|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
alten hilt
DUST University
Ivy League
133
   |
Posted - 2014.04.03 17:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
You have some very valid points! Throw a 150 lb rucksack on a 130lb scrawny kid, and he's going to struggle to stand. Throw that same rucksack on an Army Ranger, and while affected, he is still an effective soldier.
Another way to visualize the underlying problems with the system is to examine falling damage. Fall damage is calculated as a flat rate based on the height of the fall. So all suits falling from the same height will take the same damage. But why? A scout suit is light and designed with mobility in mind (reinforced leg servos and impact absorbing supports). So in theory, a scout suit should take little to no damage from falls. Meanwhile, a heavy suit is designed to accommodate the extra armor and shield reinforcement. A brick tanked heavy should take increased damage from falls due to it's extra mass.
Because of the underlying problems with the system, a scout suit might not survive a 10ft fall, while a heavy can jump 200m from the MCC and not even deplete it's shields.
A light frame is designed for speed and ewar, so it should have decreased penalties for using speed modules and ewar modules, while experiencing increased penalties for armor plates and shield extenders. It just makes sense that a frame built for mobility and sensors would be exponentially affected by bulky plates and extenders.
Meanwhile, a heavy suit already designed to accommodate plates and extenders would suffer less speed penalties for adding more plates. |
alten hilt
DUST University
Ivy League
135
|
Posted - 2014.04.03 18:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
As far as speed affecting aim, I would prefer to address the underlying problems with the movement system. Which is that the Dust movement model does not account for limitations in human movement (even if you try to account for with dropsuit technology)
Humans are designed to move forward. Forward movement is our most natural and fluid of all movement directions. It is also the direction we can move the fastest with the least amount of impact on the rest of our automation (i.e. arm and head movement) Aiming and shooting while moving forward should be the fastest, smoothest, most accurate form of movement.
Backward movement is very limited when compared to forward movement. We can't do it as fast, and when we try to move quickly, we are forced to use our arms and posture in order to maintain our balance. Backwards movement should be jerkier, slow (if trying to shoot) and should render shooting nearly impossible if trying to backwards sprint with a rifle, or very inaccurate if using a sidearm. Currently in Dust, backwards movement is as fast as a forward sprint. (try knifing a guy who is backpedaling and you will see what I mean), and does not introduce any special penalty to aiming or hipfire spread.
Sideways movement is our interesting dilemma. Humans can move sideways in a number of ways, some of which are more conducive to gunplay than others. Because we can rotate our torso on our legs, diagonal movement is all but exactly similar to forward movement (that is where forward movement is equal to or greater than sideways movement). However, once sideways movement exceeds forward movement, our bodies begin to have some serious limitations and we are forced to slow down significantly. While shooting there are four basic side-to-side movements; the step-together-step, the step-cross-step, the leap, and the rotated turret (wherein your legs are moving forward, but your torso is rotated 90' to the side. Because of these limitations, side-to-side movement should be slow, and introduce huge aiming penalties if done quickly or repeatedly.
tl;dr version
Forward and diagonal movement and shooting stays the same
Backwards movement is slowed down and large penalties to aim introduced if you sprint+move back (less if you use a sidearm)
Sideways movement is significantly slowed down and heavily aim penalized if you sprint+move to the side
To complement these changes, a robust and accurate cover system needs to be introduced. Meaning the ability to lean and peak around, over, and under cover.
Strafing and fast backpedaling are artifacts left over from early FPS games and should be eliminated in modern shooters (unless this is their niche, which I certainly hope isn't the goal of DUST) |
alten hilt
DUST University
Ivy League
135
|
Posted - 2014.04.03 18:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
It's true. I don't have my hopes up for a realistic movement system and most FPS games choose to go with artificial aiming constraints rather than model a realistic movement system (although BF4 seems to get jumping pretty close to perfect, very hard to bunny jump in BF4 because your character has to gather their legs underneath them and jumping while moving in a direction seems to accurately model what you do in real life. )
On the other hand. Uniformly applying movement/aim penalties just adds another underlying problem to the system because it doesn't account for things like the bulkiness of the chest and arms (Try shooting without body armor, then with body armor, then with body armor and a rucksack, then with full body armor, then with cold weather gear on and you will start to get a sense of what I mean.) An unarmored opponent can move faster and aim better (while moving faster) without the bulk of gear. If you start to uniformly apply aim penalties based solely on speed and don't take into account the other issues, then you just swing the problem pendulum to the other side and brick tanking will become an even bigger issue because you artificially penalized people for moving fast without looking at the underlying problems (like uniform stacking penalties, or uniform falling damage.) |
|
|
| |
|