sgc_meltdown said:
I'd just do other stuff like restricting weaponry
So it would be System Shock 2 all over again?
System Shock 2 Grunt said:
Yay! After pouring three levels'worth of cyber modules into my standard weapon skill I, cybernetically augmented trained soldier, can now use my hands to hold a pump-action shotgun! Oh boy!
Clearly the best implementation of weapon skills ever!
Such as?
Word.
sgc_meltdown said:
DraQ said:
Fire cone is much more natural, since it handles the problem that bullet must go somewhere as well as implicitly handling stuff like range/hit probability relationship.
I think a fire cone counts as the larger reticule, random spread thing the op didn't like
That's tough luck, since I don't know of anything that would represent poor accuracy better than poor accuracy.
The only issue might be portrayal of it, because bullets flying all around the screen when you're aiming straight are a bit WTF - not so much when your character clearly can't hold the weapon steadily enough.
Also, Deus Ex isn't very good example, since you could achieve admirable accuracy regardless of your skill if you waited for reticle to contract. Good implementation if you want to prohibit only run&gun use of weapons, bad otherwise.
autoaim already happens in rpgs, this is about negotiating how much of the take that player reflexes get
remember we're talking stats here and not just a sticky snap-to crosshair
when autoaiming a fixed reticule already implies a cone of effect with all the behind the scenes stuff you like about it.
No, it doesn't.
Autoaim would happen in RPGs if the game got to decide what you really meant when issuing attack command and, for example, targetted vulnerable mage rather than his meaty summon you clicked on if your character had high enough skill. Autoaim doesn't override player's skill, it overrides player's attack orders and I don't think I need to say how bad it is when game tries to think for the player.
Moreso, since autoaim overrides player input, a skilled player would benefit for playing possibly unskilled character since this would mean less of his input being overridden - polar opposite of an RPG.
There is a reason why autoaim disappeared or became optional in all but consoleturd FPSes as soon as mouselook became popular.
when I said chance to hit at all I was referring a binary outcome gate with further elaboration by stats upon success so yes, my point being that player skill would determine whether you would have the chance to succeed in the first place
again this is all moving goalposts
Why? Since when is removal player skill from a fucking *GAME* a goal? RPG is about adding *CHARACTER* skill, not removal of *PLAYER* skill.
If I don't want good build to suddenly abolish the need for my own tactical skills or puzzle solving skills, or not-getting-buttfucked-by-deceptive-fucks skill, why should it abolish my aiming skill if the game is fucking RT FPP and requires me to aim manually?
cRPGs are not really a genre, they are design element - if you introduce an intermediate layer of character stats between interface and the gameworld, make those stats variables that are player influenced but also have some sort of inertia, you have a cRPG. If those stats have a great impact on how you play the game, ideally forcing completely different approach for completely different stats, then you have a good RPG. If stat system is unified (all the other characters also use it) and if there are also stat-independent C&C - even better, but all genres benefit from C&C and unified mechanics.
So, if you insert this character layer into a tactical game, you have a tactical RPG, if you insert it into a hypothetical blob crawler with premade party and no level-ups, you have a blob crawler cRPG, and, if you put it into an FPS, you have an RT FPP RPG.
If instead of perfecting the character layer whilst broadening and deepening its influence on the game you strive to make the tactical part less tactical, or FPS part less FPSy, you're doing it wrong.
Also, autoaim introduces entire new set of problems when weapons are not hitscan.
hilarious inclusion of helpful leading reticule, hot zone or ghost image in relation to target vector and speed with such weapons equipped with greatly lowered damage elsewhere
seriously talking non hitscan here is like wondering how a wizard is going to aim his fireball in the infinity engine so you can go ahead and give your own solution
Indeed it is. And for a good reason - THE solution is exactly what infinity engine does - landing the fireball where I tell it, rather than trying to guess what I really meant and then overriding my precise and direct command.
And if not trying to make it smart is the right way to make the interface work, why change this philosophy when there arises the need to add skill-based error?
Just add randomized error to my command and get it over with.
I'd probably make the stats do work elsewhere like splash damage, reduction of friendly fire, lock on speed etc
Except my skills have nothing to do with how much damage will a rocket do in its kill radius or what energy do my bullets carry.
My skills influence accuracy - so lets make them influence accuracy.
My skills influence reload speed - lets make them influence reload speed.
My skills influence recoil management, ability to re-aim the weapon quickly or maintain aim on the target and handling in general - make them do so.
My skills also influence stupid fuck-ups, like injuring myself or damaging my weapon - critical failures.
That's it - why do you insist on applying singular adjustments to individual derived aspects, if they won't even work as intended and when a simple modification of base stat would do?
Why do you try to reinvent obvious solutions? We are not at fucking bethpizda and you're not fucking Todd Howard, FFS.
