[aTam]

I saw the POE video teaser and was excited but have one quick question.

In BF2 you have a random cone of fire and zero recoil. This makes hitting anything completely random and to make things short I hate it.

Will POE take a more realistic approach with accuracy and make use of a recoil system?

[Flyingdebris]

I prefer recoil over cone. It takes quick thinking, smart gun control, and good mouse control to fight effectively. Where as cone of fire, there's nothing you can do to fight it.

[Evil.Iguana]

Both. Recoil is a given. The shape of the human body combined with the force of the gunpowder causes the muzzle to rise. The cone of fire is there to simulate times where the gunsight is not pointed exactly in the direction of view. Try to shoot while running at full speed. You won't be able to predict where the bullets will go very accurately, even if you can keep your eyes on the target.

There is also the consideration that no gun is perfectly accurate, so there will be some randomness even when firing from a perfectly still supported position. The only way to get rid of that would be to fire a gun in a total vacuum, with extremely precise measurements and tolerances on a molecular level.

Of course, BF2 overdoes the cone of fire by a large margin, making machine guns that are supposed to be useful out to 500 yards completely useless against anyone not inside of 10.

[aTam]

Well I think BF2 has potentially good infantry combat but the cone of fire and constant annoying artillery ruins it.

I pray for POE

[Krazny]

Actually,
The deviation caused by the human body while sighting a target is in the shape of a sideways figure eight with the x part on top of the target.

The muzzle traces this shape and depending on when you pull the trigger the bullet goes somewhere on that 8.

[Flyingdebris]

well like e. Iguana mentioned, slight cone of fire would still be needed to similulate how guns are not laser accurate, as well as a strong cone for people who are moving.

[aTam]

Nooo.

Cone of fire = bad

Just make strong recoil standing up, that way you can burst and be rewarded.

Nothing is worse then random cones of fire.

[Evil.Iguana]

aTam, on Dec 25 2005, 02:09 PM, said:

Nooo.

Cone of fire = bad

Just make strong recoil standing up, that way you can burst and be rewarded.

Nothing is worse then random cones of fire.

So in other words you can be running full tilt and jumping over obstacles with your sniper rifle and yet you can fire with pinpoint precision? Sorry, cone of fire has to stay, else we recreate the intricacies of sniping in UT 2004.

[KillaKilla]

Cone of fire rewards burst fire more than recoil does. Remember DoD, where there was no point to burst-fire, because your 3rd shot is just as accurate as your 29th? A combination of the two is always, always necessary, to some degree. Even DoD had some cone of fire, for jumping, running and crouch-moving. BF2 could use a bit more recoil, and a bit less cone-of-fire, but to totally remove either one of them would be foolish. The only thing that should even come close to no upward recoil would be LMGs in a supported position.

[aTam]

No that's not what I mean, obviously there is going to be some cone of fire.

The cone of fire in bf2 when running makes 99% of the bullets miss the guy 1 foot infront of you.

In CAL, allot of people hate Bf2 and DoDS, and by allot I mean 90% of the teams left the league because of this issue. I'm just hoping the POE team addresses this properly. Like you say, yes there needs to be *some* cone of fire to running people, jumping people, snipers, but crouching and from 50 feet away I should be able to take somebody down!

[Some Guy]

cal hates it because it makes it to hard for them to hit stuff when they are bunny hopping

[Flyingdebris]

cone of fire should primarily apply when you aren't in ironsights to imply shooting from the hip or whatever. Apply it in the usual manner. i.e. running is more inaccurate than standing still, etc etc.

Ironsights on all weapons should have a tiny, TINY, cone of fire appropriate to the weapon to simulate that some guns and ammo types are more (or less) accurate than each other, exept for the most accurate of sniper rifles, if they get any cone it should be imperceptible.

Now since the guns would be really accurate aside from a little bit of cone, FAR less cone than bf2 has. You add in recoil appropriate to the weapon and ammunition used. Then it is up to the player to control his weapon.

[Living Ghost]

99% recoil, 1% cone.

There, I have now settled the biggest dispute in world history, so I have brought on world peace. That, is how much I rock.

[Lord of all Hedgehogs]

I agree with LG (oh noes...) and flyingdebris: we need a tiny cone of fire to simulate weapons' inevitable inaccuracy (they're no laser guns) and loads of recoil, both depending on the weapon and the position of the shooter.

[Recon_Team]

A mix. Slight cone of fire with a largely recoil based system. The weapons still have to be much more accurate than in BF2 however.

[Zyklon]

Recoil should be used by any means. Instead of cone fire, however, I'd prefer having heavy weapon sway on all weapons, which is much less random than cone fire. I'm talking about aligning front and rear sights of the gun like in older versions of DoD, and/or the sway they are going to implement in the HEAT-Mod for HL2, or in TC:E for Wolfenstein: ET.. Cone fire is one of the worst things ever invented in the gaming history.

[Hell_Sniper_IMH]

Recoil is better because you can just aim low in most games like ghost recon and let the recoil on full auto go from center mass to head
I'm sure special forces uses the cone on the FN SCAR-H it really sucks making what should be an exceptional gun crappy at medium range while the m4 is like a sniper rifle

[rskhan29]

Decreased cone fire for out of iron sights, but 99% recoil when in ironsights. It is a bit ridiculous when you are aiming with ironsights at a head popping out from behind a crate and none of your shots hit despite your ironsights being directly over him.

I also think that there should be little to no accuracy bonus when in prone. The advantage of prone should be that in long range battles your surface area that can be hit is reduced. The fire fights in Battlefield 2 are ridiculous. Whenever 2 people meet 10 feet apart they both dive into prone position to get any decent accuracy. Call me crazy but in real life at that range you would be dead before you hit the ground. Medium and long range battles should be all about markmanship, but short range gun fights should be struggles of reflexes(obviously markmanship is involved too, but Im guessing most people can hit targets at 10 feet).

This post has been edited by rskhan29: 29 December 2005 - 09:06 PM

[Living Ghost]

Prone neeeeeeds to have an accuracy bonus. I usually just crouch, and pick him off while he is bunny-dolphin diving.

I see you've been playing CoD2 ehy? The Thompson shots don't hit at all in IS mode. The bar is more accurate than the sniper rifles. :\

[rskhan29]

Living Ghost, on Dec 29 2005, 09:05 PM, said:

Prone neeeeeeds to have an accuracy bonus. I usually just crouch, and pick him off while he is bunny-dolphin diving.

I see you've been playing CoD2 ehy? The Thompson shots don't hit at all in IS mode. The bar is more accurate than the sniper rifles. :\

Crouch is okay, but dont you feel its ridiculous that every one jumps into prone position even at point blank ranges? Maybe a slight accuracy boost over crouch, but not much.

I have played CoD2 and I dont know what you're talking about. Ever gun hits in IS mode, and the sniper rifle is deadly. But CoD2 has no recoil which is bad and overpowers the automatic weapons and kinda makes it irrelevent to this topic.

This post has been edited by rskhan29: 29 December 2005 - 09:32 PM