probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Feb 23, 2015 11:36:37 GMT -5
They are clearly aware that fire rates are limited by frame rate or else they would have been awestruck that the EM1 doesnt actually have infinite fire rate. There virtually no chance that they would have selected a firetime of zero otherwise. Daily reminder that SH IW tried to reduce the FMG9X2's RoF by lowering the fire time. They are that dum. FTFY
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Feb 23, 2015 14:04:22 GMT -5
Sledgehammer helped make the multiplayer in MW3. "Helped." They are clearly aware that fire rates are limited by frame rate or else they would have been awestruck that the EM1 doesnt actually have infinite fire rate. The issue that there are a slew of guns in MW3, Ghosts, and AW that all have fire times defined which cannot be obtained in-game. Worse still, there are guns that balanced by fire times that operate at the same fire rate in-game (ex. the Hair Trigger and the Obsidian Steed).
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Feb 23, 2015 17:09:29 GMT -5
And there is no way to change this trait of the engine without changing everything? Connecting events like weapon fire to frame rates helps a great deal in improving game responsiveness and latency, critical characteristics for Call of Duty.
|
|
asasa
True Bro
fuck
Posts: 4,255
|
Post by asasa on Feb 23, 2015 17:28:25 GMT -5
And there is no way to change this trait of the engine without changing everything? Connecting events like weapon fire to frame rates helps a great deal in improving game responsiveness and latency, critical characteristics for Call of Duty. But isnt CoD a laggy turd versus other games? Serious question.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Feb 23, 2015 19:13:41 GMT -5
Connecting events like weapon fire to frame rates helps a great deal in improving game responsiveness and latency, critical characteristics for Call of Duty. But isnt CoD a laggy turd versus other games? Serious question. Not really. Most FPS have lag issues, they're just usually less noticeable with higher TTK and usually larger maps, they usually have server browsers too and actual PING numbers
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Feb 23, 2015 20:54:32 GMT -5
Vince Zampella is the only man that could do it. Titanfall blew my mind. Titanfall 2 will blow your mind
|
|
Lexapro
True Bro
PSN: Lexa_pro
Posts: 1,066
|
Post by Lexapro on Feb 23, 2015 21:53:08 GMT -5
Yeah Titanfall is great. I think it runs on some kind of modified source engine and I feel it is just as responsive as CoD. The slightly higher TTKs and increased mobility also improve the experience overall.
Unfortunately, it also had issues with game mechanics being tied to the framerate such as RoF and even how quickly certain weapons locked on. The Smart Pistol was completely broken for a time because at high framerates, it would instantly lock-on to everything.
|
|
|
Post by Pegasus Actual on Feb 23, 2015 23:13:17 GMT -5
^Yeah, Titanfall is the best, but it does suffer a bit from them reimplementing the same bad ideas that they did in the COD engine. or you know maybe it is possible to fix and its just hard and stupid gafferongames.com/game-physics/fix-your-timestep/it would mean fu ck all with respect to responsiveness. it would be messing with the code for how often the gun fires. they wouldnt be rewriting their whole physics engine for it. I think that if theyre even willing to fix it at this point, the main thing stopping them is the possiblity of screwing up some other random important shit by messing with timesteps. When marvel changed the server packets/sec in cod4, it screwed up some timers. Cod's changed hands and dev teams enough that i cant imagine it being an easy task to actually trudge through and check everything that it may or may not affect. I'm not sure what you're suggesting there, at best implementing some of the suggestions there just ties the fire rate jankiness to an arbitrary simulation rate. Sure the higher you crank the rate the more accurate (but hardly perfect) results, but if fire rates are really the only bug you're after, it's not a remotely sensible solution to waste all that CPU. The alternating fire rates thing is a good idea since it relies on a mechanic already demonstrated to work. Instead of changing firetime after say 3 shots, just flip it with each shot (and probably reset it with the first shot). But that's a little janky, you need two firetimes for each current firetime. It's still not immediately clear what firetimes work well to whoever is balancing the game. But really, I think a simpler solution works just fine. Every time you fire save how much time you went past the firetime and apply it to the next firetime (up to say 1 firetime, or maybe 0.5 firetimes, you don't want the engine choking for a second or two and then spit out shots at e.g. 3600rpm@60fps until it catches up). That should make any changes to firetime as meaningful as they should be at typical COD framerates. I don't think it's much of a technical challenge to fix, I think it's a combination of only a very small subset of the die-hard cod community even knowing the problem exists, the game designers being unaware enough or uncaring enough to push for a fix from their coders, who didn't even write that bit of code and don't care at all unless someone tells them they have a bug that needs fixing.
|
|
|
Post by Pegasus Actual on Feb 24, 2015 0:06:33 GMT -5
Well, you were the one concerned about breaking other stuff by screwing with the simulation rate. If you only do it for calculating weapons time (which I suppose is easy), you really couldn't break timers or whatever and you'd get the more accurate results as you ramp up the simulation rate, and yes, it's only maybe a few dozen operation per simulation cycle. But the limit of your accuracy in that case is basically the same as what you'd get simply by tracking how much you went past firetime when you fire the weapon. And that's even less CPU, and cleaner to implement.
I think people are just thinking about the problem in a slightly incorrect way. The problem is not that the fire times are tied to the frame rate. They're really tied to the simulation time, which I guess in this case is directly tied to the frame time, but if you decouple simulation from frame the problem is still there. The real problem is essentially a rounding problem due to dropping the remainder. Respecting the remainder is 'perfect' in the sense that you get the most accurate fire rate possible at any given frame rate, though fire rate will jitter a little bit. Presumably that's the desired behavior. The current COD solution is 'perfect' in that it gives you a constant fire-rate at a constant frame rate.
I don't know, do other games have this problem? It's not something I really notice in game unless I'm aware and/or looking for it. I assume if something like Battlefield gets it right, and maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but they're probably doing more or less doing what I suggested whether their game logic runs in sync with the frame rate or not.
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Feb 27, 2015 23:31:08 GMT -5
What about a perk where enemy hits do not produce hit markers?
|
|
fpsdredd
True Bro
Always working on the FPS metagame
Posts: 495
|
Post by fpsdredd on Feb 27, 2015 23:32:40 GMT -5
What about a perk where enemy hits do not produce hit markers? Interesting. Terrifying.
|
|
|
Post by LeGitBeeSting on Feb 28, 2015 0:32:43 GMT -5
What about a perk where enemy hits do not produce hit markers? Tack it on to Assassin Pro.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Feb 28, 2015 4:21:18 GMT -5
Would be a good addition to Cold Blooded, since they decided to not actually have it protect from Threat Detection like the tooltip says
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Feb 28, 2015 10:41:34 GMT -5
Would be a good addition to Cold Blooded, since they decided to not actually have it protect from Threat Detection like the tooltip says "Immune to thermal, target enhancer, threat grenades and enemy call outs. No name displayed or reticle color change when enemies aim at you."
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Mar 1, 2015 13:28:42 GMT -5
I never once interpreted the Cold Blooded description as blocking the threat detection effect of the UAV.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 2:12:24 GMT -5
Behold the prowess of the Duskmantle as I necromance this thread! I never really gave a serious answer to this, so I'll chip in my two cents. It probably won't be things that most people on this board care about, but I think they're worth talking about. Modern military shooters tend to struggle when they tie its world building elements with certain mechanics. For instance in Halo the protagonist is a super-soldier designed to blow up wave after wave of Convenant without breaking a sweat. It makes sense that the player is doing all the work for the team while his human allies stand back; he's a badass super soldier. His health comes back in a matter of seconds because he's a hardened honey badger wearing a fancy piece of high-tech armor. These mechanics in Halo have been used to create vital world-building elements, and it's part of the reason why the Halo universe is one of the most compelling video game universes out there. However, the Halo universe has fewer obligations to root itself to the real world simply because it's set 500 years from now; there's more liberties that can be taken in designing something like the Halo universe that doesn't necessarily apply to the CoD universe. Modern Military Shooters like CoD don't have that kind of luxury, especially when their selling point is in having as little stylization as possible. In Call of Duty the player is a peer among his/her allies whether it be an average soldier among the masses or an elite task force of sorts. There's nothing in the universe that explains why the protagonist is clearly doing most of the heavy lifting for the team in singleplayer. It's obvious that if the AIs did their fair share of the work to the point where the player can do nothing and still win is worse design, but having useless ally AIs is still a piece of design that the game can often do without. There is no easy answers to this sort of ordeal without having the player fighting all on his/her own. Sometimes the CoD games do well to have the player fight with only one AI, or purposely obscure the efforts of the player's team. Call of Duty taking place in the future have provided several chances to tinker with its world-building more. There was a missed opportunity to introduce an explanation to why players get all their health back in 5 seconds. Surely there must be some kind of wolverine-like regeneration maguffin that people use in the year 2050. For instance in The Order 1886 the Knights have a necklace with a vial at the end. The vial holds waters from the Fountain of Youth in which they can shrug off the worst of injuries from one sip. The mechanic was tied to something that existed in that world. In a universe that tries its best to cover everything in a top-down design not tying the health regeneration mechanic to the world kinds of sticks out like a sore thumb. That is, assuming people want that; which is okay if they don't. Nobody rags on Doom because it's a mindless story of shooting down wave upon wave of hellspawn. In fact people have ragged on games that try to carry across a serious attempt at a heartfelt story, but end up looking worse off for it. A worthwhile story is not the most important aspect of a game, but if you're going to put one in every installation it better not be weighing down the rest of the game. Not that CoD's story has ever really done that. It's been close once or twice, though. I think some of the more recent Call of Duties lack tempo. Even the most action-packed games have a moment of quiet time squeezed in every now and again. Every story needs several moments of silence, and many games understand this very well. A tranquil walk from one level to another, hanging out in a tavern enjoying a drink, having the player stare in awe at a major loss or accomplishment; anything that leaves the player to their thoughts for a moment to reflect on what just happened. Otherwise, if the game is a giant cacophony of explosions and gunshots the player will have a hard time remembering anything about the story. It would be nice if the Call of Duty franchise did more to tie its games together into one timeline; if 3ARC, IW, and SHG are making a mechanically similar games it would be nice if something was done to tie them all together. Having more characters that live on is a start; something familiar to focus on. Maybe playing out the same cast of characters into different timelines would be a neat idea. What if we didn't remake CoD4, but instead replayed the entire Modern Warfare Trilogy so that nothing in the storyline repeats itself? An iconic character that appears in every CoD game would be unrealistic, but an organization, a saying; something that carries from game to game would be very helpful. One last thing. Call of Duty has sold itself as an FPS where players can run around and get into as many gunfights as humanly possible. That's its niche. I'm not sure if it's been officially stated, but I know that the idea of CoD supporting run and gun has definitely held a lot of weight in the CoD community for the longest time. In a game where the time to raise your gun and aim down its sights exceeds the theoretical time it takes to frag someone with a non OSK weapon- that's not encouraging run and gun gameplay at all. The defender's advantage is so relatively large that that's almost a straightforward lie to say this game favours run and gun. Modern Military Shooters in general are always about nullfying one's defender's advantage in face-to-face gunfights. This isn't an issue of changing mechanics. Otherwise if we did that Call of Duty would essentially be a Dirty Bomb clone. This is probably a case where the customer's expectations are misaligned; and that can be a problem. TL:DR - Needs more WEEERRRLD building.
|
|
banana
True Banana
Zoro > Law
Posts: 1,577
|
Post by banana on Jul 24, 2015 12:02:55 GMT -5
The campaigns are alright
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Jul 24, 2015 12:35:26 GMT -5
Behold the prowess of the Duskmantle as I necromance this thread! I never really gave a serious answer to this, so I'll chip in my two cents. It probably won't be things that most people on this board care about, but I think they're worth talking about. Modern military shooters tend to struggle when they tie its world building elements with certain mechanics. For instance in Halo the protagonist is a super-soldier designed to blow up wave after wave of Convenant without breaking a sweat. It makes sense that the player is doing all the work for the team while his human allies stand back; he's a badass super soldier. His health comes back in a matter of seconds because he's a hardened honey badger wearing a fancy piece of high-tech armor. These mechanics in Halo have been used to create vital world-building elements, and it's part of the reason why the Halo universe is one of the most compelling video game universes out there. However, the Halo universe has fewer obligations to root itself to the real world simply because it's set 500 years from now; there's more liberties that can be taken in designing something like the Halo universe that doesn't necessarily apply to the CoD universe. Modern Military Shooters like CoD don't have that kind of luxury, especially when their selling point is in having as little stylization as possible. In Call of Duty the player is a peer among his/her allies whether it be an average soldier among the masses or an elite task force of sorts. There's nothing in the universe that explains why the protagonist is clearly doing most of the heavy lifting for the team in singleplayer. It's obvious that if the AIs did their fair share of the work to the point where the player can do nothing and still win is worse design, but having useless ally AIs is still a piece of design that the game can often do without. There is no easy answers to this sort of ordeal without having the player fighting all on his/her own. Sometimes the CoD games do well to have the player fight with only one AI, or purposely obscure the efforts of the player's team. Call of Duty taking place in the future have provided several chances to tinker with its world-building more. There was a missed opportunity to introduce an explanation to why players get all their health back in 5 seconds. Surely there must be some kind of wolverine-like regeneration maguffin that people use in the year 2050. For instance in The Order 1886 the Knights have a necklace with a vial at the end. The vial holds waters from the Fountain of Youth in which they can shrug off the worst of injuries from one sip. The mechanic was tied to something that existed in that world. In a universe that tries its best to cover everything in a top-down design not tying the health regeneration mechanic to the world kinds of sticks out like a sore thumb. That is, assuming people want that; which is okay if they don't. Nobody rags on Doom because it's a mindless story of shooting down wave upon wave of hellspawn. In fact people have ragged on games that try to carry across a serious attempt at a heartfelt story, but end up looking worse off for it. A worthwhile story is not the most important aspect of a game, but if you're going to put one in every installation it better not be weighing down the rest of the game. Not that CoD's story has ever really done that. It's been close once or twice, though. I think some of the more recent Call of Duties lack tempo. Even the most action-packed games have a moment of quiet time squeezed in every now and again. Every story needs several moments of silence, and many games understand this very well. A tranquil walk from one level to another, hanging out in a tavern enjoying a drink, having the player stare in awe at a major loss or accomplishment; anything that leaves the player to their thoughts for a moment to reflect on what just happened. Otherwise, if the game is a giant cacophony of explosions and gunshots the player will have a hard time remembering anything about the story. It would be nice if the Call of Duty franchise did more to tie its games together into one timeline; if 3ARC, IW, and SHG are making a mechanically similar games it would be nice if something was done to tie them all together. Having more characters that live on is a start; something familiar to focus on. Maybe playing out the same cast of characters into different timelines would be a neat idea. What if we didn't remake CoD4, but instead replayed the entire Modern Warfare Trilogy so that nothing in the storyline repeats itself? An iconic character that appears in every CoD game would be unrealistic, but an organization, a saying; something that carries from game to game would be very helpful. One last thing. Call of Duty has sold itself as an FPS where players can run around and get into as many gunfights as humanly possible. That's its niche. I'm not sure if it's been officially stated, but I know that the idea of CoD supporting run and gun has definitely held a lot of weight in the CoD community for the longest time. In a game where the time to raise your gun and aim down its sights exceeds the theoretical time it takes to frag someone with a non OSK weapon- that's not encouraging run and gun gameplay at all. The defender's advantage is so relatively large that that's almost a straightforward lie to say this game favours run and gun. Modern Military Shooters in general are always about nullfying one's defender's advantage in face-to-face gunfights. This isn't an issue of changing mechanics. Otherwise if we did that Call of Duty would essentially be a Dirty Bomb clone. This is probably a case where the customer's expectations are misaligned; and that can be a problem. TL:DR - Needs more WEEERRRLD building. A-. Excellent thesis, but sentence structure is ordinary and repetitive. Also, please review your use of semicolons.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jul 24, 2015 12:44:26 GMT -5
^I like all of these things^ ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Jul 24, 2015 13:15:00 GMT -5
It would be nice if the Call of Duty franchise did more to tie its games together into one timeline; if 3ARC, IW, and SHG are making a mechanically similar games it would be nice if something was done to tie them all together. TL:DR - Needs more WEEERRRLD building. This is why I love 3arc Zombies. It does all of that and then some. What started out as a mini game bonus mode turned into a massive universe with one coherent story told in easter eggs, cut scenes, a computer terminal in BO1 and audio clips. There are ties to the campaign as well. Seriously though I love just how insane the true story of Zombies is
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 2:19:03 GMT -5
It wouldn't be first time "bad" works of art sold well because the audience never asked for more. I don't necessarily believe CoD's campaigns are bad, rather it started with one really good campaign that was copied ad nauseum. Now the writers are stuck in a corner writing a variation of the same formula because other things are important. If CoD changes anything fundamental in its campaigns to allow for more creative freedom the tone would likely be the first. The writers will probably make the game more and more dark as the game's primary demographic ages. Maybe.
I love my semi-colons; they're like a period, but not.
|
|
|
Post by kylet357 on Jul 25, 2015 2:46:44 GMT -5
Am I the only one who thinks the BO2 campaign is great?
|
|
|
Post by kylet357 on Jul 25, 2015 12:23:58 GMT -5
I mean, Menendez is probably one of the better characters (if not the best) in the series. And as a general game character, he's good (though obviously not as much as other, more established characters, such as GLaDOS from Portal). With the non-linear plot, missions actually being affected by what you do while playing, and the multiple endings, it was also a pretty fresh change from previous titles.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Jul 25, 2015 13:48:12 GMT -5
I thought BO1 was better. BO2 campaign was mechanically better. Alternate endings and create a class. But BO1 was a better story IMO. Also Resnov was way better than Mendez. BO1 campaign was also connected to the zombies story in various ways.
Also BO1 had way more secrets going on. Bo2 was more straight forward
|
|
banana
True Banana
Zoro > Law
Posts: 1,577
|
Post by banana on Jul 25, 2015 16:43:20 GMT -5
Besides BO1's zombies connections, BO2's was better. Ghosts' campaign was good too
|
|
|
Post by kylet357 on Jul 25, 2015 16:52:55 GMT -5
I'd say Reznov is tied with Menendez, they're both very well done characters.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jul 25, 2015 22:35:08 GMT -5
Guys what if the PMC were the good guys the next time around That would actually be an interesting premise instead of "America and friends save the day."
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Jul 26, 2015 2:38:18 GMT -5
Ghosts' campaign was good too All 25 minutes of it.
|
|
|
Post by kylet357 on Jul 26, 2015 5:14:44 GMT -5
Guys what if the PMC were the good guys the next time around That would actually be an interesting premise instead of "America and friends save the day." I mean, technically you can consider Irons and Atlas anti-heroes. Sure, the stuff they're doing isn't exactly all that good but the reasons they do it for are.
|
|
|
Post by LeGitBeeSting on Jul 26, 2015 9:53:40 GMT -5
I couldn't even finish the Spoopy Ops:Ghost Doge campaign. I just got so bored that I just stopped playing and uninstalled.
|
|