Spammable crouching has to go!

That's a fair assessment, but, to be honest, I don't think I've ever seen (first hand, or recorded) an instance of ADAD effecting more latency than normal movement. In other words, a player who is warping around normally because of a ****** connection would obviously also warp while ADADing, but a player with a stable connection seems to exhibit no more effects of latency while dodging than while performing other normal movements.
I searched Youtube for examples of ADAD warping, but could find none.

Maybe it's a Connery thing. I don't know if it's animations or lag or macros, but things get stupid on this server during the Asian hours when I'm on. As far as importance, ADADADcrouch stuff is at the very bottom of the list of what I'm concerned with. But I do see it as a small issue.

I found this video that shows pretty accurately what I often see. I should really start recording everything, but I don't care enough about it.

Well, apart from the fact that that video is from 2013, here's the clip slowed down:
https://streamable.com/zr5v0
The biggest warp the guy does is when he stops at the top of the stairs. For starters, that indicates that his connection is probably shaky to begin with. But then watch his position while he moves back and forth. The shooter's aim jerks around violently a few times, which certainly gives the illusion that the target is moving fast when the video is played at normal speed. But if you watch the target's actual position on the stairs, he moves back and forth with consistent speeds and very little, if any, warping. He certainly wasn't warping around more while ADADing than he was during his normal movements (he warps the most noticeably before and after the engagement).
And the shooter's crosshair is basically never once on target. Blaming what little warping the target may have done for their own death is just silly.

I've found that "where your opponent is looking" is much less reliable than "where he is standing." I'm going to ignore my usual complaint that angle fidelity in this game is poor because I have no verifiable statistics to bring to the table. Instead, I will fall back on basic clientside where, if you see your opponent at x,y,z, you can hit him by shooting at x,y,z. From the perspective of both users, at any given time, you both are looking at each other where you both saw each other a few milliseconds ago. He looks like he's aiming to your left slightly because your client is rendering him from a few milliseconds ago looking at where he saw you standing another few milliseconds ago on his client.

He can hit you with what looks like shots that miss on your screen as long as the server can validate where you used to be. The projectiles you can actually see from his weapon are counted illusions of your client experience. It doesn't matter if they don't actually seem to hit you because they're just trying to reflect where he's been shooting at you.

Edit:
Conversations about this game start sounding a lot like conversations with BioShock Infinite's Lucete twins after a while. Or maybe Doc Brown for a more appropriate reference.

Actually, I meant the crosshair of the player recording the video. They missed basically every shot, then got mad that they died.
There most certainly was no point at which the recording player had the target in their crosshair, and then the target warped out of the line of fire due to ADAD. They just plain missed.

Ah, my bad.

The problem is mixing ADAD+crouching with latency+clientside FPS. When you have latency involved it's exploiting the system. And spare the "skill" part of it. It requires very very little of it to press keys like that, this isn't a RTS, but FPS. Especially considering you have people do the same movement so many times that they probably bound a KB macro to it. This is no different than people exploiting the "dolphin diving" with other FPS.

And yes, it looks incredibly stupid.

If DBG cares one bit about the game they would address lag wizards. But they have no intention of fixing it. Thus they don't care about the game.

The root of the problem is:
1) it looks dumb
2) it doesn't fit what players want from their space-man-with-gun theme simulation
3) it requires complicated, non-intuitive, and (for some) annoying finger gymnastics
4) it is not officially promoted and incorporated as a cornerstone of melee gameplay by DBG

In contrast, if the theme were a "Matrix" game, the ADAD/crouching/K-Style GunZ would turn into being commonly regarded as a GOOD thing:
1) the dodging would have custom animations that looked cool
2) people would both expect and celebrate characters that can dodge bullets like in the Matrix movies
3) it would be designed purposely by Devs, and so it would have a fun and easy to understand and do execution
4) it would be officially promoted and incorporated as a cornerstone of melee gameplay by DBG

I think the ADAD stuff in the game as it is, is dumb. I would rather either see:
1) it nerfed, or
2) it formally added as a part of the game, with appropriate animation and stats and tutorial on how to do

I don't like a game that leaves something in that looks bad. And I don't like a game that leaves in something that is confusing, non-intuitive, and massively powerful

Could DBG not just add some inertia like Battlefield 1 got. This removed the cheap tactic of ADAD spam and instead moved the skill back to placement and aim.

Yes, but that has no impact on balance.

Did you do a survey?

And since when is Planetside a "simulation"?

Lots of strategies in this game could be called "complicated, non-intuitive, and annoying". That's usually what makes them great strategies. If every strategy were easy, obvious, and boring, then the game would get very old very quick.

And what strategies are "officially promoted and incorporated"? As far as I recall, the game gives you a tutorial that outlines the absolute bare-minimum required to play, and then throws you in and lets you figure everything out from there.

When I am talking about it looking dumb, I am not talking about balance. I am just talking about how it appears.

Most people want a game that looks good and looks "appropriate". And as I said in my post, they could add in some nice animation and it wouldn't look dumb anymore.

"It looks profoundly stupid..."
- Naskoni

"It looks profoundly stupid, I'll grant you that."
- Rydenan

"It looks so odd"
- LostMyMarbles

"River Dance"
- Towie

"And yes, it looks incredibly stupid."
- Drsexxytime

"it looks dumb"
- zaspacer

Mosaic Theory.

All games are basically a combination of:
1) mechanics
2) theme

And the theme invariably in games is derivative. Either of a specific license, or of a general genre or mashup or genres.

My "space-man-with-gun theme simulation" used the term "simulation" as a reference to a derivative based theme of the scifi genre.

I was not talking about "mechanics", nor was I touching on the topic of PS2 as an "accurate" physics mechanics game. I know that is a topic, but that is not a topic I was delving into.

For a mass audience mainstream game, core basic mechanics should avoid being exclusively complicated, non-intuitive, and/or annoying. There should be at least some version that is intuitive, simple, and not-annoying.

For the same game type ("mass audience mainstream game"), advanced mechanics can often be complicated and/or non-intuitive, but they should generally not be annoying. Though there should generally be some sort of realistic and viable learning curve progression for the average player to access the advanced mechanics.

Most the stuff you read/see in trailers, read/see in tutorials, read/see with descriptors, that are legacy content from similar game types, that parallel themes from movies or real world (guns shoot, have ammo, etc.) etc. All of that is officially promoted and incorporated. It is there with direct intent, and it is presented in a way that is recognizable, conforms to understanding, etc.

The stuff that doesn't conform to common sense, or that wildly seems to not make any sense, is stuff that is not officially promoted and incorporated.

Again, I am NOT saying they have to remove all the K-Style GunZ stuff. I am just saying if they leave it in they should thematically better incorporate it into the game, make it look good, and make it fit the learning curve. Otherwise, you get a game that almost everyone stops playing and new players find laughably unplayable... oh wait, that's current day PS2.

"Bunny hopping leads to pretty cheesy and silly gameplay. Is it skillful? Sure, but cheesy and silly no less. So jumping is tied to a stamina system in PS2, and I argue that so should ADADADcrouch spam."
- adamts01


I implied it, but I'll say it now, ADADADcrouch spam is cheesy and silly.

I won't go so far as to say it's unintuitive however, as it's pretty much a standard in any game where it's effective, which is probably the majority of games.

Unless intuitiveness is tied to real life behavior. In that case I'd agree, as zigzagging while trying to fire back is beyond ridiculous. Professionals never use such a technique and amateurs show that it's not instinct.

Uy, where to begin? Not only is the forums nowhere near a representative sample of the playerbase, but a hand-picked series of quotes proves nothing more than the fact that at least 6 PS2 players think ADAD looks dumb.
But beyond that, thinking it looks dumb and thinking it needs to be changed/removed are not the same thing.
You should know this, since you quoted me as saying that it looks dumb, but you know very well that I don't think it needs to be changed.

Planetside? "Accurate physics mechanics game"?
I am truly not following this strand of logic.
IMO, ADAD is no more absurd than orbital turbo flashes, flying tanks, C4/tank mine frisbees, bouncing instagibbing debris, HAs who mash jump to scale vertical walls, etc.
This is Planetside, and it screams "arcade"; always has.

The concept of moving around - instead of standing still like a statue - to make yourself harder to hit can hardly be called an "exclusively complicated, advanced mechanic". And is hardly as un-intuitive as you seem to think. The idea that "if you stand still while shooting you're easier to hit" is not difficult to glean from your first few hours of play. I picked it up on my own just fine, as did my friends.

As for it being annoying, the only ones I ever hear complain about that are the ones who haven't practiced dodging themselves. So they get annoyed when someone who has practiced it bests them. Then they come to the forums to ask that dodging be removed or nerfed, naturally.

I must have missed the trailer where a Wraith Fury Flash kills an MBT by driving in a circle around it and shooting while continuously honking its vanity horn. Or the one with the C4 jump jet suicide LAs, or the one where the Galaxies fly across the biolab platforms to get pancake roadkills.

If your goal is to eliminate all strategies that aren't explicitly seen in one of the trailers, I think all of us here can thank the Planetgods that you're not on the dev team.

See previous statement.

If they made it look good, that would be great. But removing it because it doesn't look good? That is a horrible game design decision.
Besides, I'm 99.999999% confident that the reason players leave PS2 is not because ADADing doesn't look good.

I've been playing PS2 for a long time now, and also reading various feedback from players. Many people have said they think it looks dumb, over a long period of time.

You and I already both said it looks dumb. Do you really think there is a silent majority out there that really digs how it looks?

I know you aren't against the animation changing so it looks cooler? I also am fine with that. So let's both support the idea that PS2 Devs embrace this gameplay and improve things by adding cool animation to the game for it.

Why are you jumping on the statement and topic that I specifically said I was NOT talking about?

I was not talking about "mechanics".

There is certain specific parameters to the movement that provide benefits. And certain weapons that allow for better performance during that movement. And certain inherent failings on net play, in terms of players being able to track movement of other players. Plus certain benefits from class abilities, medkits, certs, etc.

And it's not something the average player just "gets". This is one of the primary areas of disconnect for new players, and the gripe we see over and over about "I shoot them in the back, they turn and kill me".

Are you just trolling me? Or are you just being political and trying to inject nonsense to confuse the issue?

It does seem that most people complaining about it are those who don't use it.

I have seen some of those who do know about it also complain about it, but there are also plenty who know about it and like it.

Flash shooting is officially promoted and incorporated.

LAs using C4 is officially promoted and incorporated.

Galaxies getting roadkills is (sadly) officially promoted and incorporated.

I'm surprised you struggle to identify the intended gameplay from the unintended gameplay. Luckily you have me (for now) here, and I can help you out with this kind of stuff.

Did you not read my post?:
"Most the stuff you read/see in trailers, read/see in tutorials, read/see with descriptors, that are legacy content from similar game types, that parallel themes from movies or real world (guns shoot, have ammo, etc.) etc. All of that is officially promoted and incorporated. It is there with direct intent, and it is presented in a way that is recognizable, conforms to understanding, etc."

Content from the trailers was only a fraction of the context I covered.

I'm gonna assume you're just trying to troll if this keeps up.

Cool, I agree.

I think at this point in PS2's age and given PS2's outdated art, it is not a good idea to remove it.

If you removed it, you would just anger lots of current players. And no masses of new or retired players are gonna join the game at this point even if you made the change.

If PS2 were still a new game, and it still had lots of players OR if PS2 had a way to make updated art, then I would suggest, either:
1) remove ADAD/etc.
2) OR make good animation for it and making it an official part of the game.

But since PS2 is an old game and the art is not gonna get updated, I would instead suggest only making good animation for it and making it an official part of the game.

Lotta new players hate the ADAD/etc. mitigation. They hate it because it's non-intuitive to them, and they hate it because it doesn't make sense to them in the game they think PS2 should be based on how it looks to them.

This is why I said that making it have proper animations would help because players could see what is happening, and also would be more ok with it because they see the game has Matrix style crazy stuff that they know about and could then accept.

I don't think it's unintuitive to experienced FPS players. I do think it's unintuitive to casual or unexperienced FPS players.

In the same way that safe jumps, meaties, option selects, etc. aren't unintuitive to experienced Fighting Game players. But those same things are unintuitive to casual or unexperienced Fighting Game players.

I do think that intuitiveness is tied to real life behavior (or movie logic, etc.) for many casual and unexperienced players. And also there are things that are less overt for new/unexperienced players and so they don't catch they are there, but that do make sense to them once you explain it is there.

"Mechanics" was literally your own word.

I fail to see the relevance of this paragraph.

I'm "injecting nonsense" into the discussion by making a rational argument and then backing it up with evidence and reasoning?

Are you for real?

Let me help you: I've explained why I think it's reasonably intuitive.
You have not given an explanation as to why you believe it's unintuitive, other than saying "It's unintuitive" several times.

I can make huge generalizarions too. Watch:

Infantry movement is officially promoted and incorperated.

Therefore ADAD, being infantry movement, is fine.

And unless you can provide some evidence that dodging is, quote, "unintended gameplay", I'd refrain from being so smug. Makes you sound petty.

The point, which (unsurprisingly) flew several miles over your head, is that your criteria is arbitrary and terribly vague, making it essentially meaningless.

But I shouldn't expect more from someone who repeatedly throws out the "if you keep disagreeing with me, you must be a troll" argument. Brilliant.

I stand corrected. You were not trying to troll me.

However, it does seem like we have a impass in our standard communication attempts. I don't fault either of us, it's just differences that trigger an impass.

So I will leave off there.

No one ever said that it looking dumb has an impact on balance - that's just your argumentative and pitiful attempt to create an argument where there is none and stinks of desperation. And yes it does affect balance in that weapons that rely on scoring consistent headshots get screwed if someone abuses spammable crouching. You can even read people clearly stating that they abuse spammable crouching as thus they win confrontations they know for certain they'd lose otherwise. But I'm sure you skipped over that part...

About surveys - not sure if you're aware, but since you brought this up - no survey in the world questions half the registered population before coming up with any results - it's *always* a tiny minority that get to give their opinions yet in the end it represents that whole. This thread is exactly that. Just because you, personally, disagree with it doesn't mean it's irrelevant, sorry.

Everything in Planetside 2 is clearly on well within the simulation half of gaming and away from the arcade half. And it was the case since PS2 came into existence, sorry that you weren't there from the beginning. Every single cone of fire penalty for basically every other action says so too. Funny how spamming crouching and standing up seems to be the only exception, but hey, lets ignore that fact, shall we?

And if the game's own tooltips promote aiming for the head to do better, yet we have an abusable mechanic that makes that pointless at close and medium range, it would seem that your "argument" how this is a normal and desirable mechanic holds no ground. You cannot tell people to aim for headshots yet leave spammable crouching as an actual thing. It's either or.

I'd also like you to list several of the "many" "complicated, non-intuitive, and annoying" strategies in PS2 as I can't seem to think of any.

Sometimes there is a thin line between using experience to gain advantage and abusing the game mechanics.

(1) an LA jumps on top of a contested tower and from there racks kills by hitting the defenders from above. The defenders cannot fly up there so easily because they would be quickly killed in the process.

vs.

(2) sniping from the spawn-room waiting for the base count-down to go to zero.

vs.

(3) ADADing and crouch-spamming (with or without a macro, doesn't really matter) to cause your character to rubber-band on your opponent screen due to lag and have him miss his shots.

How do you categorize these scenarios?

(1) is a strategy. You could argue it is a bit cheesy but nothing wrong with that. The game works that way.

(2) is another strategy, and it is even cheesier, but again nothing wrong with that. The spawn-room has force fields. You can fire outside. The game works that way

(3) is an exploit, not a strategy. You can ADAD, you can crouch-spam, it is clearly part of the game mechanics but the rubber-banding is not there by design. It is a problem to solve. Want another example? I have seen players scaling vertical walls by continuous jumping. It works, but it is an exploit.

That's fair.
Agree to disagree.

You and I seem to differ on whether or not crouching in order to throw off your opponent's aim counts as "abuse".

I think calling it abuse is about as logically sound as calling repeatedly popping out from behind a corner "abusing cover".

I see you have a very poor understanding of statistics. Allow me to give you a crash course.

In order to get an accurate result from a sample size that's smaller than the population, you must use what is known as a Simple Random Sample. This means that the sampled group must consist of a completely random selection of individuals from the overall population.

Taking a survey only from people who have registered on this forum already means you aren't using a Simple Random Sample (SRS), because only a certain subset of people care enough to go on the forums.
Beyond that, "sampling" the people who posted in this thread - and thus clearly have strong feelings on the issue - is about as far from an SRS as physically possible.

Claiming that the PS2 population dislikes ADAD because of what a handful of people in an anti-ADAD thread posted is like saying that all Americans want a Border Wall because you talked to six people at a Trump rally and they all said "yes".

It's funny how you cite Cone of Fire when arguing that Planetside is simulation-like, when Cone of Fire is a completely artificial and made-up mechanic that doesn't happen in real life (or in any mil sims).

Believe it or not, you can still aim for the head when the enemy has crouched. You merely need to move your mouse down slightly. Reverse this tactic once they stand back up. Or control your bursts and only shoot them when their head is in your crosshair.
I've seen precious few videos where someone's aim has been dead-on the opponent's head, and the opponent has crouch-dodged out of the way of the headshots.
What usually haplens, rather, is that the shooter is spraying and praying, and just blames crouching for their aim being off.

I argued that dodging was none of those three things.

But alright, I'll humor you:
- Understanding clientside hit detection and using it to your advantage when popping in and out of cover
- Flanking in a crowded fight with a super-close-range weapon like a PA shotgun
- CQC bolting with a single-shot BASR
- Battle ANT
- The entire air game, emphasis on the 'annoying'
- Quick knifing
- Medkit chugging
- Many more