hitmarkers


  • Founders

    i doubt any serious fps gamer likes them (ofc there are exceptions) but i think dust/bloodsplatter is the way to go.

    that's it 😄


  • Founders

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but both the 'hitmarker' and blood splatter are a hitmarker of sorts.

    They both serve the purpose of providing a visual (or audible) indication of you hitting your target, your mark.

    Seeing as this game will not provide you with the hitmarker if you yourself do not see them, I see it as being one in the same.


  • Founders

    @sharpy-0001 said in hitmarkers:

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but both the 'hitmarker' and blood splatter are a hitmarker of sorts.

    They both serve the purpose of providing a visual (or audible) indication of you hitting your target, your mark.

    Seeing as this game will not provide you with the hitmarker if you yourself do not see them, I see it as being one in the same.

    i see your point, but im specifically talking about the UI hitmarker, it just takes away a lot of immersion, sorry for not being very clear here.


  • Founders

    I agree with Sharpy. Whether a game uses blood spatter, an additional graphic element, or a combination, it's all just a means to provide the same feedback. Personally, I prefer more explicit hit markers so that there's no room for things like brightness, shadow, or other effects settings to affect the visibility of something like a dark red cloud of blood.

    Immersion is wonderful...until it comes at the expense of providing players with vital information.


  • Founders

    If Maverick's is trying to achieve realism, there shouldn't be an explicit hitmarker. Especially given that with blood splatter you can track a wounded player until they heal.


  • Founders

    @maverick-0080 said in hitmarkers:

    If Maverick's is trying to achieve realism, there shouldn't be an explicit hitmarker.

    They're not leaning all that heavily into realism, at least not where it might compromise feedback for the player.

    The first minute and a half or so of this link should give you an idea how the dev team feels about this type of thing generally...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYg_ji4wqgY&feature=youtu.be&t=11m38s


  • Founders

    I'm not a fan of UI hitmarkers. I feel they detract from the 'realism' of the game.

    Using dust/blood splatters is the way to go. They're not hard to see, communicate exactly the same information but don't detract from the realism as they are something you could reasonably expect to see, if blown a little out of proportion.


  • Founders

    @ghostcat-0001

    Explicit hit-markers like Call of Duty and Battlefield are great for their implied purpose but they detract from the immersion and suspense. Some may also argue that they also give a player too much information. This is important because gun-play is not just about the shooter, it is also about the player being shot. If the shooter does not have 100% accurate information on damage, this can change the subsequent play they will commit to. You see this often in games like Counter-strike and PUBG where these "tagging" shots are usually followed up by aggression.

    Blood splatter hit-markers seem to me to be the best decision given what we know about their tracking system and how this unique feature might set them apart from competition.

    Thank you for the link, I really do appreciate it!



  • Blood splattering , severed limbs, screaming victims would all be great add ons.