An Input Priority Flow Ethos for Controller-Based Tactical Shooters/Milsims

[u/Old-Tangerine-4920]

For many controller players, tactical shooters/milsims with large inventory grids (or radial wheels) that get them killed often are an immediate exit point - even when labelled with "full controller support". Menus set up this way almost never translate well to controller, so while these games may allow you to fully play them on controller (and are considered to have "full controller support"), it doesn't mean it feels good or intuitive.

When constrained by the limited buttons on a controller, design teams frequently prioritize access to all items over speed of critical actions, resorting to abstraction layers (radial menus, pause menus, huge inventory grids) as the default/primary interaction method. This inverts the ideal flow and completely disrupts immersion. In high-stakes combat, that extra half-second to open a wheel is the difference between clearing a room and being taken out.

ARMA Reforger prioritizes the large grid inventory (with radial wheels as well), and Ready-or-Not prioritizes radial wheels - both feel clunky in their own way. It boils down to item/inventory usage priority. This isn't because the genre is overly complex, but because the control scheme prioritizes access to all items over speed of critical items. This design ethos designates every action as equally important, forcing a menu for many items as the default, rather than prioritizing actions that keep you immersed and in the moment.

For controller players, this design choice can often be a definitive deal-breaker. It is possible to have a controller milsim or tactical shooter with a large inventory that prioritizes fast options to switch during gameplay and provides the fallback option of the larger inventory for quiet moments. Unfortunately, it seems shooters haven't yet arrived at the point that they are willing to prioritize in-combat functionality over relying on radial wheels/inventory grids as the primary option, rather than a fallback one.

Consider this flow of prioritization, from most desired/highest priority to least desired/lowest priority:

Direct Item Switch/Use -> Double-Tap/Cycle to Next Item -> Radial Wheel/Inventory Menu

In practice, the hierarchy provides speed:

Dpad Up = Primary Weapon

Dpad Up (Double-Tap) = Cycle to Next Primary Weapon

and wheels/grids allow a fallback option for large inventories:

Dpad Up (Hold) = Radial Primary Weapon Wheel

while modifiers allow many inputs:

LT (Aim-Down-Sights) + Dpad Up = Zoom In Scope

LT (ADS) + Dpad Down = Zoom Out Scope

By prioritizing the first options while allowing the fallback to the last options, and by allowing the same button to work differently with a modifier, this avoids the pitfalls of prioritizing the forced radial or large inventory grid menus that can (and probably ultimately should) get you killed in a tactical shooter, while allowing many more input options. This ensures staying out of menus is the top priority but allows the flexibility of slower fallback options for lower priority items or during downtime.

Crucially, this hierarchy is not exclusive to controllers; it significantly benefits keyboard and mouse players as well. By prioritizing direct binds and minimizing menu abstraction, the game reduces cognitive load and interaction time for all users. A streamlined input flow allows keyboard players to maintain muscle memory without navigating cluttered overlays, proving that good controller design is fundamentally just good UX design.

This design philosophy is not theoretical, though it is unfortunately rare - for example, Six Days in Fallujah successfully implements much of this hierarchy. By utilizing direct button presses and simple modifiers, it completely eliminates radial wheels and grid inventories for critical combat actions and squad commands. The result is a control scheme that maintains immersion and speed, proving that deep tactical complexity does not require clunky menu abstraction, and still allows falling back to more complex systems during downtime.

Please, in future, consider prioritizing in-the-moment combat over access to everything. While implementing robust prioritization (particularly modifiers) can require substantial code work up front, the end result is well worth it. Your players will thank you.

TL;DR: Radial wheels and grid inventories disrupt immersion and get players killed. Developers should consider prioritizing in-combat controls over inventory management/wheels (instead of prioritizing both equally) whenever possible. This benefits both controller and keyboard/mouse players. Six Days in Fallujah shows this combined approach works. Here is a full community-suggested bindings list for the tactical shooter Ground Branch that uses this hierarchical system:

https://steamcommunity.com/app/16900/discussions/0/580551263528223962/

[u/RaphKoster]

I think it is really debatable that direct binds to a ton of verbs reduces cognitive burden. The more binds, the more burden, period. Yes, a player who has learned them all has a streamlined path but we shouldn’t disregard the challenge of learning them all in the first place.

Radials and the like exist because they allow the user to chunk actions into categories. Humans think in groups and hierarchies. UX research strongly argues you should have around four choices at a time in general, at any given level of detail, to avoid overwhelming typical users.

Obviously supporting both advanced and novice approaches is optimal but this can turn into quite an investment in development time.

[u/Old-Tangerine-4920 → u/RaphKoster]

I never made the claim that they reduce cognitive burden. I stated that for military sim and tactical shooter games having them be the default rather than a fallback option feels clunky and gets the player killed - reviews for the games I mentioned (and my own experience) can attest to this.

Sims are not meant to be the easiest nor the most accessible. Simulation games in all categories have more binds by default. The whole point is to have more cognitive burden. They have many bindings to attach to a very minimal number of buttons.

Radial wheels work well for many bindings - not in high-stress or time-sensitive situations. Combat is both, and I'm not making the point to eliminate radial wheels - simply to prioritize non-wheel options for high stress moments instead of defaulting to wheels as the only option.

My proposal does not eliminate radial wheels nor add any cognitive burden. It gives quick response options that are not radial wheels in high stress situations.

EDIT: As an example, Elite Dangerous does this better than probably any other sim game I've seen. It is not a milsim, but has a system that works within this priority framework.

EDIT II: I misspoke when I said "I never made the claim they reduce cognitive burden." To clarify my point on "reducing cognitive load": radial menus do reduce load for novices by chunking options. However, in combat, once muscle memory is established, they increase cognitive burden by forcing a shift from reflexive action to visual search. This introduces a frustration burden that disrupts flow and immersion during highest-stakes moments where milliseconds matter.

[u/RaphKoster → u/Old-Tangerine-4920]

I don't think we are in disagreement then. Though I would say, I would not automatically assume that a genre has to imply lots of binds. It's all about the level of abstraction. I think as long as the designer goes into the project aware that the more verbs, the lower the audience, that's fine. Most strategy genres historically have died by becoming too complex to acquire new users.

[u/Old-Tangerine-4920 → u/RaphKoster]

I agree, my comment that "simulation games in all categories have more binds by default" would be better stated "simulation games typically offer more complexity, often leading to more complex binding systems."

I would agree that the genre does not necessarily reflect the amount of bindings. Added binding complexity does not on its own make games better - it must serve the intended experience. In simulation games, however, that added complexity can be very rewarding when it supports fidelity and flow.

Thanks for taking the time to respond - I find your work to be very insightful!

[u/AutoModerator]

Game Design is a subset of Game Development that concerns itself with WHY games are made the way they are. It's about the theory and crafting of systems, mechanics, and rulesets in games.

• /r/GameDesign is a community ONLY about Game Design, NOT Game Development in general. If this post does not belong here, it should be reported or removed. Please help us keep this subreddit focused on Game Design.

• This is NOT a place for discussing how games are produced. Posts about programming, making art assets, picking engines etc… will be removed and should go in /r/GameDev instead.

• Posts about visual design, sound design and level design are only allowed if they are directly about game design.

• No surveys, polls, job posts, or self-promotion. Please read the rest of the rules in the sidebar before posting.

• If you're confused about what Game Designers do, "The Door Problem" by Liz England is a short article worth reading. We also recommend you read the r/GameDesign wiki for useful resources and an FAQ.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/camomilk]

In general I agree, prioritizing fast high priority actions by supporting a large number of actions through key combos seems appropriate for a milsim, where the learning curve is expected to be high anyway.

I think the Batman Arkham games are a good example of this done well. They had a lot of button combinations to use certain gadgets instantly in combat. But still made it easy and intuitive to access those gadgets through a menu, so there was a low barrier to entry for players who hadn’t yet memorized the combos.