Spam, Hitscan, and the Great Balancing Act

[Xyx]

Which of these looks more deadly?



And it's not like that's a wimpy pistol or anything.

Any game where a small semi-realistic firearm with a short inaccurate barrel, tiny clip and low rate of fire outperforms a large semi-realistic firearm with a long accurate barrel, large clip, scope, recoil compensation and high rate of fire has silly weapon design issues.

Originally Posted by Xaero*nz

Id imagine its the same game design logic that made them call the game 'unreal'

1. The game was originally said to be "so real it's almost unreal" because of the graphics.
2. "Unreal" means "so real you can hardly believe it is not, even though you know".
3. "But it's UNREAL!!oneone" is not a valid all-purpose excuse for plain silliness.

[legacy-bartjan]

Originally Posted by Nosnos

I dont understand why some people are more impressed by hitscan aim than projectile tbh... takes way less skill to get good at hitscan... just point and click on the enemy...

actually projectiles are easier to learn to master!!!

you see someone in the air... you have about ten minutes to figure out where he/she is landing... you have 5 more minutes to aim for the spot he/she is landing... you fire... he/she lands simultaniously with your projectile...

okok you dont have 15 minutes in total
but the fact that prediction is easier to learn then high aiming accuracy combined with more time to aim then with hitscan makes projectiles easier to learn... (also when opponents dont jump)


OPTOPIC: compare DM-DE-Ironic or DM-Corrugation with DM-Grendelkeep or DM-Goliath...
IMO those 1st two are perfect maps like DM-1on1-Serpentine with the maze are way to narrow

[legacy-Xaero*nz]

Originally Posted by Xyx

1. The game was originally said to be because of the graphics.
2. "Unreal" means "so real you can hardly believe it is not, even though you know".
3. "But it's UNREAL!!oneone" is not a valid all-purpose excuse for plain silliness.

Dude i think its just you that thinks the enforcers being so powerful is silly eh, i think your way overconsidering the technical balance and mechanics of weapons that dont even exist. The assault rifle of ut2003/2004 sucks. Let it die. That picture you posterd, or anything vaguely resembling it would look so out of place in the context of the other guns its not funny, a realistic or pseudo relealistic assault rifle of that type is far more suited toward counterstrike etc.. I think that slogan "so real it's almost unreal" was just a selling point of the graphics of the game not a design ethos, if epic wanted to make it 'real' we'd have counterstriketournament 2004 wouldnt we?

[fuegerstef]

Originally Posted by Xyx

Which of these looks more deadly?

http://www.conway.com/ssinsider/images/pw030915c.jpg

And it's not like that's a wimpy pistol or anything.

Any game where a small semi-realistic firearm with a short inaccurate barrel, tiny clip and low rate of fire outperforms a large semi-realistic firearm with a long accurate barrel, large clip, scope, recoil compensation and high rate of fire has silly weapon design issues.

1. The game was originally said to be "so real it's almost unreal" because of the graphics.
2. "Unreal" means "so real you can hardly believe it is not, even though you know".
3. "But it's UNREAL!!oneone" is not a valid all-purpose excuse for plain silliness.

In the end you should stick to the vehicles and let the people caring about gameplay in non-vehicle gametypes care for the latter, mmmmkay???

[Boksha]

Originally Posted by bartjan

actually projectiles are easier to learn to master!!!

you see someone in the air... you have about ten minutes to figure out where he/she is landing... you have 5 more minutes to aim for the spot he/she is landing... you fire... he/she lands simultaniously with your projectile...

okok you dont have 15 minutes in total
but the fact that prediction is easier to learn then high aiming accuracy combined with more time to aim then with hitscan makes projectiles easier to learn... (also when opponents dont jump)

Why would you have MORE time to aim if, after you fire the gun, it still takes a while for the projectile to arrive? :bulb:
The bottomline is though that for projectile weapons you need the same amount of accuracy (unless you're content doing barely any damage at all) AND prediction skills, so they're harder to use almost by definition.
In the end, how many people manage to get 40% LG accuracy? And how many manage to do more than half the max damage with 40% of their rockets?

I do know for sure that it's much easier to hit someone in mid-air with the LG than it is to land a rocket at the exact spot where he lands at the exact time he lands.

[3leggedFreak]

Originally Posted by Nosnos

I dont understand why some people are more impressed by hitscan aim than projectile tbh... takes way less skill to get good at hitscan...

Originally Posted by bartjan

actually projectiles are easier to learn to master!!!

And the winner is: Nosnos.

[Jezza101]

I like the 2k4 balance, I agree with the idea proposed above; that poor map design will always expose problems, its just common sense that a big open map will be hit scan dominated and a small enclosed one by splashy weaps. I think the weaps stood up well and I certainly use all weaps in eg a game of a TAM even if i do prefer hitscan (as an insta player).

[legacy-bartjan]

most of the time flak and rox are used as prediction weapons: u predict where the opponent is going and it gives u a (small) window of time to aim for that spot.
most of the time hitscan is used as reaction weapon: u see someone u aim and u shoot (which gives u a much smaller window of time to fire before u have to adjust ur aiming.

they can both be used as prediction and reaction (airrox are mostly reaction ) weapons, but this is there nature and most people intuitively use them like this..

this way projectile weapons give a bigger window of time to aim making them easier to hit the target (most of the time with less damage then a reaction direct hit would do)

thats why new players rate good hitscan accuracy more impressive then projectile accuracy :downcast: because u need to aim faster
didnt say i did... airrox pwn

[legacy-SeverinHeads]

How can putting your crosshair over a target and pressing fire be harder than putting your crosshair over an empty spot on the map that will be occupied at the exact same time as your projectiles. (possibly)

Aim time will be the same as if your not quick enough with prediction then the spot your aiming at is no longer the spot you need to be aiming at.

Both require fast reflexes but with prediction weapons there is far more to take account of than just clicking at the correct moment. Also with predicted shots your opponant has a window to avoid the hit or at least reduce the splash damage.

[Xyx]

Originally Posted by SeverinHeads

How can putting your crosshair over a target and pressing fire be harder than putting your crosshair over an empty spot on the map that will be occupied at the exact same time as your projectiles.

+1, though I'd add a ?

Originally Posted by fuegerstef

In the end you should stick to the vehicles

What, am I not allowed to express my opinion on non-vehicle related matters anymore? Last time I checked, that's what the forum was for: expressing opinions.

It's not like this debate is restricted to non-vehicle gametypes:

1. Vehicle gametypes use the same weapons and suffer from the same (or even worse) hitscan dominance.
2. The issue also applies to vehicular weapons.
3. There's an underlying design philosophy at work that influences a far broader spectrum of game aspects than non-vehicle gametypes and/or handheld weapons.