Calculus is the reason why the movement system needs to change. In particular, let me introduce you to the Intermediate Value Theorem. In plain English, it says that a continuous function (in this case velocity) that is at one point positive (going north) and another point negative (going south) must at some point be zero (standing still). Without getting into too much detail, acceleration is a measure of how quickly that change occur. If you really persist in your belief, I could do some experiments to come up with numbers. However, at first glance, it appears that the acceleration observed in ADAD is, at the very least, on the order of a crashing a car driving at highway speeds into a brick wall. More likely, its sufficient to liquify your organs and turn the air around you into plasma, but let's set aside survivability for a moment. What we are really talking about here is game balance. Specifically, we are talking about mid-to-long range sniping (primarily by infiltrators by really by anyone with a semi-auto weapon and a 4x scope). The argument is that snipers should be able to kill people by predicting their motion paths. The problem with random ADADADing as currently implemented is that, without intertia, the amount of time that a player doing it is on the same motion path less than the average travel time of a bullet in the best case scenario. Depending on how poorly ADADAD is coded, it's possible that a person is on the same motion path for less than the average human reaction time to send the signal from eye to brain to mouse hand in order to even aim the dang gun. TL;DR: ADADAD, which is a no-skill no-cost tactic, is a counter to the high-skill high-cost (in terms of reduced ROF, etc) tactic of sniping that is, at best, physiologically impossible to overcome and, at worst, mathematically impossible to overcome.
As someone who studies physics, I can say that most of what you said above is untrue. Physiologically impossible? Please. Learn words before you use them. Mathematicaly impossible, no. That would mean that it is genuinely not possible. However, since it requires luck, it is neither mathematically impossible, nor impossible at all. While the ADAD approach is certainly a counter to snipers, and yes, it is frusturating, it is no grounds to completely revamp the movement system to support this. As someone who spends the bulk of their time in PS2 sniping with the V10 or the Parallax, I can say that yes, it frusturates me, but that I also get more than my fair share of kills on people who stand still. It's just about waiting for the moment. Good luck! P.S.: Please. There's energy involved, but the car would have to be travelling at more than 15% the speed of light (because Ek = 0.5(m)(v^2) for plasmatic conversion to occur. ... Please. Stop trying to sound intelligent when you're discussing concepts that you don't understand. It just makes you look stupid. Go back to fingerpainting.
It can be literally impossible to make a predicted shot given a low enough bullet speed compared to target direction change speed and target size. Basically, if in the time the bullet leaves the gun and crossing the distance to the target the target is able to change their path sufficiently enough to make the bullet miss then the shot was impossible to hit by prediction during that interval. If the intervals are able to overlap (i.e. the target is able to do this more often than the bullet can travel the necessary distance) then it becomes literally impossible to hit by prediction. It is still possible to hit by luck, but who really wants that to be why they got the kill? Medics reviving people while moving relatively-unpredictably (as per the above reasoning) are the bane of long-distance snipers since they are able to effectively cancel out not only the sniper's ability to kill them but also any other kills in that area that the sniper was able to make. Is this a problem? Not automatically; it really depends on whether long-distance shooting is to be discouraged. If this is the case, you can count me out of this game. If we assume it is a problem then there are three major solutions - Increase bullet speed to the point that the problem is largely resolved. If done right then the sniper will still be required to lead and account for bullet drop while also having the possibility of hitting erratically-moving targets via prediction (rather than just luck). If the bullet speed is too high it becomes effectively hit-scan (although without some of the exploitable coding involved). Make the target size bigger. Not really sure how you would do this without causing lots of problems and annoying players. Slow down target's ability to make sudden and large acceleration changes - i.e. add inertia.
Hitscan means lining up a shot, and seemingly instantly hitting the target, regardless of range once you shoot. No bulletdrop, to traveltime... just BANG. I don't think we need this. There should be skill involved in matters of learning how to lead your shots, and account for the bulletdrop abit. I reckognize people sometimes jiddering all over the place, but hitscan weapons shouldn't be introduced to fix latency issues, whatever is causing them.
Except the game has client-side hit detection. What you see is the hitbox. You don't understand computers, and you just suck if you keep missing and blame it on ADAD or "hitbox location".
L M A O ... topic is about adding hitscan to a game that has none. so you toss in this ironic gem to sound like you know what you're talking about? well done. You really showed me If you were attempting to sound like a scholar, this part in particular caused you to fail horribly at it. You also failed to supply proof or atleast substitute correct terminology. Even if you do study it, it's not helping with how bad you are at communicating eloquently...
I do not mean physically impossible. I mean physiologically. I think your character would die of whiplash (at the very least) from ADADAD. Mathematically impossible to predict, given that the amount of time you have to predict the thing can be less than the amount of time it takes to aim and click. A lucky shot can and does happen. However, by definition you did not know that it was going to happen. Not skill. Not a prediction. Mathematically impossible to do so. It was a typo. Don't be that guy. See how that feels?
is this a serious question? hitscan means you don't simulate bullets, you simply create virtual ray coming from your weapon instantly and the check is performed if the dude is on the other end of it. In other words - if it's in the center of your crosshair when you shoot, it dies. Infinite speed, no drop. Example: AWP from counterstrike. It even shot through the walls.
Here we go again honestly no I haven't played with neither of them since mid April. And even if I did wouldn't make much of a difference would it.
I would settle for people being unable to strafe while sprinting. Or just make them not tilt towards where they're strafing. Currently people can ADADA weaving their head out of the way whilst sprinting straight for you. Making medics and engineers just a bit slower while reviving/repairing or have inertia would be the perfect buff to infs actually. Currently it's too difficult to kill them, because they're strafing too fast while reviving. It would make infs have an actual purpose on the battlefield besides spamming darts.
Well if you played with them more, you would know how to judge distances better. There is no real reason to put in a range finder (though it would be nice) in this game. Almost everything in this game has a distance meter on it, (capture points, weapon terminals, vehicle terminals, ammo towers, and aircraft platforms) you just have to be observant. Every base has at least 3 of the marked units, just have to put them to proper use. If you are away from a base somewhere I have a fix for that as well, use the personal waypoint, snipers most useful tool aside from his rifle of course.
This isn't a CoD rip-off, (frankly it's a Sci-Fi BF3 Rip-off lol) sniping here takes skill, and you sir don't appear to have any...
Thanks both of you for Explanation, i wasnt sure if i really understand the problem. Now i smile. People are really displeased because theire Victims are moving. These ragtags, they simple move. Stand still, while i want to farm you!
I am not sure which problem you are referring to. If it is requiring people to lead targets then that is not an actual problem but a design element, and I would not agree with people who would want that to be removed by having hitscan. Leading targets is part of the fun, as long as it is actually possible. The real problem is the lack of inertia in the game, coupled with slow moving bullets and long distances. It can create situations where it is mathematically impossible to lead a target and make a hit if the target is abusing the lack of inertia. You might not understand why this is, but regardless, it is the case. Note, you can still hit by luck of course - but who finds that fun? Hitscan is a definite no-no in my opinion (and seemingly, nearly everyone else's). This topic sort of moved onto deflection and the effects of targets having no inertia. Perhaps a new thread would be more appropriate.
I'd be opposed to Hitscan too. Just get the bullet speed to a more realistic level. Seriously, velocity of bullets in PS2 is a joke. The low bullet velocity makes the whole game feel somehow sluggish. "I could see it coming" gets a real meaning in PS2 and if you are on your toes you can even avoid an incoming bullet. Ridiculous...
Hitscan=no skill players Really?? younger gamers these day right? Younger gamers want everything easy for them. everything handed to them. What happened to when First Person Shooters that took skill to play.(counterstrike) and took time to get good at. Back then more gamers worked hard to earn their skill. Now a days, gamers ask for these "AIM ASSIST FOR SNIPING" , saying ''I'll pay blah-blah amount to have it" Well I say to you "Money won't make you a instant pro at sniping" Hmmm.. Asking for a program to help your aim.. Sounds familiar.. Ahhh.. Its called an "Aim-bot" Well, not really a point any where "Aim-bot" but a "Aim-bot" non the less.. Its like having a "Hit-box" in the person that's running, the "Hit-box" in an "angle" opposite the direction of movement and at a certain "distance" depending on speed of the object moving. AIM AT THE BOX= ALWAYS HIT THE TARGET IT'S GOT AIM-BOT ALL OVER IT..HAHAHA
I agree and disagree with what you're saying. Your general point is right. But you're being too defensive, so you're missing an equally correct point brought up by others. The problem isn't strafing. I do it all the time. It's ******** to run straight while crossing large distances, so you alter both your direction of facing (to alter your head position) and direction of movement constantly, using slight turns and strafing. I do this every few seconds. I also tend to strafe in CQB. For point-blank range, I'll strafe for evasion while hiping. For short/medium range when I'm actually under fire, I'll strafe while ADSing. I only standing ADS when I'm firing at a target at long range and need the standing ADF CoF to hit. It's the desync/warping caused by extremely fast ADAD spamming. This is why it's _called_ ADAD spamming. Because we're not referring to people who strafe while running or in combat. We're talking about people who deliberately spam ADADAD in rapid succession to confuse the netcode and ghost themselves. Once you start deliberately aiming to **** with the netcode to avoid being hit, then skill and strategy has completely left the building. This behavior is, at best, cheap exploitation which lowers the skill cap of the game, and at worst, outright cheating. Some change needs to happen which deals with the latter without messing up the former. Inertia is maybe a bad word to use to describe it. We don't need to force people to move in straight lines. However, I do think they should put into place some kind of movement tweak which lowers speed if you genuinely are ADAD spamming. Something like executing a strafe command within 0.75 seconds of your last strafe command causing your strafe speed to be lowered to 50% for one second.
Yeah, I don't think most players understand how hitscan works. As a few people in this topic already noted, this wouldn't be a solution regardless. So let's go over the way hitscan and bullet collision works. As a note for people completely unfamiliar with networking, information from each client, the player's game, is sent to the server they play on which performs calculations it is meant to carry out, then distributes information back to each player client. The world, the players, the bullets, everything would look like it's snapping around without client-side smoothing. Status quo. It means bullet collision taking into account a given velocity (deceleration or acceleration, occasionally) and gravity (and other forces, famously in Halo) can be achieved in specifically different ways. But the basic logic many games use is progressive step-by-step collision testing (raycasting with greater steps for greater fidelity) resulting in a bullet jumping from point-to-point, only stopping if the server or client determines a collision. So a round travelling at 500m/s in PS2 with -10m/s2 vertical acceleration may experience, say, ten 50m steps to reach a target 500m away in one second in a slight parabolic path. Of course, as I said, "realistic" bullet movement can be achieved in different ways, but this is one of the simplest means of bullet tweening at high velocities for accurate collisions. To the client, tracer or visible movement is often smoothed to appear visually accurate. But what IS hitscan if it's used in one form or another in high-speed bullet projectiles? Hitscan. It's kind of a stupid term used in shooter games, but at least it isn't inaccurate. In stark contrast to the status quo, hitscan completes its calculation in only one step of raycasting. Therefore, it is virtually instantaneous and often ignores external forces for simplicity's sake so the bullet's path is a straight line consisting of two points unlike multiple points with collision detection between. Both mechanics, whether server-side or client-side, rely on a given hitbox (a bounding box or model the bullet can collide with during its calculations). The hitbox is ultimately the problem because, like the bullets, players are smoothed visually (and physically, so WYSIWYG to the clients) so their movement looks continuous although the server ultimately sees them as moving from point-to-point, from velocity-to-velocity. The hitbox's "warping" is the resulting prediction of player location to the client, which will exist regardless of which bullet collision system is used. A bullet still won't collide if a player's hitbox isn't where it should be. However, hitscan can make the sole effect of strafe spamming more evident by removing bullet velocity and other factors, which isn't necessary at all. So, yes, there's work to be done. I personally like the idea of giving a player a threshold of strafing so a certain amount of alternate strafing (ADADAD) will automatically flag the player and begin to calculate their movement by averaging two "steps" from two packets they send to the server. It is not a viable solution for all player movement because I'm not entirely certain what PS2's incoming packet rate is, but it can be used to effectively counter players spamming strafe to abuse the server's movement prediction. By averaging the flagged player's positions and velocities at two separate instances, strafe spamming would appear either as the player standing still or slightly moving to one side or another, rather than the current warping.
