Author Topic: Breaking the "more accurate weapons are always better" disfunction.  (Read 2176 times)

Offline Logrin

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 838
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking the "more accurate weapons are always better" disfunction.
« Reply #30 on: August 02, 2017, 02:36:39 AM »
Been quite awhile since I've played, but...

Possible Solutions:

- Implement a 'sweet-spot' for target acquisition on firearms. Aim within these tiles accrues more rapidly. Outside this range (too close/too far) aiming is worth less per tick. To generalize, without mentioning some notable exceptions:
*Small maneuverable weapons like pistols and sawn-offs are ideal for when things devolve into a melee/close quarters
*SMGs are the next step up, a middleman you'd want to rely on from close to mid range
*Rifles are mid to long range, but their length becomes a liability when you suddenly have a monster grappling you.

This should all be modified by weapon mods as well. Slapping a high magnification scope onto a weapon is going to make going for a snap shot on something close disorienting (Extending the max/min range for that sweet spot) just like a shortened barrel is going to mean the opposite.

You could also make certain weapons have a very high base accuracy that drops quickly at distance and vice versa.

Also, do heavier, slower rounds or non-penetrative shots like bean bags knock enemies down/back yet? Or is it just a stun? Pretty much anything you spit out of a shotgun should knock a zed prone.
 
Likewise, rounds with high velocity and penetration could be tracked after their initial target (Maybe like explosion shrapnel?) possibly wounding additional targets or traveling through flimsy barriers.

The highly variable damage ranges are the biggest culprit here though, and I'd actually be happier with a flatter spread more dependent on the firearm and ammunition. I might be the minority here but I think the game would be better if we did away with critical hits entirely.

Although, as a caveat that's not necessarily something to be considered in game design: Military rifles are workhorses. There is a reason most other weapons are described in the specific scenarios in which they out preform them. All you need is a good rifle.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2017, 04:20:02 AM by Logrin »

Offline BorkBorkGoesTheCode

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 794
  • What could possibly go wrong....
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking the "more accurate weapons are always better" disfunction.
« Reply #31 on: August 02, 2017, 08:54:18 AM »
Could attach critical chance to creatures as a vulnerability stat, with criticals inflicting custom conditions specific to each creature
The hollow earth and the Dyson sphere share an origin? Do some research

Offline tarburst98

  • NPC
  • **
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking the "more accurate weapons are always better" disfunction.
« Reply #32 on: August 02, 2017, 11:52:48 AM »
also, big thing is to be careful about only giving nerfs. if you nerf a thing, and then when a new meta arises and you nerf that too, and the next one, and the next one, etc. eventually NOTHING will be useful at all ever.

Offline Litppunk

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4358
  • Laughing at death: the answer to impossible
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking the "more accurate weapons are always better" disfunction.
« Reply #33 on: August 02, 2017, 05:18:21 PM »
Headshots don't make sense in the fashion they are currently used. If your having to worry about missing, then your aiming center-mass, and headshot is about as likely as grazing probably less.

If your aiming for headshot, then the chance of doing any damage that is not insta-kill, or at least very critical (upper chest has lots of vitals, and for guns thats extra shock value via hydraulic displacement (actual term isn't coming to me right now) Now CDDA zombies probably wouldn't be very effected by that, but Im not entirely sure.

Anyways as is, headshot as it is currently only makes sense in creatures where the head is centermass from your perspective, such as a scorpion, Bee facing straight towards you etc...

more on topic this would mean that shotguns (shot) are more likely to get headshots against unarmored heads when going for normal shots while slugs would be great for knockback & knockover & stun against those not immune.

Pistols would be great at switching targets quickly with minimal penatly

would likely mean having to scrap the aim system (I think I remember kevin saying something about aiming being changed so that misses continue on and can hit other stuff)
this is where SMG's SHOULD excel is at hitting mobs/ hordes by aiming for the middle, and getting shots hitting several of the group. The more tightly packed, the more likely that peripheral targets will take damage.

Also, the spray and pray method should be helpful when aiming is not an option at close range. All in all, the SMG SHOULD be the least remarkable category, except for the ability to fire semi-full auto -> full auto with less recoil/ penalty than other weapons at close range.

reduced dodge for enemies in high move penalty areas (except for small/ Easy_to_miss type creatures) should help keep guns from being viewed as 'inferior' to melee weapons across the board, and cement them in a possition of excellent for holding fortified locations while the "sweet spot" mechanic suggested by logrin helps keep the weapons from competing with each other too much.

I also like the idea of (overkill) headshots preventing revive for zeds. I have difficulty seeing a liquidated brain being something that the glob can just put back together like humpty dumpty. While small caliber damage headshots (.22) are still insta-kill to unarmored heads, also have the fastest revive time. Especially if the glob is keeping track of DNA. (note that this could be nicked as well, for balance reasons, or if guns are still believed 'inferior' on the grounds that the brain has the greatest DNA diversity in the human body.)

well, thats my obnoxious 2ยข
Feeds both of grandpas wolves, and but doesn't let them fight; Then saves the car full of cash sells it and starts an orphanage, anti-railroad-tying shenanigans-organization and invests.

Offline DeWolf

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1000
  • STAY AWAY FROM MY PRETZELS
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking the "more accurate weapons are always better" disfunction.
« Reply #34 on: August 02, 2017, 05:32:33 PM »
I could of sworn in one of the experimental I saw a gun stat that said either maximum effective range or just effective range. What happened was that the weapon itself would have a further max range but the effective range was the maximum distance where the shot was most accurate. Or at least that's how I think it worked i am pretty sure it was in one of the experimental sad the the current aiming system was being implemented.

Offline ZoneWizard

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking the "more accurate weapons are always better" disfunction.
« Reply #35 on: August 03, 2017, 11:29:19 PM »
Are we assuming zombies are even trying to dodge? Because simple movement is not erratic enough to be considered a "dodge". Even stumbling around isn't a dodge movement due to the fact that the critter will still be on a rather intuitive course that the person holding the weapon can acclimate without even trying. Hulks are also just too darn big to even miss by accident. Telling us they can dodge by sporadic movement is a bit of a stretch. For example. Missing a Rhino at 20 paces. Yeah sure it can kinda run fast, but if you miss THAT, you are literally blind or have broken fingers or something similar. A walking rhino should not be something you miss easily.

I'm also a little confused at what we are discussing here. The only thing that I find really off at present is long range weapons to short. Example, a shotgun should be able to shoot across a street accurately. All the while a pistol as well. Rifles should have crap aim at short range and pistols should only have short-medium range with longer distance damage debuffs. Longer the distance should equate to scaled down damage for pistol, SMG and shot. Smooth bore slugs remain at high damage but low accuracy. Slugs in rifled barrel should be similar to a standard crappy rifle,but with high damage.

Whats all this talk over overhauling something that pretty much already gives us reasonable game function. Just cover my 2nd paragraph and see it as a fine tune rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water because people do not all agree with what we already have. -_-
« Last Edit: August 03, 2017, 11:44:19 PM by ZoneWizard »

Offline Kevin Granade

  • Administrator
  • Survivor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5588
  • I code dead people.
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking the "more accurate weapons are always better" disfunction.
« Reply #36 on: August 04, 2017, 12:19:54 AM »
Regular zombies would have very poor dodging ability, mostly because they're very slow, but it would contribute some, especially if you have poor skills in the first place.

You seem to be treating this as a, "you either hit or you don't" situation, its not.  Dodging, injury, weapon accuracy, lighting level, time to aim, and more contribute to your accuracy, and we differentiate between grazing hits, regular hits, good hits, and (for now) headshots.  While it might be extremely easy to land a hit on a hulk due to size, that's different than getting a good center-of-mass (and therefore does-lots-of-damage) hit, and the dodging might just be the thing that makes that difference.

If you're hunting rhino, you aren't trying to hit it just anywhere, youre trying to hit it somewhere that does enough damage to drop it before it kills you, which is a surprisingly small area with most weapons.  It certainly makes a big difference whether the rhino in question is standing still or charging you at full speed.

I'm also a little confused at what we are discussing here. The only thing that I find really off at present is long range weapons to short. Example, a shotgun should be able to shoot across a street accurately. All the while a pistol as well. Rifles should have crap aim at short range and pistols should only have short-medium range with longer distance damage debuffs.
Enforcing those kinds if constraints is exactly what led to this proposal, in particular, how do we make, " Rifles should have crap aim at short range" happen?  Its total nonsense to just stick something in the code that says, "rifles get less accurate the closer the target is", and it's impossible to make aiming at nearby targets slow enough that rifles act as intended at short range without also making them impossible to use at long range.

Whats all this talk over overhauling something that pretty much already gives us reasonable game function. Just cover my 2nd paragraph and see it as a fine tune rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water because people do not all agree with what we already have. -_-
I don't know where you're getting, "overhaul" from, the core proposals here are:
Adjust how dodge works to make it interfere with aiming instead of being a last-instant chance to spoil the players aim.
Flatten damage bonuses for good+ hits,  potentially eliminating headshots.
Adjust aim speeds on a lot of weapons to fit them into their niches properly.

Quote
This is intentional, so you can use the aim interface to look around without resetting your aim.
Try this: spawn two monsters (preferably non-moving), aim for one fully, then switch aim and immediately fire.
Not only will the attack against the new monster be made with full aim, this full aim will also be retained (minus recoil) for further shots.
I didn't know if it would work like that, but now I checked and I'm certain it's a bug.
Agreed, that's for sure a bug.
Its like a fun family cookout, except your family is burning in flames while trying to eat you. -secretfire
I'm more excited than a survivor on meth and toast'ems. -Nighthawk
The the giant wasp is slammed through the zombie brute!

Offline Litppunk

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4358
  • Laughing at death: the answer to impossible
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking the "more accurate weapons are always better" disfunction.
« Reply #37 on: August 05, 2017, 04:11:47 PM »
Hmm. I had not thought about the potential difficulty in setting up a "more difficult to aim closer than effective range" My first thought was that dodging should be more effective at closer ranges, but that is actually the opposite of what would happen, and would be absolutely dreadful results and basically the exact opposite of what is desired.

It is weapon side, and more specifically related to the sights. So perhaps the sights themselves should be given a soft effective range...or perhaps range modifier?

Ramble about panic firing at extra short ranges (aimed at rifles)
The default would be hip-fire, with upgraded versions for learned lessons (from books and skillled survivors) such as trained hip-fire and barrel sighting (as in looking down the barrel without sights, not through the barrel...) as well as iron sights/ other open sights being the overriding default where available.

mostly back on sights idea
From there the sights you place on it (scope) modify (or set?) the effective (sight) range of the gun, with penalties the further from that range (over max or under minimum) you go. With enemies too close (secondary min? new stat related to panic?) resulting in iron sight or blind fire depending on how panicky/ best aim available.

Hmm. I always overcomplicate these things. So probably just...
(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

Then the panic firing can always be added later or scrapped entirely, or just be counted in the aim penalties unless hardened perk or similar is in effect.

That look about right? I don't actually know code but I think I understand how it works well enough for this to be fairly close layout for the final thing. Let me know how far off I am, or where you think I have a misconception on how things work.... probably everywhere.
Feeds both of grandpas wolves, and but doesn't let them fight; Then saves the car full of cash sells it and starts an orphanage, anti-railroad-tying shenanigans-organization and invests.

Offline Kevin Granade

  • Administrator
  • Survivor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5588
  • I code dead people.
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking the "more accurate weapons are always better" disfunction.
« Reply #38 on: August 05, 2017, 05:46:20 PM »
Hmm. I had not thought about the potential difficulty in setting up a "more difficult to aim closer than effective range" My first thought was that dodging should be more effective at closer ranges, but that is actually the opposite of what would happen, and would be absolutely dreadful results and basically the exact opposite of what is desired.
No, dodging being more effective is exactly what we want. What you may be misding here is that the difficulty of getting a hit also decreases with distance to the target, so in principle, they balance out.  But if you throw in aiming speed you end up with a situation where very accurate but low aim speed weapons are great only above a certain range.
Its like a fun family cookout, except your family is burning in flames while trying to eat you. -secretfire
I'm more excited than a survivor on meth and toast'ems. -Nighthawk
The the giant wasp is slammed through the zombie brute!

Offline Adragis029

  • NPC
  • **
  • Posts: 162
  • Mutant Mutant
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking the "more accurate weapons are always better" disfunction.
« Reply #39 on: August 05, 2017, 06:46:26 PM »
Hmm. I had not thought about the potential difficulty in setting up a "more difficult to aim closer than effective range" My first thought was that dodging should be more effective at closer ranges, but that is actually the opposite of what would happen, and would be absolutely dreadful results and basically the exact opposite of what is desired.
No, dodging being more effective is exactly what we want. What you may be misding here is that the difficulty of getting a hit also decreases with distance to the target, so in principle, they balance out.  But if you throw in aiming speed you end up with a situation where very accurate but low aim speed weapons are great only above a certain range.

Which is what we want, right? Preventing people aiming at zombies fifteen feet away with a 16x scope?

Offline RedPine

  • Zombie Food
  • *
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking the "more accurate weapons are always better" disfunction.
« Reply #40 on: August 06, 2017, 12:01:02 AM »
Overall I like this concept.  As I understand it:



Current Situation:

Rifles are king at all ranges, the only saving grace of pistols is low weight and volume.

Proposed Change:

Rifles are king at all range, but any penalties caused by dodging or moving enemies make rifles very inaccurate at close range.  Pistols are still worthless at long range, but aim extremely quickly at close range - enough to counter the dodge and movement of enemies at close range.

I'm assuming that shotguns and smg's would be inbetween rifles and pistols in terms of aiming speed, with shotguns excelling in damage and smg's excelling in clip size.  I would assume pneumatic weapons would be both bulky (low aim speed) and less accurate (high dispersion) making them overall less accurate than their gunpowder counterparts.

Meanwhile, enemies would feel more unique:  Some would move erratically, and could only be hit with rifles at mid-long range, others would be fast, and could only be hit at range when moving directly towards you, others would be fast and erratic and best handled with a shotgun/smg mid range or a pistol at close range.

Offline Litppunk

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4358
  • Laughing at death: the answer to impossible
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking the "more accurate weapons are always better" disfunction.
« Reply #41 on: August 06, 2017, 12:45:21 AM »
Hmm. I had not thought about the potential difficulty in setting up a "more difficult to aim closer than effective range" My first thought was that dodging should be more effective at closer ranges, but that is actually the opposite of what would happen, and would be absolutely dreadful results and basically the exact opposite of what is desired.
No, dodging being more effective is exactly what we want. What you may be misding here is that the difficulty of getting a hit also decreases with distance to the target, so in principle, they balance out.  But if you throw in aiming speed you end up with a situation where very accurate but low aim speed weapons are great only above a certain range.

Yes sorry I hadn't clarified there that is more or less what I meant. Better dodging at closer would produce the correct results... sort of, but would be more universal and be an ....er inaccurate depiction of what is happening. Monsters don't get *better* at dodging at closer ranges, the (long range) sights become less effective at aiming at closer targets, increasing how much effect their dodging has (not the effectiveness of the dodging, but the effect OF dodging)

so.... I guess what I am saying... is that it should not be monster side, or even gun side. But an effect of the sights used. A rifle equipped correctly *SHOULD be king (minus niches) even to *fairly* close range (4-5?)

IF equipped with a proper open reticle sight for close range (EX:Red dot) Where the only detriment to having a rifle vs others is the weight, volume and aiming method/time. Then in this setup it should equal or better items in everything but the CLOSEST of aiming. But in doing so you lose basically all the range advantage you would have if equipped with even the most basic zoom scopes, losing all aim advantage over the pistol  and other similar smaller weapons

Rifles are good for a reason, and part of that is versitility in short(ish)-mid range fighting or mid-long range fighting. depending on the weapon and loadout.

Now the same gun, say an AR-15 would be TERRIBLE at even middlish short range if equipped with any kind of decent magnification scope, so much so that you would be better off attempting to hip fire or look down the not-smooth contour of the gun to aim.

Sorry to flip flop like that. But when military storm a close quarters location like a building, they typically do so with compact rifles. It would not be unusual to see Shotguns and pistols in a breach and clear type mission. But it would be primarily rifles. What they would NOT bring inside, are scopes.

If all the aim penalties are dumped onto the monsters/gun it will not properly reflect what is actually happening. Now closer than say.... 5-7 tiles against a dodgy opponent... absolutely a rifle, even equipped with an open sight, should begin to show rapid drop in accuracy, relative to gun weight and *balance vs strength.

Summary/ TL;DR: the penalties should get spread around some. Not JUst monsters, or guns. Sights should take the majority of under-min penalties

*bullpup vs standard rifle design vs extended stock for one. ... Maybe a gun length stat? Nah.
Feeds both of grandpas wolves, and but doesn't let them fight; Then saves the car full of cash sells it and starts an orphanage, anti-railroad-tying shenanigans-organization and invests.

Offline Kevin Granade

  • Administrator
  • Survivor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5588
  • I code dead people.
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking the "more accurate weapons are always better" disfunction.
« Reply #42 on: August 06, 2017, 04:21:09 AM »
Which is what we want, right? Preventing people aiming at zombies fifteen feet away with a 16x scope?
Yes, that's an example of a situation where this change would make rifles not work.
Rifles are king at all ranges, the only saving grace of pistols is low weight and volume.
Also ammo cost, but yes you have the idea.
Rifles are king at all range, but any penalties caused by dodging or moving enemies make rifles very inaccurate at close range.  Pistols are still worthless at long range, but aim extremely quickly at close range - enough to counter the dodge and movement of enemies at close range.
Yes, exactly that.
I'm assuming that shotguns and smg's would be inbetween rifles and pistols in terms of aiming speed, with shotguns excelling in damage and smg's excelling in clip size.
Actually I think shotguns would tend to be slightly better at getting hits in, but with lower damage, and SMGs are strictly between pistols and rifles, except for amazing burst damage at short range.
[/quote]
I would assume pneumatic weapons would be both bulky (low aim speed) and less accurate (high dispersion) making them overall less accurate than their gunpowder counterparts.
Something like, "rifle aim speed with SMG accuracy".
Meanwhile, enemies would feel more unique:  Some would move erratically, and could only be hit with rifles at mid-long range, others would be fast, and could only be hit at range when moving directly towards you, others would be fast and erratic and best handled with a shotgun/smg mid range or a pistol at close range.
That's the hope, I'm not sure how the numbers are going to work out, but it's possibe certain enemis will be virtually immune to attacks from some otherwise good weapons because they can out-dodge that particular weapon at all ranges.
But in general yes, the more dodgy the enemy, the more you'll need to pay attention to your engagement range and use the appropriate weapon.
In the extreme, say we have swarms of skitterbots in labs, and you never have sightlines longer than 20 squares, rifles would be virtually worthless.  On the other hand, a rifle will still be great at sniping turrets since they don't dodge at all.
Yes sorry I hadn't clarified there that is more or less what I meant. Better dodging at closer would produce the correct results... sort of, but would be more universal and be an ....er inaccurate depiction of what is happening. Monsters don't get *better* at dodging at closer ranges, the (long range) sights become less effective at aiming at closer targets, increasing how much effect their dodging has (not the effectiveness of the dodging, but the effect OF dodging)
It's not inaccurate at all, it's a result of dodging and aiming effectively operating in two different coordinate systems.  Aim speed is expressed in angular speed, effectively degrees per second, while dodging is linear, in e.g. feet per second.  If you map linear speed to angular speed, that mapping changes depending on distance between the target and shooter.
Its like a fun family cookout, except your family is burning in flames while trying to eat you. -secretfire
I'm more excited than a survivor on meth and toast'ems. -Nighthawk
The the giant wasp is slammed through the zombie brute!

Offline Litppunk

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4358
  • Laughing at death: the answer to impossible
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking the "more accurate weapons are always better" disfunction.
« Reply #43 on: August 06, 2017, 05:34:28 AM »
Quote
Yes sorry I hadn't clarified there that is more or less what I meant. Better dodging at closer would produce the correct results... sort of, but would be more universal and be an ....er inaccurate depiction of what is happening. Monsters don't get *better* at dodging at closer ranges, the (long range) sights become less effective at aiming at closer targets, increasing how much effect their dodging has (not the effectiveness of the dodging, but the effect OF dodging)
It's not inaccurate at all, it's a result of dodging and aiming effectively operating in two different coordinate systems.  Aim speed is expressed in angular speed, effectively degrees per second, while dodging is linear, in e.g. feet per second.  If you map linear speed to angular speed, that mapping changes depending on distance between the target and shooter.
That would be true if the relative size of the target remained constant, but this is not so. Which would even out except that humans are not robots.

Aiming at something farther away the amount of forgiveness for slight variant in angle degree is less forgiving, which means you have to aim that much harder, even though you can get 'back on target' faster, it is harder to keep any breathing and other muzzle sway from effecting aim. As far as I can tell this is represented well in the current system, which means that dodge shouldn't need to be adjusted much for long range. Except maybe in the case of 'active' dodging.

At short range, the angle variant is more forgiving, but there is a much greater change for following a target moving the same speed, and in the case of untrained shooter, nerves/jitters/fear and such. So called 'Zombie survival guides' go out of their way to recommend civilians give themselves extra cushion distance on the minimum firing range and list this as one of the reasons.

Asides from that until the target comes close enough that you are swinging your weapon in wide arcs that it is the physical weight, and maneuverability of the weapon is becoming a factor in aiming at a target moving side to side, a rifle is going to be the better weapon.

There may be a slight penalty on movement, on the momentum of getting the heavier rifle to target, but it is made up in stability of the weapon platform. What it does not make up for, is if all you can see through your sight is forest 200m away, a chest hair at 10 feet on wall of flesh and then count the antlers on a deer at the edge of the forest as the target leaps sided to side inside the  minimum effective scope range.

It is the Sights accuracy not the weapons that is the problem in this case. The same weapon with an open, minimalist sight would not have major aiming penalties until the target was so close that grappling the weapon is more effective than dodging. At which point I don't think any weapon would be especially effective unless its a shotgun, and/or being used as a bayonet holder and/or impromptu gunpowder brass knuckles

All in all, rifles should get some penalty at close range, and extreme penalty at close range if equipped with any kind of a scope.

What are the ranges we are talking about? And how dodgy? one wall of the hallway to the other in the blink of an eye? At that point rifles, even with non vision blocking sights the penalties would probably amount to 10% (<5%?) or less for a reasonably well trained civilian, but waving a light weight pistol back and forth wouldn't be better enough to matter. It's light weight would probably only mean it getting waved to far. more than that, it would come down to discipline and skill with the weapon more than WHICH weapon, to the point it would essentially be a well trained hipfire anyways.

Realistically the close range rifle nerfs should come down to scopes more than platform based, except in the case of larger, bulkier rifles more akin to a marksmen or sniper rifle than an assault rifle.

Game wise it makes sense to just give everything a niche and its the right choice. I'd just like to see compact rifles get a respectable tip of the hat in the penalties at middleish close range where scopes aren't involved. Get scoped weapons nerfed the hardest and most sharply at close ranges. dodge or no. Probably throw a hard_to_dodge [tag] to reduce dodging effectiveness on automatic fire to give SMG's and machine guns a better niche.

Its a shame the size of the reality bubble forces sniper like weapons to push the whole scale down, or just drop them off the end. realistically a decent mid range rifle with a 4x zoom or so should be able to shoot to the edge of the bubble without trouble. Which makes any solutions feel kind of compressed.
Feeds both of grandpas wolves, and but doesn't let them fight; Then saves the car full of cash sells it and starts an orphanage, anti-railroad-tying shenanigans-organization and invests.

Offline Kevin Granade

  • Administrator
  • Survivor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5588
  • I code dead people.
    • View Profile
Re: Breaking the "more accurate weapons are always better" disfunction.
« Reply #44 on: August 06, 2017, 06:26:33 AM »
Quote
If you map linear speed to angular speed, that mapping changes depending on distance between the target and shooter.
That would be true if the relative size of the target remained constant, but this is not so. Which would even out except that humans are not robots.
Size is irrelevant to whether aiming moves the aim point closer to the aim point or further away, if aiming is in deg/sec and dodging is in m/s, a closer target will be able to dodge away faster than the shooter can catch up.  This is an abstraction sure, but it's a pretty reasonable one IMO.
Aiming at something farther away the amount of forgiveness for slight variant in angle degree is less forgiving, which means you have to aim that much harder, even though you can get 'back on target' faster, it is harder to keep any breathing and other muzzle sway from effecting aim. As far as I can tell this is represented well in the current system
It's represented in that higher accuracy sights have lower aiming speed, but it has issues as I've outlined already.
Asides from that until the target comes close enough that you are swinging your weapon in wide arcs that it is the physical weight, and maneuverability of the weapon is becoming a factor in aiming at a target moving side to side, a rifle is going to be the better weapon.
Which is exactly the point, the rifle is going to be better as long as manuverability isn't an issue since it's intrinsically more accurate in absolute terms.
There may be a slight penalty on movement, on the momentum of getting the heavier rifle to target, but it is made up in stability of the weapon platform.
This is where you're wrong, "stability" of a rifle (I'm assuming you mean the way it's braced, either against your shoulder or by an external support?) doesn't contribute to aiming speed, it mostly contributes to avoiding extraneous movement that interferes with accuracy at extreme range.  Regardless of sights, a rifle is less manuverable than a smaller weapon.
What it does not make up for, is if all you can see through your sight is forest 200m away, a chest hair at 10 feet on wall of flesh and then count the antlers on a deer at the edge of the forest as the target leaps sided to side inside the  minimum effective scope range.

It is the Sights accuracy not the weapons that is the problem in this case. The same weapon with an open, minimalist sight would not have major aiming penalties until the target was so close that grappling the weapon is more effective than dodging.
Sights have an intrinsic tradeoff between accuracy and agility, the very properties that make sights accurate interfere with quick target acquisition and vice versa.  Otherwise why would you even have different kinds of sights?  You'd just stick the theoretically perfect kind of sights on every gun and call it a day.
Its like a fun family cookout, except your family is burning in flames while trying to eat you. -secretfire
I'm more excited than a survivor on meth and toast'ems. -Nighthawk
The the giant wasp is slammed through the zombie brute!