Have you guys seen this vid from tripleWRECK? Explains a lot about why I feel like I am whiffing with hand cannons sometimes.

- No text -

I have the solution.

First of all, you remove all bloom and randomness from the game (except for hip fire). The bullet goes to the center of your reticle every single time when you aim down sights.

Second of all, you then adjust the bullet magnetism and aim assist for each type of weapon individually. So hand cannons, which hit hard and demand precision, should have low aim assist and magnetism, whereas guns like auto rifles should have higher. The bullet never goes anywhere but the center, however it then just requires more skill to put the center on the target in the first place.

Hip fire stays the way it is now.

Now when you miss, it is always on you. Weapons balanced and frustration eliminated.

Wow, so hard.

Have you guys seen this vid from tripleWRECK? Explains a lot about why I feel like I am whiffing with hand cannons sometimes.

I take issue with his "Bullets need to land exactly where you aim them every single time" argument. You can't make every gun 100% accurate at long range and expect the game to be remotely balanced. IMO the mistake Destiny makes is that there is no visual indicator to the player that their gun's accuracy is less than perfect. I had zero problem with Bloom in Reach (I actually think removing bloom ruined the game), because it was visually communicated well. Your reticule would grow and shrink as you fired, giving you a clear indication of the limits of your gun's accuracy. You knew that your bullet would land within the reticule every single time. This also put more control in the player's hands. If I was using my DMR to take long range shots at a target, I could pace my shots so that I only fired when my gun's accuracy was at its maximum potential. But if I'm engaging a target up close, I could fire a bit faster because I didn't need the same level of accuracy. The had the added benefit of slowing down the average TtK at long range (since you would fire slower to maintain accuracy). It allowed players to move around the map without worrying about getting shredded by a DMR at long range in less than a second.

And even without talking about bloom, all the reticule a in the Halo games varied in size to properly communicate the accuracy of each weapon.

Destiny doesn't do any of that, really. Most of the primary weapons are equipped with these super pinpoint scopes that create a false sense of accuracy. Even if we take recoil out of the picture, most primary weapons struggle to send their bullets exactly where your reticule says the bullet is going to go, which creates confusion. What Destiny's weapons really need is a form of hollow sight that detects the Range of your target and adjusts the size of your reticule according to your gun's potential accuracy at that range. So if I paint my sight over a target that is within my gun's ideal range, the reticule would stay small to indicate that my shots will land exactly where I want them to at this range. If I then target an enemy outside ideal range, my reticule would grow to reflect my lack of perfect accuracy at that range.

I do think the Last Word was sort of outside of it`s effective range, and the shotgun clip was in the air. In that sense these are more like propaganda clips. That being said I see where he is coming from. And I too have felt how unrewarding hand cannons can feel at times. The base accuracy seems unreasonably low, especially on the initial shot. Still, bloom cone must have reached the outer ring not far from were the other player is standing. Watching the clips closely the shots fired don`t seem to actually go outside outer bloom ring(?), so technically the UI is doing it`s job conveying your chances of hitting at that range. Theoretically, the system is something you can adapt to, it will reward skill, and how it works will be totally transparent. But, that is not all there is to it. Hand cannons are acting a bit weird and can hit or miss further away or closer than that. That is the bit that makes it seem a bit random, and then it might as well be random. Either way, apologists blame latency and maybe that people not pacing their shots, and ranters blame ghost bullets or bloom in general for any odd miss wether they should or not.

I can see that the initial accuracy feels off, but I don`t really want cross map Hand Cannon duels like year one. Hopefully his point comes across, and Bungie can tune it to feel "more right" (patent pending). I got to say, comparatively, that Tripple made his point in a calm and mature way.. Except the people universally hated bloom in Reach comment, --I mean, I am sure I was not alone in thinking bloom in itself is not a terrible mechanic back then. I am not saying every sentient being on the planet has to agree with someone for that person to generalize a bit, but "universally hated" are TWO states of undeniable solid end-of-story absoluteness.

I obviously do not feel like weapons "always, always should hit what you point at". (Do you suppose he means Bungie should just up the recoil a bit, and remove the reticle when you are out of range or something so you can`t really point at what you can`t hit?). But, despite all that I think the vid still was great, and props to him. Bungie will have to address this in some way now.

Have you guys seen this vid from tripleWRECK? Explains a lot about why I feel like I am whiffing with hand cannons sometimes.

I take issue with his "Bullets need to land exactly where you aim them every single time" argument. You can't make every gun 100% accurate at long range and expect the game to be remotely balanced.

Yes you can. See my post about adjusting aim assist and bullet magnetism. Have you ever tried to kill a teammate while they are moving in Halo with the Battle rifle? It's outrageously hard, because both attributes are set to zero when you shoot at people on your own team.

Bullets can go exactly where you are pointing, but you can make it so that actually pointing at someone's head is more difficult depending on the weapon. Likewise, bullet magnetism can be set to a different value depending on the range.

If a bullet veers off course, is should only do so in order to hit. Never to miss. I think that's a good principle to follow when aiming down sights. If you are missing, it should be because you aren't actually aiming at the head, which can be made easier or harder by adjusting the aim assist across gun types.

I'm an adamsnt believer that bullets should go where you point them. That's where recoil and range come into play. Recoil stops you pointing where you want to, and range should just affect aim stickiness and damage dropoff.

If I shoot someone a mile away, I shouldnt have as much "sticky" aiming. That's fine. If I still manage to hit them and only do 1 damage, I know I need to get closer, and that's fine too. If Im using a gun at an inapprppriate range and the recoil keeps me off target, that's also fine. All of those scenarios are a result of poor play on my part.

But if a dice roll decides whether I live or die, that's not okay. I know it might seem like a minor distinction, because bullet ghosting is also a result of range, but it negatively impacts gameplay feel when there are better, smarter design options.

- No text -

The main takeaway is that if I have a shot lined up, even if I'm out of range, it should hit.
That is why there is fall off damage right? To make weapons more effective at their intended range?

I realize this isn't battlefield with bullet drop and non-hitscan lag projectiles. Other weapons, such as ARs and Pulses, will hit outside of the range drop off. Damage is reduced at those ranges, but I can still get hits. Why are HCs so different? Is it just the fear of the cross map counter snipes from Vanilla?

I'm fine with bloom and damage drop off for guns. In fact instead of tweaking damage sometimes I would prefer they adjust bloom and other factors on guns, but that doesn't matter here. My shots shouldn't just disappear because someone moved 5 feet back. When the patch first dropped, I thought my HCs were totally ineffective since I suddenly couldn't hit anything! I raged precisely because I had perfect shots that had zero effect.

It's the same thing as Fusion Rifle shots disappearing as soon as you die, so people can live through an exchange because they have hit-scan weapons vs. non-hitscan.

I feel similar. Either:

1- Bullets should always go where the reticule is pointing and aim assist and damage falloff should be adjusted.

OR

2- The reticule needs to communicate the loss of accuracy.

OR

3- Both. How? Bullet hoses should conform to solution #2 and non-bullet hoses should conform to solution #1. For example, Auto Rifles & Machine Guns would have bloom. Hand Cannons and Scout Rifles would not, but their range/damage falloff & stickiness would have to be adjusted.

You know, the more I think about it the less I like solution #3 and am leaning more & more toward #2. I'm fine w/ bloom as long as I know it's happening.

I'm fine with bloom and damage drop off for guns

Then change the reticle to reflect that. The reticle for a hand cannon is a tiny dot. If they changed it to say, the circle of the Halo 1 pistol indicating the area where the bullet could possibly hit, this isn't a problem since you know the bullet will land within the circle, but not necessarily where.

I actually had this problem with counter-strike. I could point-blank spray someone with a p90 from 10-15 yards and miss 90% of my bullets due to bloom. The UI didn't make it look like that though, and so it looked like I was aiming center mass, even adjusting for recoil, and I'd still not quite get the job done.

This video is exactly why I disliked the range nerf to hand cannons... the range he is at in the video is the "sweet spot" for high impact HC's that previously had better range -- out past shotgun range, still careful and measured shooting.

Interested to se some of the new "high impact long range" hand cannons that are going to be dropping now. Maybe to get back to where I liked to be. I hope.

If you've ever fired an actual firearm, especially a pistol of some sort, then you know that it's actually quite challenging to learn to hit your target even at shortish distances (20-30 feet). You can aim down sights as perfectly as you think you are and still miss. Maybe you're hand squeezed too much and tugged left or right, maybe you weren't looking perfectly down the aim line, etc. The main point is that it's tougher than you think.

Our guardians are running around, whipping themselves in 360s, jumping up and down. All this action SHOULD hamper gun accuracy, and I am actually fine with guns missing their target IF there were equally obvious UI elements indicating the likelihood of missing.

I am all for the expanded reticule matching the "cone" that bullets can travel in, however, then the reticule has to be aware of the target you are aiming at and it's distance from you. I don't think the devs want to have to store even more info like that in memory.

I think, in theory, the gun should always shoot where it's pointed. To counter this, it should be much harder to point it where you think you are. Perhaps add some small twitches and spasms to the players hand/arm/body. I mean, maybe I'm weird, but have you ever just tried to sit still and felt your own heart beat move your body? The idea that we can hold a heavy weapon perfectly in place is unreal.

Maybe all this is too complicated for a video game, but ghost bullets don't feel right. Feels unfair, unjust, and I think that's what people are really upset about.

If you've ever fired an actual firearm, especially a pistol of some sort, then you know that it's actually quite challenging to learn to hit your target even at shortish distances (20-30 feet). You can aim down sights as perfectly as you think you are and still miss. Maybe you're hand squeezed too much and tugged left or right, maybe you weren't looking perfectly down the aim line, etc. The main point is that it's tougher than you think.

Video games are not, and should not be like real life. They should be about what is fun.

I am all for the expanded reticule matching the "cone" that bullets can travel in, however, then the reticule has to be aware of the target you are aiming at and it's distance from you. I don't think the devs want to have to store even more info like that in memory.

We are talking bytes of additional memory here. 11 guardians x 3 co-ordinates each = 33 co-ordinates to store. if they are 32 bit floating point numbers, that's a mere 44 bytes. Out of 8 GB. The game probably already knows how far they are away from you anyway, since it calculates damage dropoff.

I think, in theory, the gun should always shoot where it's pointed. To counter this, it should be much harder to point it where you think you are. Perhaps add some small twitches and spasms to the players hand/arm/body.

Adding shitty control is the last thing you should do. What you suggest should be accomplished by decreasing auto aim and bullet magnetism. Both make it harder to hit your target if you aren't aiming right at them.

If the solution is to wait longer between shots I'd rather just have a weapon with a lower RoF.

If the solution is to wait longer between shots I'd rather just have a weapon with a lower RoF.

So, I don't think that bloom is the problem, if we define bloom as the cone of accuracy getting larger after you take a shot.

The problem is the cone of accuracy is larger than people expect with HC's, they expect the cone to be smaller than the target's head until the point in which damage drop-off begins. That is not the case. The cone of accuracy is larger, and thus shots are missed, yet people think it should have hit.

Video games are not, and should not be like real life. They should be about what is fun.

These aren't mutually exclusive categories. There are things in "real life" that are fun. And people do all sorts of things for fun that are really, really difficult. Example: Have you ever watched the average person play golf?

To me, the issue with ghost bullets is that it seems unfair and this lack of fairness impedes the game's ability to be "fun". Given that our understanding of fairness is almost exclusively based on our experience of "real life", it makes sense that we would look to "real life" for answers to virtual unfairness (though this doesn't prove that this will be a sufficient answer, just the most likely first place to look for sufficient answers).

I look at it this way, we have a physical impossibility being represented with a virtual possibility. It is physically impossible to hold something perfectly still, yet in the game it is virtually possible. To compensate for this false perfection, Bungie has chosen to add randomness to accuracy. I am suggesting that Bungie change their compensation by aligning with what is physically possible because, frankly, it would be more relatable to our actual experience, which would trigger a greater sense of empathy with our character and would not trigger our sense of unfairness as often.

It doesn't have to be hand shaking, or body twitches, but I know that I could more easily accept the fact that I missed if I knew that the game was trying to model the actual physical difficulty of aiming a weapon more.

It doesn't have to be hand shaking, or body twitches, but I know that I could more easily accept the fact that I missed if I knew that the game was trying to model the actual physical difficulty of aiming a weapon more.

This sounds like a recipe for total disaster. How many players understand the "physical difficulty of aiming a weapon" well enough to know in the moment of failing and feeling utter frustration wash over you somehow translate that into fun because "oh hey it's like real life no worries?"

I'd drop that game like a sack of bricks, and I'd bet many more would as well.

- No text -

I am suggesting that Bungie change their compensation by aligning with what is physically possible because, frankly, it would be more relatable to our actual experience, which would trigger a greater sense of empathy with our character and would not trigger our sense of unfairness as often.

It would make the controls feel janky and unresponsive.

- No text -

I've been a scratch golfer (no handicap) since I was 15. Considered turning pro after college and just couldn't get the startup capital I needed to give it a try. The average golfer can't break 100 (par 72) if they are actually following all the rules (e.g. counting all penalty strokes), though.

I'm probably a bit more masochistic than most in that I'm willing to work really hard for a long period of time at things that are really difficult. Which probably points to why I'm more inclined to imbue a game with difficulties corresponding to the real world than others.

It doesn't have to be hand shaking, or body twitches, but I know that I could more easily accept the fact that I missed if I knew that the game was trying to model the actual physical difficulty of aiming a weapon more.

This sounds like a recipe for total disaster. How many players understand the "physical difficulty of aiming a weapon" well enough to know in the moment of failing and feeling utter frustration wash over you somehow translate that into fun because "oh hey it's like real life no worries?"

Me. Which I guess is why this doesn't bother me. I know some rounds will miss, so I make my decision to get in a shootout or run away based on that, and not the ideal scenario of every round hitting their head.

I've been a scratch golfer (no handicap) since I was 15. Considered turning pro after college and just couldn't get the startup capital I needed to give it a try. The average golfer can't break 100 (par 72) if they are actually following all the rules (e.g. counting all penalty strokes), though.

I'm probably a bit more masochistic than most in that I'm willing to work really hard for a long period of time at things that are really difficult. Which probably points to why I'm more inclined to imbue a game with difficulties corresponding to the real world than others.

As was I. I still play, but not as much nor do I practice as much. When I was in middle and high school, I would literally get up and play 18 holes every day during the summer, and be done by lunch. I loved it. Your only obstacle was yourself. Of course, I don't have the time to play that much anymore.

I generally feel like all sports video games are a huge waste of time. I might have explained why before, but one of the many reasons is that just playing the real sport is far more rewarding and interesting. Most FPS games work because they are not trying to be realistic, and thus present a different challenge that can't be replicated by shooting for real.

It's an interesting thought, but no thanks. That stuff is fine for the hyper-realistic military sims, I don't want it anywhere near my space magic.

I watched this last night and my first thought was that this is crap. But then I began to think about bungles description of the cone effect, and how they want weapons to have roles and it really makes sense. He's using the weapons at the far far end of their intended range. It's a good chance you won't hit your target with a short ranged weapon. I think the issue is that many became comfortable with their y1 hand cannons being good at almost any range and simply failed to adapt. I loved autos through all of year one but when they really killed the range it ruined them for me. Even the best ranged ones weren't as effective as pulses or scouts for me. My avg kill distance is 20-22m which is really high for destiny. I don't even snipe. So it's justified that I would use a weapon that's in my wheelhouse in terms of range.

Maybe there are better ways of accomplishing the goal, but where they are at now isn't really that bad. I think the bigger issue is that ttk on close range weapons isn't often quick enough to counter shotgun rusher types. A fast firing hc should be able to put them down quickly but usually don't. I'm also surprised they didn't buff high impact autos. They feel left out. They are too slow up close and too weak at medium range.

Did we watch the same video? It looked like he was in the absolute sweet spot intended range for hand cannons!

It would be nice if they made a video from the Sandbox team that very explicitly showed the expected range and sweet spot for weapon types so we would know.

It could be boring as all get up, but as long as we can walk away knowing with certainty what distances we should be engaging with which weapons, I'd be satisfied.

- No text -

It doesn't have to be hand shaking, or body twitches, but I know that I could more easily accept the fact that I missed if I knew that the game was trying to model the actual physical difficulty of aiming a weapon more.

This sounds like a recipe for total disaster. How many players understand the "physical difficulty of aiming a weapon" well enough to know in the moment of failing and feeling utter frustration wash over you somehow translate that into fun because "oh hey it's like real life no worries?"

Me. Which I guess is why this doesn't bother me. I know some rounds will miss, so I make my decision to get in a shootout or run away based on that, and not the ideal scenario of every round hitting their head.

Yeah but most people don't have the knowledge of firearms you do, surely? We're talking about scrubs from middle class suburbs who think you might be robbing the place.

Did we watch the same video? It looked like he was in the absolute sweet spot intended range for hand cannons!

I heartily disagree. I'd say that's the outer reaches of HC's intended range. That's the distance at which I feel I can actually start to engage with a HC. Any further than that & I'm just wasting time / risking my neck.

Take another look at it here before he's zoomed in: https://youtu.be/bZ24eDTg_s4?t=31s

He's quite a ways away. That feels like pulse or maybe scout rifle range to me.

- No text -

Yes you can. See my post about adjusting aim assist and bullet magnetism. Have you ever tried to kill a teammate while they are moving in Halo with the Battle rifle? It's outrageously hard, because both attributes are set to zero when you shoot at people on your own team.

It'll be a long time before I forget how Avateur no-scoped me on the middle hill on Valhalla just to show how hard it was to do exactly that.

"LIKE THIS"

BETRAYAL

Needle in a haystack shot, that one. Haha.

It's an interesting thought, but no thanks. That stuff is fine for the hyper-realistic military sims, I don't want it anywhere near my space magic.

This most absolutely.

BETRAYAL

That is the punchline to roughly half of my fondest Halo memories.

BETRAYAL

That is the punchline to roughly half of my fondest Halo memories.

I dub thee Prophet of Tru7h.

And he didn't even touch on the physics of ballistics (which might not even apply to the smart matter bullets of Destiny, if they're not just raw energy in the first place) which make it even more complicated not just to hit but to do the damage most people expect them to do. Firearms are a rabbithole to try to understand.

This was the sweet spot for a long time with HC's. Far enough to not be able to easily rush you, close enough to aim effectively. I'd put this at solid mid-range. If I had to round it might go to long range, but it's really the middle ground, and often where lots of combat happens.

Definitely approaching the closer part of scout range and right in the middle of pulse range IMO. And, with the doctrine archetype, well within auto-rifle range. HC's can't compete well in this domain where most other weapons at least have archetypes that shine here.

I think Bungie even admitted this by mentioning a high impact longer range HC as a "new" archetype that would be dropping.

This was the sweet spot for a long time with HC's. Far enough to not be able to easily rush you, close enough to aim effectively. I'd put this at solid mid-range. If I had to round it might go to long range, but it's really the middle ground, and often where lots of combat happens.

Definitely approaching the closer part of scout range and right in the middle of pulse range IMO. And, with the doctrine archetype, well within auto-rifle range. HC's can't compete well in this domain where most other weapons at least have archetypes that shine here.

I think Bungie even admitted this by mentioning a high impact longer range HC as a "new" archetype that would be dropping.

Back when HC's were amazing I would definitely engage at that range and further. It was pretty great! Now? I'll begin an engagement at that range, but I'll want to get in closer so I can reliably land shots. I'd like my HC's to have more range, I love em, but I don't think they're intended to be effective at anything past the range he's testing them at. And.. that video kinda proves they weren't meant to be reliable at that distance.

How I see effective ranges (with some humor):

.                         (titan melee)
[SG]                      (shotgun)
[-WM-]                    (warlock melee)
[--AR--]
[---HC---]
         X                (his target)
        [----PR----]
         [-----SR-----]   (scout rifle)
[---------Sniper---------]


Edit: Added Titan Melee & target range.

Did we watch the same video? It looked like he was in the absolute sweet spot intended range for hand cannons!

Sweet spot? I think not. That is easily classified as a mid-range engagement, whether one would consider it short-mid or mid is your personal opinion. I do believe that HC's are supposed to be short to short-mid weapons and he's is at what I would define as the edge of the short-mid zone. Again, this is my definition of the range.

The sweet spot would be dead in the middle of short range. Before a shotty would kill and right about where most fusions are effective. The placement in this video is where Auto's should be at their prime and where PR's are now.

And I don't care even a little about crucible other than that you weirdos begging for nerfs shouldn't affect my weapons in PvE.

Yeah but most people don't have the knowledge of firearms you do, surely? We're talking about scrubs from middle class suburbs who think you might be robbing the place.

I don't even think that plays into it. I've had plenty of experience with firearms (mainly the M-16, M-9, and AR-15, but I've shot various other handguns, long rifles, and shotguns), and I'd still quit playing if they tried to model that. Adding randomness, twitching, spasms, etc, just because it's "realistic" would be awful. Look at the Last of Us. The shooting in that game sucks, and that game has a pretty good justification for doing the floaty, waving aiming that it does. It doesn't make it good, it makes it frustrating and shitty.

- No text -

Yeah but most people don't have the knowledge of firearms you do, surely? We're talking about scrubs from middle class suburbs who think you might be robbing the place.

I don't even think that plays into it. I've had plenty of experience with firearms (mainly the M-16, M-9, and AR-15, but I've shot various other handguns, long rifles, and shotguns), and I'd still quit playing if they tried to model that. Adding randomness, twitching, spasms, etc, just because it's "realistic" would be awful. Look at the Last of Us. The shooting in that game sucks, and that game has a pretty good justification for doing the floaty, waving aiming that it does. It doesn't make it good, it makes it frustrating and shitty.

Biggest reason I couldn't stand it. Coming from something like Mass Effect 3, which wasn't perfect of course, Last of Us was nigh unplayable for me.

None of my friends wanted to be on my team because my snapshot snipes were waaaaaay too good. Original LAN party Halo was best halo.

I'm an adamsnt believer that bullets should go where you point them. That's where recoil and range come into play. Recoil stops you pointing where you want to, and range should just affect aim stickiness and damage dropoff.

If I shoot someone a mile away, I shouldn't have as much "sticky" aiming. That's fine. If I still manage to hit them and only do 1 damage, I know I need to get closer, and that's fine too. If Im using a gun at an inapprppriate range and the recoil keeps me off target, that's also fine. All of those scenarios are a result of poor play on my part.

But if a dice roll decides whether I live or die, that's not okay. I know it might seem like a minor distinction, because bullet ghosting is also a result of range, but it negatively impacts gameplay feel when there are better, smarter design options.

I'm in this camp as well. We're space traveling magic using spec ops immortals but we don't know how to align sights to a level of accuracy equal to 1990's US military standards? It doesn't make any damn sense. Further frustrating the issue is how when hip-firing you get a bloom indicator, but it's not present when ADS. That tells me that my visual reticle bounce is my bloom indicator, except it's not. There are so many tools for ensuring that weapons are only effective at specific ranges and rates of fire, just as you say, that making the sights unreliable is just being mean to the players.

If I had to guess, they did the art assuming a CoD style of gunplay, but designed the gunplay independently. Then they never fixed the art.

Edit: Added Titan Melee & target range.

Nice graph. Though I'd propose the following additions:

.                         (titan melee)
[SG]                      (shotgun)
[--AR--]
[---HC---]
         X                (his target)
        [----PR----]
         [-----SR-----]   (scout rifle)
[---------Sniper---------]
[----------------------------------SB-----------------------------------------------] (Starkiller Base)
[-----------------------------------------WM-----------------------------------------] (Warlock melee)


- No text -