Aiming - how to eliminate twitch shooting

[titsmcgee852]

I have described this before (perhaps on a different forum?); basically, the back sight moves independently of the back sight (like IRL), and the more you move the more unaligned they become. This could be an effective way for people to stop twitch shooting and instant rifle shouldering without relying on 'sway' (i.e. Red Orchestra: Ostfront). Keep in mind that the video is still a work in progress so it looks a wee bit dodgy at first.

Not the first time I've posted one of this guy's modding videos and almost certainly won't be the last; he seems to hit the mark.

 

[Roughbeak]

I seem to really like the gameplay - sounds, anims, map geometry!

 

[volcol]

I like it, I definitely think exertion should have an effect on the players ability to aim. However I think the example given is a little extreme, especially when standing still. Just picked up my Enfield and despite being utterly freezing and having just been for a jog - I could keep it almost perfectly still when using the sights.

To add to that, the majority of the 'sway' and 'twitching' I've found tends to affect the front sight more than the back sight. Just picked my rifle up again and it's still very difficult to have the rear sight sway like that with actually taking it out of my shoulder - which kind of defeats the point of aiming (as it then becomes stupidly difficult to target anything) Also - the front sight and rear sight more or less have to line up - or the shot will be of target. In the video it feels very much so like a case of - where ever the front sight is that's where the bullet will it.

 

[titsmcgee852]

Yeah I agree that it's pretty extreme. It's more just the concept that I wanted to post

 

[VonMudra]

Agreed with Volcol, that manner of eliminating twitch shooting just isn't all that effective. Anyways, I can post this vid of me and another actively twitch shooting at a russian in a reenactment. Look at how long it took for us to see, shoulder, aim, and fire:




In the end, I feel the best way to do this is indeed a bit of sway, but to more focus on suppression. Any soldier who has bullets coming down his way simply should not be able to fire off accurately, as realistically he would be shaking, scared, and trying to expose himself for as short a time as possible. Generally, what we want to accomplish is for not under fire (be they in ambush or in well concealed/covered positions) to be able to accurately aim and fire, but for troops under fire to be forced to adopt a defensive survival instinct, and to only respond with shooting in the general direction of the enemy, as it worked in real life.

 

[Kevino]

Agreed with Volcol, that manner of eliminating twitch shooting just isn't all that effective. Anyways, I can post this vid of me and another actively twitch shooting at a russian in a reenactment. Look at how long it took for us to see, shoulder, aim, and fire:




In the end, I feel the best way to do this is indeed a bit of sway, but to more focus on suppression. Any soldier who has bullets coming down his way simply should not be able to fire off accurately, as realistically he would be shaking, scared, and trying to expose himself for as short a time as possible. Generally, what we want to accomplish is for not under fire (be they in ambush or in well concealed/covered positions) to be able to accurately aim and fire, but for troops under fire to be forced to adopt a defensive survival instinct, and to only respond with shooting in the general direction of the enemy, as it worked in real life.

im pretty sure this is what you mean =

 

[LuckyOne]

Well certainly "some" encouragement could be made to rectify the so called twitch shooting, but there's no need to go over the top... Maybe if we keep the gunplay relatively realistic, but up the spawn times a bit, or make players spawn at some distance from the action, it would bolster the survival instincts a bit. On the other hand it might make people take even more risks, as they would percieve the reward of succesfully killing the attacker greater than the punishment of a long respawn.

The goal should be not to make the guns inaccurate, but make the players inaccurate. Good, immersive sounds and graphics can go a long way in succeeding in this, as they have way bigger psychological effect on humans than certain imposed restrictions.

 

[titsmcgee852]

Well from what I understand, the guns would still be accurate to where the front sight is pointing, and the player dictates how accurate he will be based on how much he is moving his body. Personally I would prefer this method to alleviate twitch shooting because after playing RO2's 'classic mode' (wish I could find a good video), irregular and unpredictable sway is just a pain in the ass, and frankly unrealistic unless it is modelled correctly (where your movements dictate in what fashion your weapon sways - unlike in RO2).

Now I am not saying that I don't want sway at all, because I definitely do, but I think a combination of both sway and sight alignment would be the most effective solution. Perhaps this can tie into suppression where the more you are suppressed, the more misaligned your sights are upon shouldering (and the as you are being suppressed down the iron sights, you twitch and become misaligned).

I trust you guys will get it right anyway.

 

[Pjosip]

One problem is, if you make it to hard to quickly aim and shoot in CQC people will resort to "camping".
I think that "starmina" should effect your sway a bit (no, randomly turning your gun 360° is not "a bit") wich means you wouldn't be able to sprint for few kilometers and snipe off enemies another kilometer away (obvious exagurating), but still CQC battle shouldn't be COD (aka jump around, sudden prone and that stuff), perhaps a 1 sec inability to shoot while going into aim could make a significant difference (it is all in the details).

Also I agree that surpression should have a noticable effect, tho I don't think it should influence aiming as much, but your visibility.
So if I have (sucsessfuly) peaked my head out and remembered where the gunner is, I could still (try) peek out and shoot at his location, less effectively with bolt action rifles but more effectivly with automatic weapons.

Also for the love of god don't make it that "peeking" behind covers means exposing only first 5 milimeters of your helmet, aye line or bust.

And for shooting at least shoulder size would be apropriate.

The 2 above things are hard to accomplish without some cover system (for wich I think should be intergrated as seamlessly as possible).

 

[Koenigstiger]

But being shot at would influence aiming you'd be flinching from bullets hitting the cover in front of you and whizzing by your head this isn't going to be America man 5 takes on the Wehrmacht.

I want suppression to affect aiming, I don't want to be laying down a good lot of suppressing fire and seeing my machine gunner being taken out simply because the shooter in cover saw the MG's position.

 

[VonMudra]

Bingo, and exactly the problem that FH2 has, that we wish to avoid, Koenigstiger.

Also, why is camping such a bad word in gaming? Reminds me of this comic:

 

[Koenigstiger]

There are times though where people "camp" (I hate that word by the way) unnecessarily

If the whole team is advancing and someone is just sitting behind the lines doing nothing but sitting there for an hour waiting for the enemy then that is a let down.

Defending a position is fine if you're team is defending

But I hate people who don't move up with the team when it's clear to move up fair enough if they are covering but Snipers who want to be that 1 man army I hate people like that.

I usually don't take the Sniper role but I view it as a defense against devastating weapons, whether that is taking out Machine guns or high ranking officers and leaders.

That's only one example though.

 

[VonMudra]

Sniper kits will be ingame, but ultra rare, maybe one per map per team IF that.

 

[Koenigstiger]

I have no problems with that.

I find I'm usually much more accurate with iron sights, I can't estimate distance and compensate for movement with a scope.

 

[Pjosip]

But being shot at would influence aiming you'd be flinching from bullets hitting the cover in front of you and whizzing by your head this isn't going to be America man 5 takes on the Wehrmacht.

I want suppression to affect aiming, I don't want to be laying down a good lot of suppressing fire and seeing my machine gunner being taken out simply because the shooter in cover saw the MG's position.

Oh no your aim should definitively be influenced, but still if the gunner is **** and doesen't kill you when you pop out and aim for 5 sechonds you should be able to kill him.

 

[Koenigstiger]

If you're a good enough shooter and 5 seconds is a long time to be exposed I'm sure your head would either be blown off by that machine gunner, A support shooter or the guys assaulting the position.

 

[Pjosip]

Exactly.
But if the gunner is a idiot, you get to be the hero!

 

[Koenigstiger]

The gunner is only half the problem, you also need to worry about his squad and teammates who will be closing in.

 

[Pjosip]

The gunner is only half the problem, you also need to worry about his squad and teammates who will be closing in.

Well, now we are discussing srategies instead ov mechanics

So my point:
Shooting under supression (and hitting something) = possible but you are more likely to die first.

 

[Koenigstiger]

Oh I know your point but I'm just saying.

If you're firing at the MG firing at you it should be damn near impossible to take him out due to the hellfire he's spitting at you, you'll need to either wait for the MG to reload or attempt a flanking manouver.


Or...TANK SUPPORT!

It shouldn't be as easy as just popping out under heavy fire and getting a shot off to get the MG.


Only luck should see this happen and only rare luck.