No, i think the gunplay in it is very very smooth, except if you are using a f2p weapon with crazy recoil.
also FYI its not an open beta but a porting process from Korea.
Warface is nowhere near as smooth nor sublime as Ironsight.
And it is an Open Beta especially since the game no longer exists in Korea, and is under the publishing branch of Aeria and the developers have been clear that they are open to changes in the game in their latest posts to the community.
No, it doesn't... you still need to have skill to kill with sniper near the enemy, otherwise he will have all the advantage.
Note when you begin scoping in with a sniper, the hip-fire reticle begins to grow smaller considerably as you approach the ADS scope overlay. You abuse this mechanic when you quickscope. This is the reason why everyone says quickscoping in this game is too easy.
And if you're using a sniper at close range you deserve to die most of the time, you're not using the sniper as it was meant to: long range shooting to hold down lanes of sight.
And what does moving have to do with sniping at close range? You can take advantage of the movement delay and shoot someone around a corner without them seeing you with a sniper with the current speed.
Something to keep in mind is take a Time-to-Kill of 0 (save for one's ping) is powerful indeed, especially when most other weapons can't have kill in a single headshot. My suggestion would be to make the single shot rifles "station-to-station" - nasty penalties for movement (even when scoped), slowed down accuracy on quick scoping, and heavy accuracy penalties for taking hits. If you want to snipe and be mobile, there's an SVD (or PSG, or XF-50) with your name on it.
This is the best solution I've also been trying to champion.
If you have a one-hit weapon, you get downsides for it. Moving with a sniper rifle makes the weapon too powerful in relation to other weapons.
Yeah, I get it. People love running around one-shotting, quick scoping, etc. It just feels a little crazy on the receiving end. I play a lot of CoD, and the sniping in Ironsight feels way more powerful. Just faced a team full of snipers, and my team was getting completely pooped on. It was actually kind of hilarious how we couldn't do anything. Everyone just leaving spawn and getting one hit. It just feels kind of off, especially considering how assault rifles have awful range and bullet spread, probably to make snipers more relevant.
Keep snipers as powerful as they are! Whatever. But please make assault rifles a little better at countering them. The damage drop-off feels too noticeable, and I'd imagine even with a hack that removes recoil, the bullets would still go all over the place given the programmed spread. Makes it really difficult to hit someone 25+ meters away prone, or sniping out a window.
Other than snipers, I'm really enjoying this game, and I hope it blossoms into a popular FPS!
The issue isn't as simple as whether are snipers imba or not. In the current state of the game, hit registration for weapons that require more than one bullet to kill is unreliable. This makes punishing snipers for missing shots or rewarding the skill required for good aim equally unreliable.
Once the netcode issue is settled I think the weapon meta can be more fleshed out.
I personally feel like the 50/50 Sniper issue is a bug.
I'm pretty sure it is too. In the netcode, damage updates are quite good, but movement updates could be much better. So what you initially begin shooting at the target, the shots register in the server. But if they start moving, that update doesn't reflect on your client, so on your screen you're landing shots and getting hit markers, but the server isn't registering it.
This is an issue that I highly expect will be improved soon.
Because of the bad lag/netcode even though i love this game I havent played it for like a month. When I asked if they was going to fix these issues I was told that they dont plan on adding servers or fixing this anytime soon. SO I was like basically saying I'm done. Yes I love the game, but hate their choices so if these things dont get adressed I can almost guaranteed this game will fail.
Did you read the Producer's letter? https://ironsight.aeriagames.com/news/188225/hq-report-1
Better then COD.
What does that have to do with anything?
With swing it feels more 'real'...
Does quick scoping feel more 'real' as well?
I know it is, but think with me. Which game need to be better in servers,netcode,etc..a game which is in open beta phase or a game that is here for 5 years? I'm just telling..if this game in open beta can have better netcode (even if it's not good) than a game with 5 years old it will probably be way better when it's launched right
Btw...I can get full bar ping when I'm in Portugal and servers in Germany and I find that amazing. (In Warface I get 2/3 bars and the servers are in Luxembourg)
It might have better netcode than a game 5 years in beta, there's no guarantee. Especially if people go around saying "it's fine how it is." If there's no talk among the community for improvement, then the developers will find no reason to. That's the point of having a beta and a community forum. For constructive criticism and feedback from the dedicated playerbase.
A fullbar of ping just means youre <= 100ms of ping. That's not exactly good. And testing of this game shows that the lag compensation is extremely aggressive and harms lower ping players.
Quick Scoping is a major selling point in Quick Action FPS games like IronSight...it doesn't make sense to remove such a vital mechanic to sniping just to compensate for an issue that someone feels is an issue with EVERY Gun.
Wait what, vital mechanic?
The sniper is supposed to be a weapon that is only viable at long range. The only vital mechanics are appropriate damage models and the ability to scope in for near 100% accuracy. What else is needed for a sniper to fulfill it's niche roll? If you want to take a sniper and make it viable in close range, you need the right skill for it. The consensus among the community is that quickscoping in this game is too easy.
Especially when we consider the current state of affairs where one hit kill weapons are far more reliable with the current state of affairs, it skews the playing field.
What exactly does that do aside from add a split/half split of a moment where you're accuracy is entirely out of your control in any way?
Stops quickscoping.
Maybe I'm used to worse. Have you ever played Warface? Well....the game is good but have lot more issues than this game and a lot of net code issues worse than what it is in here.
PS: That game is here for around 5 years. IronSight is in Beta phase..you can see the thing here can't you?
This is a logical fallacy.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as
I'm having tons of fun with this game, I don't understand the constant complains. Humans are never satisfied with the things they have.
Just because you're not having issues doesn't mean everyone else is not having problems.
I would say just "bad netcode"(and I don't find it that bad actually)...it's not even close to really bad/worse...trust me.
I feel like it's a fair argument, I wouldn't call it horrible. Does it make sense in game? No. But it's a fair argument for the mechanic.
Having realism only when its convenient is setting up a double standard. This brings up a slippery slope where every mechanic can be considered under that lens, and its clear that realism isn't the point of the game. So making arguments with realism as the basis is fallacious.
yea i am positive with the health argument, but i do not feel like the 10mm sway would be a problem, because i do not thing you are hip firing from base to base 2-3 bulets then while firing scoping in to have a problem that you missed the head while ADSing, as i said the hitbox is freaking big, 10mm won't make a difference, it is like saying "we cannot self control the spray so remove spray" that sway is nothing. And about the dot not being in the center of the screen... i played so many FPSes i really do not see it different that others
But why should there be sway? What does it add to the game? Adding elements that throw in randomness and chaos decrease the skill cap.
And let's say that you are right and that a 10mm sway is not a problem because of the size of the hitboxes. If that is the case, so then whats the point in having that sway if it's not going to affect gameplay anyway? For a sense of realism where we have regenerating health,hit-scan mechanics, etc?
There's no good reason to have weapon sway.
that's how real life works, then you ADS you move your body so yea, a 1mm up or down but it's not the problem, the hitbox of players if big
This is a horrible argument, this game isn't realistic in other mechanics (regenerating health). Why is it okay in this situation to be realistic?
For rifles and smgs, the ADS option should have no weapon sway. If we want to reward skill we need to remove random factors (such as weapon sway) that cannot be counteracted with skill or understanding game mechanics.
In my personal opinion, I think sniping in terms of mechanics is fine. However my main problem is how the inaccuracy of the gun (as-represented by the crosshair size) gets smaller as you scope in. This incentivizes quick scoping and makes hitting shots at close range with a long range weapon far more viable than it should be.
I'm advocating that the accuracy of a sniper should be a 0% or 100% affair. The sniper will only have 100% accuracy or the upper limit of the rifle when scoped in, else the large crosshair when unscoped. There should be no inbetween.
I also think that the state of the netcode makes snipers more reliable weapons. Once that situation is fixed I believe that snipers will seem more balanced when rifles with aim can reliably land shots on the network.
Interesting but nothing we didn't already know and certainly not something that's worth abandoning / fearing for the game's future. It's a Beta people, remember that.
Actually, this way beyond interesting. This is necessary. If we have concrete evidence that can back up reasoning, we can dispel the rumors that run rampant and destroy the game's community. This video tells us the facts and offers potential solutions for the community to advocate.
Turning off a map because you can't play around a common and predictable play style is pretty childish and tells me that anyone who turns off a map doesn't WANT to improve.
A terribly designed map isn't fun to play. Why would I want to improve at a map that invites players to play in the worst style possible?
Do we not play video games for fun?
Hmmm a team deathmatch map with no flanks? Warface is for you!
Warface feels extremely clunky in terms of gunplay.
There's a TTK thread somewhere on the forum.
Good post!
Let me put in my own map analysis, one that follows some of the rules we just read in your post.
I loved Black Ops 2 and think it was the best CoD to date. Partially the reason why is the map design.
Let's talk about the map, Slums. One of the most played maps in TDM and in Competitive, a fan favorite. Outlined in the red and blue are the general spawns of the two teams. Note they are on opposite ends, as far apart as possible.
As BOSS said before the center of the map is where two forces meet head on and will naturally invite the most conflict.
In Slums, the middle of the map is an open area with a lot power positions both teams will fight for. Note how the paths
to the center of the map are long and narrow, but all dump the player into various positions. Slums is rather unique in
that there are two center-hot-spots each one having their own power positions. Each of these positions also has one
equal counter position to make sure that no one place is overpowered, thus less likely to be camped.
This was vital to how the match was paced. The large open center attracted combat, and most importantly: held on to the
combat. As a result there wasn't a mess of flankers trying to flank other flankers. Power positions got you kills, and all the
power positions were at the center of the map.
Now the alleys of the map are outlined in orange, look at how long and unobstructed they are. The lack of clutter makes suure
players aren't slowed down artificially, so they feel as if they're always rushing straight back into combat. They are slowed down
by the physical distance from the spawn to the points of combat and by all the potential routes they can take to the power
position they want.
Here is a basic view of all the power positions. Note how every power position has a minimum of 2 flanks and
a maximum of 3 flanks. This reduces the number of spots a player has to check when taking the position. Why is this
good? Checking multiple spots is unreasonable to ask of a player especially in a fast-paced shooter. Spots 1, 2, 3,
and 4 were popular camping locations, but because of that they have various solutions. Spot 1 is open to a flank from
spawn and from spot 3. As the maps are currently in Ironsight, everytime you enter a position you are gambling
whether an opponent might turn the corner at any of the 4 or 5 flanks. And you can't possibly check them all.
Spot 3 can be flanked from spot 1, the center of the map and Spot 2. Spot 2 and 4 can be flanked from three angles.
Note that Spot 2 and 4 share a flank. Each camping spot is flanked by another camping spot, making it a bad
tactical decision to camp in a spot that is open to another camper.
TLDR: What made Slums a great map?
1. Large open center that attracted combat and also held on to it, evening out the pace and reducing chaos since everyone was going to the same place.
2. Large alleys (3 lanes) that were clear and let players run to get to their position, also had a few openings to give players a choice of where they want to go with out needing clutter.
3. Each position has 2 or 3 flank routes; nothing more, nothing less. This reduces the luck of entering a position with a lot of flanks.
You have to be joking, I have probably played way more than you and this game does not feel finished or stable in the slightest. the fact that you called it a leaked call of duty really shows you don't know what you are talking about.
Think imma take a break from this game till it's an actual game.
What was the point in this, then?
Fun vs Stability? The game has a solid base and polish, you even acknowledge this. And server issues weren't a problem during the closed beta according to testimonies from those beta testers. The issues started when Ironsight was endorsed by various YouTuber's that caused a huge influx of players the servers weren't prepared for. It was an extreme stress test. Almost as if it was a beta and it was trying to improve netcode latency before it hit the market as a full release 
You're issues have merit, but they lack context.
Display MoreBeing a HALO:CE veteran, I want to share something. We all consider map size to be "small", however we forget the fact that size is relative to the speed at which we move. A matter of fact, HALO:CE had small maps. What made it work was the addition of vehicles, teleporters, and even mancannons in latter renditions. This all compensated for the slow movement speed. The result is a game that felt to be paced correctly.
I think the issue here is that for the scale of the game, certain maps are too small, thus resulting in kills from your rear. That is but one of many symptoms indicating a map design problem. To resolve, I'm not saying make darastically larger maps. I'm thinking of using maps such as oceanfront. As one of the newer maps, I think it is quite well designed, apart from the overwhelming multitude of lanes. The change in the map layout as the game progresses makes the map fun, it's dynamic, new routes are open and others closed, and allows for small pushes here and there as the cranes move the containers to a new location. That's fun and draws players. However, many maps are too small for the speed at which the player travels. Take Mart for example. I can guarantee that this map, as well as Cloud9, comprise of at most, if not all, the times I was killed in the back from moving spawns. That is because these maps are noticeably smaller, as in the area in the middle is smaller. This area is the area where the most action is concentrated in, and having it very close together, we have the pace move way to quickly. This problem of rapid pace agrevates the other issue of too many lanes, thus leading to deaths where someone just moves into the lane you just checked, as I mentioned before.
If the map's "Centre" is stretched out somewhat, or the number of flanks/angles one must watch in any given position is reduced, gameplay won't be as chaotic as it is now. The flow can be reduced to a point where it is enjoyable, but not to the point where you constantly have to deal with 2 opponents at every engagement (that happens 99% of the time for me). Ideally, both changes should be implemented, but if there was one change that is to be made, it is that the number of angles one must watch is reduced. This is not only an easier fix than stretching the whole map, but also allows play to focus in 2-3 key areas, rather than the 5-6 it is now.
Again, I'm not a game designer, I'm just voicing my opinion.
tl;dr We move fast, therefore the map feels "small", in order to fix, map needs to be overhauled; but for now, reducing the # of lanes to monitor at any given time will be the fastest and easiest change to make, and should reduce the chaos.
^^^^
This guy gets it
What is your favorite map so far? I'm planning on doing an in-depth of the map design in Ironsight and would like to use a map to use for the comparisons.
CSGO is a bad example, it's a tactical shooter that relies heavily on teamwork, it's not designed for run and gun. This game is more a COD style of game where everyone rushes and dies. Rinse and repeat, I and others do not want to spend 45 seconds running around the map trying to find players.
Then let's take another example that is A) both tactical and B) is COD. Let's use Black Ops 2.
Compare any of the maps in BO2 that were included in the competitive map pool and popular for TDM: Slums, Raid, Standoff, and Hijacked. These maps are all significantly larger than Ironsight's maps and nobody complained about needing 45 seconds to find people.
And I keep saying it: no one said it had to be a gigantic map. It just needs to large enough to create a flow of play and reduce chaos.
Display MoreThis is a run and gun game not tactical, having larger maps for it makes no sense.
The rounds should be fast.
larger maps = more campers = longer rounds.
For this type of game that doesn't work.
You're straw-manning my argument. I'm not saying we need GIANT maps, nor does having large maps make a game tactical (look at CSGO, probably the best competitive tactical based-shooter ever made). I'm saying that having small maps, even in a run and gun game, makes things extremely chaotic, especially with a higher number of flank routes for each position. This removes the skill requirement from the game and makes encounters more about luck rather than about setting up a position and moving strategically while using aim and logic to take down enemies.
Or do you prefer chaos where every time you turn a corner it's a dice roll if someone will be in any of the 4 open areas you're exposed to?
Know what, I'm gonna make a post comparing the map designs.
Yeah, that would definitely work. However, I was considering a short term solution. Yes, creating a new map would definitely work. However, maps such as oceanfront has some interesting dynamic elements, and I've found that map to be satisfactory in terms of spawn switching. My main concern is from the time required to create new maps would detract from more important issues, such as the netcode. But in the long term, definitely, your suggestion is sorely needed.
Of course I agree with you, but I have to remind you that this thread is discussing map design. The entire community is with us when we say we need better netcode.
And balance the snipers already!
I don't think so, having longer TTK will encourage more camping and usage of annoying one-hit kill guns, since you will have a deffinate advantage by camping and letting someone come to you, because then you will get more shots off before he can react. If TTK was quicker you would run around more since you know you can take out multiple enemies if you have faster reaction time.
In a higher TTK, the man who lands more shots accurately, will win. In low TTK the player who shoots first is likely to win. That's a key distinction.
in higher TTK camping is not a good tactic because you're a stationary target, and your opponent is moving. It's obvious that the moving person will be harder to hit, while the camper is sitting still. You're statistically more likely to accurate on the camper than on the moving target. Because of high TTK you're not instantly dead when a camper you don't notice begins shooting at you, you have enough time to tank a bullet or two, turn around, and then strafe shoot back. The camper is easier to hit because they're not moving.
In low TTK the camper will almost always kill you before you have a chance to punish them, moving or not moving doesn't matter if they drop within a few milliseconds. As a result moving and having to have the delay before you can shoot (sprinting->stop->hipfire/ads) is a disadvantage.
Low TTK also gives spray and pray techniques an advantage because only a few bullets have to land rather than more.
Being able to take down 3 or more people is generally more about luck than about skill.
How would making killing quicker make the game slower? If anything it'll make it faster, as you can kill a guy and move on sooner
It encourages camping, since the TTK is so quick, first person to shoot will almost always win. As a result moving, and having delayed reaction by moving or slower to ADS from sprinting/walking is a detriment.
Then how would you propose fixing pushing through, clearing one lane of the map, just for someone on the other team to spawn where you are, push up to where you are, shooting you and your teammates in the back? I'm just trying to see the alternative here, so if you could please tell me, that would help me understand.
The maps should be longer, with a greater distance between enemy "bases", with a wide open area in the middle to attract conflict. Each position should have 2, a maximum of 3 flank routes. This is to slow down the pace enough that spawn switching is gradual rather tahn abrupt
Never really understood why people feel like they need to list all the games they ever touched. I mean good for you, you're just like the rest of us. Hooray.
Points of reference. It's like using one book to compare and contrast to another with. Can be useful to highlight differences;
Fix the moving spawns (unbelievably annoying)
We need moving spawns in a game of deathmatch to stop spawn-killing if the game becomes too one sided. Also discourages camping in spawn if they might switch at any moment.
TTK Feels incredibly fine. It's a pretty balanced mixture of Battlefield's Time to Kill and the game play pace of Call of Duty, I feel like to many people that mixture would change some views they have on the game. My girlfriend who plays high level competitive Overwatch says Ironsight seems way to fast to be fun, meanwhile I think it's around the same pace as Modern Warfare 3 felt.
I feel like with the major adjustments expected to guns and overall balance, we'll see a much more defined schism in skill level. HIgher Skilled players will be able to secure their kills much quicker, which will lead lower skilled players to learn core game mechanics more quickly to adapt.
Competitive Overwatch and IronSight is sort of apples and oranges, especially seeing as IronSight has more casual modes (TDM and such). Overwatch is a completely object based shooter. The context is not there.
What core game mechanics are there to master? Right now, it's mostly about how well you can abuse the broken systems. Hitboxes while dropping, lag compensation, hit detection, etc. And this bleeds over to TTK. With inconsistencies in how your shots register, guns that deal more damage per shot are heavily favored: ie sniper rifles.
This game was originally in South Korea. How about you try that?
Precision Barrel - Increases your maximum range, you will deal more damage on medium-to-long distances.
Modified Rifling - Increases your maximum effective range, you will deal more damage on close-to-medium distances.
You sir, are a saint.
Agreed, and on Search and destroy, it's perfect since its a more slower paced game style.
But on TDM and the others... U will sitt in corner unless u don't wont to be taken down with 1-2 bullets.
The delay is fine in TDM, but the regeneration rate after the delay takes too long.
other games that i play have an option in the display settings where i can choose which monitor that i want to use. for the games that don't have that option i use shift+windows+right. and i ask the same question in those forums too. with this game in beta just thought i would ask if it could be added.
I'm assuming you're using windows.
You can choose which monitor is to be your main monitor in the windows display settings, this will open all programs on that monitor first until moved.
Do:
"PC Settings" -> "Systems" -> "Display" -> Underneath "Multiple Monitors" you can select which monitor is to be your main monitor.
Other Than the Blaser and the DSR you cant get Chest up 1 shots... which will discourage people from using them... a Suggestion I have is Lower the Fire rate of the PSG1 and CF-X50 and make them a chest up 1 shot similar to the Blaser. Also I would love to see Snipers be able to use Extended mags.
If you lower the fire rate, won't they just become similar to bolt-actions anyway?
And if the damage model becomes the same as the Blaser and the DSR, what would be the point in using the Blaser and the DSR? Normally bolt-actions have low rof, but higher damage, rewarding making every shot count. Semi-auto give you a near guaranteed 2 shot kill, but you need to land those two shots with a faster rof
I think sniper's are fine the way they are damage wise, the DSR and Blaser require more skill to use and I would rather see these than people with semi-auto weapons.
If you want to increase the use of semi-autos, reworking quick-scoping might be a solution. Right now, quickscoping is a reliable close-range technique for snipers, and this doesn't work well with semi-autos.
I've found that just about every position is not very safe, while you have cover, for the most part there are at least 3 different angles on your horizontal line that you can get shot from. Until I started making a habit of checking my flanks constantly, I was getting flanked so many times it was frustrating. There really doesnt seem to be any safety, you have to rush and check your flanks, and there's a lot you need to keep your eye on or you will get shot in the back. This actually can be very fun, but it does force a rushed playstyle that is not for everyone.
Yes, THIS.
There are too many flanks for every position, it makes it impossible to check every corner, and absolutely destroys the flow of enemies. The game is more about chaos than about skillfully taking routes and setting yourself up for gunfights to win. The crazy amount of flanks also means you will likely find a route to the enemies spawn without a lot of engagement.
Redesigning maps where every position has at most 3, and at least 2 routes would greatly improve gameplay. I think Black Ops 2 has maps that could be good reference.
