifles and RPS-like gameplay that one change being ill-advised or controversial is wrecking the entire thing. Maybe there is a point to sniper rifles being so ubiquitous and they should have more of a niche instead of being effective all the time. But if you're wanting to change that and change ADS mechanics and you won't budge on that combination, then compromise is impossible, and you've sunk your entire fleet just because your destroyer blew up.

Which is also why I'm not going to go further into your post. List, clearly, what's wrong. List, clearly, the fixes for it. Explain, clearly, how this one system applies all those fixes in one go. In that order. Until that point, it's borderline impossible to suggest improvements when the thing doesn't come apart. It's impossible to point out that one thing isn't really that much of a problem without tossing the entire concept out the window. I can only suggest alternatives. =/

[Uhkretor]

8 minutes ago, ByroSphere said:

Before shooting someone’s idea down while suggesting that they play longer than they have, how about reading before sounding dumb (no offense)?

I mean, does my reasoning for the suggestion (which you can read through this thread) sound like something an inexperienced newbe would have?

The aim assist itself is dumb... Not because it could help someone with physical problems, but because its dumb by principle, and exists out of spite.

 

Making Conclave faster? It started with the same values as PvE, and got toned down -exactly- to allow players of a wide, and varied, range of player skills (not to be confused with Warframe abilities, they're entirely different) to participate in the Conclave. And honestly, I agree with the toning down because I had the chance of getting more punching bags of worse skills to slap around the Conclave arenas, since the ones that were actually skillful didn't like to get slapped around 24/365 (or 366 if 29th february popped) for 2 years.

 

No, let it be like it is right now since, and I can't stress this enough, it allows players of a wide, and varied, range of player skills (not to be confused with Warframe abilities, they're entirely different) to participate in the Conclave.

 

... Maybe this explains enough.

 

Edit: Also, I'm going to opt out of this topic, because talking about "aim assist" in any game is toxic, unless there's a gamepad involved and its on a console platform.

 

Edited October 26, 2019 by Uhkretor

[ByroSphere]

12 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

You've failed to illustrate what this "one way" is beyond "aiming down sights". Which is akin to saying CoD has "one way" to fight effectively because you also ADS.

Indeed, it being a game about mobility means there's a reason not to ADS - when you're not shooting at something.

Is that the "one way" to fight you mean? Because if it is, then it's something that "plagues" every shooter, including the successful ones.

The thing that you have to consider with the majority of shooters, is that they all are ground based, mobility isn’t as important of a factor in terms of survival as much as positioning and covering, while the restrictions of the ADS are generally negligible when it comes to the variety of playstyles for the variety of weapons.

 

I mean think about it. In most shooter games all the ADS does is make you move slightly slower than usual, when the mobility isn’t that crucial there, while slightly obstructing your vision when your vision generally is already pretty limited with the First Person View.

ADS has a considerable advantage to the point that unfocused fire is practically useless, sure... But the way the ADS restricts you there, doesn’t change the factor that the tactics in those games depends on positioning rather than mobility.

The snipers don’t just have a more precise shot than the assault rifle in those games, but their whole play style involves hitting and running away from long distances. With the game supporting this playstyle, in that nobody can just parkour around the battlefield without risking to get killed, and immediately close the distance that is crucial for the sniper.

 

The ADS doesn’t neither negatively restrict assault rifles, since it doesn’t force them into moving in a specific way. Their strategy still largely is all about sneaking around the battlefield and filling whomever gets caught in your sights with a rapid burst of death.

The ADS doesn’t restrict much the Grenade launchers either, since their playstyle involves  chugging explosives in curved arcs to hit behind covers.

So there exists the ADS, and it is superior to none focused aiming in general, but there still is variety in playstyles for the variety in weapons.

 

But how does the ADS work in Warframe? It doesn’t just make you run slightly slower, while the extent it obstructs your vision is slightly greater (although that’s the least issue), but it also locks your air game behind the aim glide... When in Warframe, the air game that comes with your mobility isn’t just “something you can do”, but it’s the most important factor, both in terms of survival as well as in attacking.

 

How has this ADS dependency with it’s obligatory aimglide affect the game? If you want to land a presice shot while retreating from target, you got to bulletjump and aimglide away in a straight line to lineup your shot.

If you want to close in and fill a target with bullets, all close and personal, you have to bullet jump into them and aim glide in a straight line into them to line up your shots. And this aimglide strategy is not just vital for Snipers whom are all about shooting and retreating, but also for Assaulters who wants to get close and personal.

Everything is an aimglide, because with the aimglide comes the ADS, and since the ADS is the only way to hit targets reliably, people will only use the tactics of moving in straight lines to hit people. There is nowhere near as much variety in tactics here in Warframe as in those cover shooters, because the reliance of ADS doesn’t force you to play in a specific way in those games, but they actually do in Warframe.

 

Now, I’m not requesting to nerf the ADS, nor am I asking to remove it’s aimglide function. What I’m asking for instead, is to buff  unfocused aiming with some sort of aim assist outside that isnt the ADS, so that you can reliably hit moving targets without aim gliding. But then also have this aim assist be flawed enough so that you have a practical reason to still use ADS and/or melee. And that was the point with the ACA’s “snapping” effect that would naturally come with weapons who got low accuracy, they are supposed to be moments where you would be compelled to either move you crusor so that you can hit with the edges, or just use the ADS and shoot them directly into the center, or close in to use melee instead (making multiple tactics become more available than the ACA manueverable shooting or high precision aim glide).

 

And the basis I’m making this request is not out of thin air, but based on other mobility reliant games like Armored Core (or a better example for that dynamic; Gundam Battle Operation Next), where there exists some form of precise ADS that restricts your movements, but that the normal none restricted aiming still is reliable against fast moving targets with the help of a form of aim assist which works separately from the mobility locked ADS.

Can you at least address my game examples before skipping ahead to the next point? I do mention them because my thoughts are based around them, so for you to just ignore them is... Unpleasant, especially when that also kinda involves not addressing some points. Which mainly is, do you think that the relation I make with Warframe to those mobile shooters like Gundam or Armored Core, seems reasonable, among other things?

Edit: A game that has a targeting system that is directly similar to how I intended the ACA works is Gundam Battle Operation 2. Although it ironically is even more slower paced than Warframe, it has a targeting system where the player largely controls their aim but the bulletsauto corrects to nearby targets within large cursors. Think it’d be great if the unfocused aiming worked like this in Warframe, cause it allow for more accurate shooting on the move without aimgliding.

12 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

I have to stop here. I don't think you understand how weapons, especially auto-weapons, function. I don't think you understand why people pick snipers, or low-recoil weapons like Baza, despite them having equitable TTKs under ideal circumstances. If you actually think damage falloff over distance means little, yet have a problem with snipers being so prevalent, and want to change the basic shooter functions of a shooter but "heaven forbid they change mobility", then flat out: you need to re-evaluate something. Because I honestly do not believe you can look at the recoil of a non-ADS Zenith that'll miss around 20-50% of its shots at mid-range and say "damage falloff over distance due to recoil means little". Same for a Braton. Same for various other weapons at various ranges

Just to be sure, is this “Damage Falloff over Distance” based on the principle that the projectiles get weaker over some distance, or that it becomes harder to adjust per shot with recoil?

Cause if it is the latter, I guess I forgot to take into account the recoils that snipers have to deal with, so I guess it was more balanced than I thought... But with that said, there still is the issue that people are locked into moving straight with aimglide just to compensate for such things (which I guess may have been the main problem that I been trying to address all along, not the ADS directly).

12 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

It fails at a fundamental level, as I've said twice before. I've explained why. I will reiterate: it's because the actual DPS of auto-weapons, due to auto-weapon spreads and recoils, is not the ideal DPS, but the weapons are balanced based on ideal DPS. This does not alter this discrepancy in a major way.

How doesn’t it alter the disrepancy in a major way, if it gives the auto weapons a more reliable option to hit moving targets without locking them into the aimglide that ADS would perform?

12 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

If you want a rock-paper-scissors fashion, then I'd suggest a few things:

1. Abandon your distaste for ADS. That's a core part of the game, not just Conclave. You'll find little purchase trying to change that.

I don’t have a direct distaste for the ADS. I just want to make ADS specialized for precision shooting, and have some other form of aiming method become specialized at hitting mobile targets, without locking you into moving in specific trajectories like the aim glide does.

12 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

2. Figure out exactly what you want to change, list that, and sort out a list of individual fixes for those first. One solution for multiple problems is seldom, if ever, born out of thin air. And moreover, your reasons for this change are scattershot. It's ranging from "Snipers are too ubiquitous" to "rifles need to be easier" to "we need to track fast moving enemies easier".

Alright, I will try to put it in a less spreadout way: I want to reliably shoot mobile targets on the move, without relaying on the aim glide or high AoE projectiles.

Depending on how that would affected the current weapon dynamic, I will consider thinking of more solutions from there.

12 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

3. Look at the suggestions I listed. A mixture of those can probably create the exact same RPS mechanic

Using a combination of what you suggested to achieve aforementioned effects... Closest thing I can think off, is increasing the size of hitboxes and give less recoil to weapons in general, since it’d make it easier to hit in general even if unfocused aiming remains relatively unreliable.

The problem that I see tho, is that since the ADS is directly tied into the aimglide function of this game, although it would make auto weapons have a greater edge over snipers than before... The tactics that goes into using said edge remains largely the same, because the ADS will lock you into aimglide, which will force you to mostly move in a straight arc. Which is what I mostly want to change. Since I think other strategies besides aimgliding to line up with shots, needs to become viable so that the rifles can keep up with snipers without being good in the same areas (hitting moving targets while on the move vs pinpoint precision shooting).

12 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

4. If no combination of those suggestions works, try adding a damage fall-up for sniper rifles so that they only reach their actual damage potential when the damage potential of rifles diminishes. Thus, shotguns for close range, rifles for mid range, snipers for long range. This is pretty much what Halo 1 was based on.

It sounds like a decent way to balance them out, but if the aimglide remains the mandatory manuever for the ADS to reliably hit opponents, then the type of manuevers/tactics that people will use will for the most part remain the same except in a minor sense (snipers back away while moving in straight lines, rifles tries to maintain mid range while going straight forward, while shotguns do their best to get close and personal while moving straight when going for the kill).

Another possible solution rather than a straight up aim assist that I just though about. How about if auto weapons simply had a bigger cursor with a larger spread and a general higher ammo count to afford more misses but higher chance for consecutive hits? Would it be a good counter for snipers pinpoint precision game? Those two are the main weapon types that I think might need some changes, because I personally think shotguns and other AoE weps work well enough.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by ByroSphere
Thought of a better game example. Better spacing for ease in reading.

[ByroSphere]

10 hours ago, Uhkretor said:

The aim assist itself is dumb... Not because it could help someone with physical problems, but because its dumb by principle, and exists out of spite.

 

Making Conclave faster? It started with the same values as PvE, and got toned down -exactly- to allow players of a wide, and varied, range of player skills (not to be confused with Warframe abilities, they're entirely different) to participate in the Conclave. And honestly, I agree with the toning down because I had the chance of getting more punching bags of worse skills to slap around the Conclave arenas, since the ones that were actually skillful didn't like to get slapped around 24/365 (or 366 if 29th february popped) for 2 years.

 

No, let it be like it is right now since, and I can't stress this enough, it allows players of a wide, and varied, range of player skills (not to be confused with Warframe abilities, they're entirely different) to participate in the Conclave.

 

... Maybe this explains enough

Edit: Also, I'm going to opt out of this topic, because talking about "aim assist" in any game is toxic, unless there's a gamepad involved and its on a console platform

There maybe is variety in skills, but as far as I can see there is no variety in tactics, because only one tactic is practically viable (aimgliding in a straight line to lineup shots).

I didn’t have any intention to act toxic or passive aggressive about this, but too many people are dismissing  aim assists as a whole without really even bothering to think about it. Threads are made to be discussed in, but this mentality of “git gud, nuff said” gives no room to discuss.

Which is why I say you should read what someone has to say about their reasonings, before shutting them up with generic comments.

If aim assist is so bad as you say, why do you think they exist on console games in the first place?

You don’t have to reply if you don’t want to, but I really think you should revise that mentality.

[ByroSphere]

Just wanted to note that it seems like they made Conclave fast again. And I gotta say, it feels awesomely fast! There just are little things that can compare to the rush that this neatly smooth mobility fills me in the soul!

With that said, it still suffers in that it's hard to hit anyone when not aim gliding, and since everyone is manueverable in general, the skill gap seems more obvious than ever (the staleness of straight aimglide seems to be like it was directly tied to experience). It doesn't feel like it's impossible to overcome with enough practice (seems like it's going to be A LOT of practice tho).... But it's still a pretty high skill cieling, for a game mode that basically has nothing worh farming for (which is a point I have raised in a different thread).

Edited October 27, 2019 by ByroSphere

[Uhkretor]

11 hours ago, ByroSphere said:

If aim assist is so bad as you say, why do you think they exist on console games in the first place?

... Because gamepads lack the precision a mouse has, and they need it to actually play shooters?

... I don't know, I think you already knew the answer to that question...

[ByroSphere]

Just now, Uhkretor said:

... Because gamepads lack the precision a mouse has, and they need it to actually play shooters?

... I don't know, I think you already knew the answer to that question...

Yeah, that's basically the idea. Tho going in depth, all that really means, is that aim assist exists for games where your normal control aiming is not enough. When Warframe is fast, then the normal accuracy of mouse control wont be enough for most players. So from what I see, some form of it would be needed if Conclave is gonna be fast, it's just a matter of "to what extent".

[Tachmag]

3 hours ago, ByroSphere said:

Yeah, that's basically the idea. Tho going in depth, all that really means, is that aim assist exists for games where your normal control aiming is not enough. When Warframe is fast, then the normal accuracy of mouse control wont be enough for most players. So from what I see, some form of it would be needed if Conclave is gonna be fast, it's just a matter of "to what extent".

Most players is the operating word. You can still very much get a good hit rate without aim assist. And high level players melt you in less than 2 seconds every time 

Game pads cannot reach a remotely comparable hit rate without aim assist even if you're the best gamepad user in the world. That's why they have aim assist.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Tachmag

[ByroSphere]

5 hours ago, Tachmag said:

Most players is the operating word. You can still very much get a good hit rate without aim assist. And high level players melt you in less than 2 seconds every time 

Game pads cannot reach a remotely comparable hit rate without aim assist even if you're the best gamepad user in the world. That's why they have aim assist.

Problem with the hit rate though, is that it’s too difficult for the majority to land enough hits to break through shields, unless they are using high damage single shot weapons or high AoE weapons.

I basically want to buff multi hit weapons, but instead of giving them more damage pershot outright, I want to make it easier for them to hit the targets. Cause then it actually will feel like you are killing because of how you use your weapon, rather than because it’s op in of itself.

I mean, we are trying to bring more players, other than people who would still play the Conclave regardless of how beginner friendly it is.

Edited October 28, 2019 by ByroSphere
Added AoE weapons

[Tachmag]

4 hours ago, ByroSphere said:

Problem with the hit rate though, is that it’s too difficult for the majority to land enough hits to break through shields, unless they are using high damage single shot weapons or high AoE weapons.

I basically want to buff multi hit weapons, but instead of giving them more damage pershot outright, I want to make it easier for them to hit the targets. Cause then it actually will feel like you are killing because of how you use your weapon, rather than because it’s op in of itself.

I mean, we are trying to bring more players, other than people who would still play the Conclave regardless of how beginner friendly it is.

The majority of Warframe players have trouble landing hits because they suck. They are well below average in mechanical skill.

DE shouldn't be dumbing down Conclave for PvE players, DE should instead do a better job at teaching those players how to actually play their game.

By adding aim assist you'll be making Conclave more accessible but you will kill high level Conclave.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Tachmag

[ByroSphere]

3 hours ago, Tachmag said:

The majority of Warframe players have trouble landing hits because they suck. They are well below average in mechanical skill.

DE shouldn't be dumbing down Conclave for PvE players, DE should instead do a better job at teaching those players how to actually play their game.

By adding aim assist you'll be making Conclave more accessible but you will kill high level Conclave.

It won’t so much kill high level Conclave, as much as give veterans a bigger hurdle to overcome to stay on top. Currently, most of the skill is only tied to the aiming, but if any random player wanted, they could spend a whole match running away with little to no deaths. In other words, there is not much skill when it comes to dodging, because it’s too easy to throw off your opponents aim.

And the bad thing about this, is that it’s not easy in a way that feels rewarding (which scares away new players and potential veterans). If something has to be made easy here, it shouldn’t be survival, but the act of killing. That way there actually will be skill in surviving a match with low death counts. That’s where the challenge should be, to try hard to stay alive, not try hard just so that your weapons can work like they should already have done.

Besides, the extent of Aim assist Im talking about, is only about the same level as Gundam Battle Operation 2. Or are you not confident enough that you can beat it?

Edited October 28, 2019 by ByroSphere

[Tachmag]

1 hour ago, ByroSphere said:

It won’t so much kill high level Conclave, as much as give veterans a bigger hurdle to overcome to stay on top. Currently, most of the skill is only tied to the aiming, but if any random player wanted, they could spend a whole match running away with little to no deaths. In other words, there is not much skill when it comes to dodging, because it’s too easy to throw off your opponents aim.

And the bad thing about this, is that it’s not easy in a way that feels rewarding (which scares away new players and potential veterans). If something has to be made easy here, it shouldn’t be survival, but the act of killing. That way there actually will be skill in surviving a match with low death counts. That’s where the challenge should be, to try hard to stay alive, not try hard just so that your weapons can work like they should already have done.

In combat mobility is based on skillful dodging. If you played Conclave for a while, which by your profile I can verify is not the case, you would know this.

 

Out of combat mobility is another story. And like I said: make walljumps not reset maneuvers. Alternatively, a stamina bar. But not Aim Assist. Aim Assist has no place in a PC game.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Tachmag
Typo

[ByroSphere]

32 minutes ago, Tachmag said:

In combat mobility is based on skillful dodging. If you played Conclave for a while, which by your profile I can verify is not the case, you would know this.

 

Out of combat mobility is another story. And like I said: make walljumps not reset maneuvers. Alternatively, a stamina bar. But not Aim Assist. Aim Assist has no place in a PC game.

My profile doesn’t say much, because I’m a returning player starting from scratch. There is not much skillful dodging, other than jumping and rolling at random spots. Newbes are about as hard to tag as veterans when on the move. The only difference there, is that veterans don’t slow down nearly as often, because they have polished their aim enough to work with the speed.

There is also the weapon dynamic which affects my judgement for the need of aim assist for some weapons. Snipers and other high damage single shot weapons, works fine as they do, because although it’s hard to hit often, it’s still pretty viable to hit an opponent “sometimes”, while these single shot weapons got high DP to kill on those “sometimes”, while it’s mostly those types of weapons that I see veterans using.

Weapons like machineguns or rifles however, are too underperforming on today’s meta, even when they should be stat wise  be balanced compared to every other weapon class. And that’s because the high fire rate/low damage pershot dynamic, does not work in a game where the average players will only hit “sometimes”. So why not fix those weapon types in a way that they could work, without turning them op with buffs/nerfing everything else? Why do we have to  nerf the whole way we move in this the game, when some weapons simply needs to become more viable than they currently are?

The fact that this is a PC game matters not, multihit weapons are underperforming because they can’t reliably hit multiple times. Not even veterans who have polished their aim will bother to use rifle types much, because snipers makes their great skill already that much more lethal.

So why not make it (as in the rifles) beginner friendly and viable with aim assist?

Edited October 28, 2019 by ByroSphere