How do people feel about ADADA and bullet travel

Yeah, let's take all the sliders and bunny hoppers and send them to Oshur. And leave them there. In the beginning, sliding in PS2 was impossible, then they heard people from markets they could never hope to capture whine and then screwed it up for the market they have had.

Higher projectile speed and more lethality at range do open up the possibility of more flexible positioning though, which is a side of skill traditionally overlooked in FPS games because historically it has been very rare to have a map large enough for it to matter.

If your weapon's effective lethal range (here defined as the range at which if you engage an initially unaware enemy, you will secure a kill more than 75% of the time) is less than 20m, your positioning options are limited to locations and routes that allow you to approach within 20m of the enemy.

And while you might be able to provide some measure of deterrence outside your lethal range, you effectively cannot control a sector of fire greater than 20m long. This in turn diminishes the role of overwatch, supporting fire, and ambushes, because you lack the ability to set up effective sectors of fire.

Additionally, it is difficult to design effective defensive fortifications if most of your weapons struggle to cover their kill zones. As PS2 learned the hard way, this is a much bigger problem for massive open world games than it is for tiny arenas.

Of course, short maximum ranges also make it hard to distinguish weapons by range (which is part of the reason shotguns are more "melee weapons" than "short range weapons" in most video games). If you don't have any sniper rifles that can engage past 300m, then your ARs and LMGs must necessarily have shorter effective ranges to avoid stepping on the snipers' toes.

If you then want to have carbines, SMGs, and shotguns with shorter range bands, your range bandwidth starts to get rather crowded rather fast. It then gets compounded if you want to have long range, mid range, and short range variants in every category. It can quickly cause them to all blend together into a same-ish mush with only a small handful of weapons standing out for being a little too good at their role, or overshadowing others because their range band was a little too wide.

In PS2 unfortunately there's not much we can do about that unless a major breakthrough in the engine allows us to extend the render distance in a playable manner. Some form of deployable cover would probably also be useful since some of the terrain in this game is very flat and barren (though a prone stance would help us make more use of what we have).

If you really believe that Tribes is the absolute epitome of skilful gameplay and nothing can ever surpass it though, Tribes 2 is that way. ----> http://www.tribesnext.com/

ADAD is so yesterday.

A CTRL D CRTL A CTRL D CTRL A CTRL D

Every manner in which people manipulate the program to gain an advantage over "just playing the game" is sad and pathetic. I am sure that if it were a game, these poor, sad people would gleefully find a way to cheat at breathing too.

My internet is terrible (Wimax, cell phone 3G/4G/LTE, and dial up are all we have here) and when I am lagging up a storm, I log out or just toss ammo around, because it's clearly not fair for me engage people who likely are seeing me teleport all over (as I am seeing everyone else teleport all over). Unfortunately, good sportsmanship like mine isn't all very common in this "e-thug" day and age...

Yes, this is a factor. But how much of a factor is it? The fact that something is there doesn't mean it's always there.
Apparently, looking at a random video I plucked from the internet, it's not a big problem. You pick a few random video's and show me this big problem of yours. So to counter your very first sentence: Yes, you do have to watch a 30 minute video to win an internet argument, since what you say might hold up but in the scientific method you've just supplied a hypothesis, not proof. I provided a hypothesis (my hypothesis: your problem exists, but it is so minimal that it is irrelivant unless someone purposely abuses it), and I provided proof (a video where you can try point out where this problem arises, where in the first 15 minutes of battle not a single guy presents this problem).

Wait, your example is off. I hope you didn't do that on purpose to make the problem look bigger than it is.
The player was predicted to move left for 200ms? That means for a whole 200ms you didn't receive any packages from that player. That means that the player will be able to warp a whole 0,2 seconds of movement from his original position, if he actually switched direction the moment it happened he can end up a whole 0,4 seconds worth of movement away from his original place (your PC predicts his movement to be one direction for 0,2 seconds, while the player moved the opposite direction for those 0,2 seconds, so the total difference on your PC is 0,4 seconds).
What else is off with your example? Well, you say the player was predicted to move left for 200ms. So only 200ms matter to the entire example. You then say "the player moved left for only 50ms, then went right for 200ms". This is a little bit misdirection, as only the last 150ms matter to the example, since the player only has a wrong prediction for 150ms. This means a maximum of 150ms going right was predicted wrong, not 200ms.
How many packets are send every second? I would say a minimum of 60 per second (your framerate) or 1 per 0,0167 second. This means that you would need to loose more than 12 packets at a time to be able to get to your example. To make 12 packets at a time a problem it would need to happen consistently. A single packet loss would mean a hitch of 0,0167 seconds... and a prediction that can be off a maximum of 0,0334 seconds. This is assuming a package per second of only 60!
Also, to benefit from this problem completely, the player must change direction exactly when the package is lost. any direction change after the next package is sent will result in a proper prediction.

meh, quantum internet will solve most of that problem (if they can speed the damn transition time up). You will get some weird pings (faster ping to New York than Spain is an option for a European player) but that's not exactly the point.
The point is that Planetside already uses multiple latency systems to prevent things like packet loss to be a (big) problem. You see a ghost of where the player was when he send his packages, not the position the server or the player might think he's in. This means you only have package-loss problems.

I think with disproving your example I've shown both with video proof as well as with written proof (although it's closer to a hypothesis backed up by my previous proof) that the problem is far less big that you proclaim. If you disagree, feel free to provide not just written hypothesis but proof.

Except it doesnt work any longer after anti teabaggin measure fix.

People that crouch when fighting me just kill themselves, as they put their face into my bullets.
Keep crouching. I'm keep shooting center mass. Thanks for the headshot kill.

Surely the quick and easy answer to this is to implement vehicle esque acceleration for infantry.

Vehicles already have acceleration built into their movement direction (forward, backwards and side to side - in the case of the Magrider) so the game engine must be able to handle it.

All you'd have to do is implement the same system for infantry but increase their acceleration appropriately to reflect their lower mass/inertia.

edit: come to think of it - Maxes already have acceleration built into their movement (at least when running forward and stopping). Just extend this to all infantry movement.

Rate of fire rarely matters at all in CS because it's rare to ever go full auto on someone. On PS2, on the other hand, it's the primary means of engaging an enemy because the recoil is so weak and cone of fire is the primary limiting factor (which reduces skill, by the way, since it cannot be accounted for by the player). In PS2, you're better off putting a large amount of shots in a small area than you are putting 1-2 shots in a specific spot. The reverse is true in CS, and that's why the shooting mechanics are more skillful.

Yeah but that doesn't actually speak to the total magnitude of skill being used. You have a very strong influence over CoF in PS2 and the resting state of CoF is tight enough that there ends up being very little influence of randomness in actual practice, and a very strong influence of player skill.

Those 1-2 shots in CS are again like playing basketball to 1 or 2 baskets, which I wouldn't say makes things "lucky" (since I don't really believe in luck) but it does allow an unskilled player the opportunity to get 1 unusually good shot and end a fight he would've lost had it been sustained over more shots. So when someone wants to address that shortcoming to make fights more skill-involving, they design a system that involves more bullets to score a kill, and at that point you need to start getting away from the static same-bullet-pattern-every-time system, which is how a system like PS2's CoF+Recoil ends up getting made.

If CoF wasn't tight, that would be a problem. (And is a problem for a narrow range of weapons like Bursters and Phalanx AA.)

If full-auto was always the right choice, that would be a problem because there would be a lot less skill knowing how much burst-fire to use.

But since neither is true, PS2's system ends up being quite deep.

FYI I did lol