Character Hit Boxes

[Breo]

But keep in mind if you make a F2P game that requires a high skill level the casual players will simply give up.
A long term engagement is important to gain more revenue because players will try the game before they purchase ingame stuff.

[Samurai]

[QUOTE=Breo;439693]But keep in mind if you make a F2P game that requires a high skill level the casual players will simply give up.
A long term engagement is important to gain more revenue because players will try the game before they purchase ingame stuff.[/QUOTE]

I agree that casual players need to find this game accessible and engaging in the long term. This should be the responsibility of a well working match making system to introduce and progress players to find their level so they do not feel ‘swamped’ by the skill level of the game. They should see it as an ambition to improve their rating (and skill level in the game) which will engage casual players in the long term. Seeing yourself progress in a game can be extremely rewarding (and addictive) which is one of the reasons i was captured by ET:QW.

I just feel lowering the skill ceiling will disengage the population of players that have already hit the ceiling if it is too low (I imagine a large portion of competent RTCW/W:ET/ETQW players will transition here), what’s the point in playing if the skill ceiling is already hit, the game will be interesting in the short term due to new content, but overall will not engage them in the long term as it will become fairly boring (no progression). Right now the game’s i find most engaging or attractive to me, are the one’s where there is a large room for me to improve and learn new ways of playing FPS games. I don’t think the core game play mechanics which will set the skill ceiling in this game should suffer because of casual players that may or may not be willing to invest time in the long term. Other aspects of the game should capture them if they are unwilling to invest time in personal progression.

[Evil-Doer]

[QUOTE=Samurai.;439684]I don’t see what the problem with accurate hitboxes is? surely this is a great thing that hitboxes are corresponding closer to where they should be on the model rather than getting random headshots and compensation for bad aim.

A game with these hitboxes should encourage each player to improve their aim (see it as a challenge that greater precision is needed here). Accurate hitboxes could put DB out there as a benchmark in FPS gaming for how good a player’s aim can be (this is the direction i would like DB to go towards). The issue lies within the visible model’s (i.e backpacks and area’s you cannot hit) and the handling of the weapons. Tighter hitboxes should mean more visible/clearer models and more accurate and easier to handle weapons giving the player complete control with less external influences changing their ability to aim/track.[/QUOTE]

Agree with you there my friend. +1

[Hundopercent]

The current hit boxes aren’t going anywhere fast so probably best to focus on individual weapon characteristics, they’re still changing.

Is their a quota needed from us before you guys start making changes (not being sarcastic?) We’ve posted numerous times over the past few months that the spread is too high on the guns. Now that we see the hitboxes and isolated part of the problem can we fix it and get some more accurate weapons?

Changes that should be made:

Remove the addition spread increase when hitting forward (have it match strafing)
Make the spread increase slower
Reduce the maximum spread (slightly)
Increase the speed in which the spread returns to normal
Greatly reduce spread when crouched and by greatly I mean so it’s almost none existent, that way you can crouch fire from long range.

In addition to this, since you are making female models smaller than males can you make their loadouts the gimmick loadouts you guys want to do so we don’t see them in comp play?

[ailmanki]

N!tmod hitbox for et…

[Tast1c]

long time engagement can only be big comp gaming especially FPS (doesnt matter if the game has learn curves or not!)

[Evil-Doer]

I’ll pay 5 dollars to allow the female to have any load out that the others do.

[Hundopercent]

I’ll pay 5 dollars to allow the female to have any load out that the others do.

Then get ready for all matches to be female vs female.

[INF3RN0]

I’m not a fan of model proportions being different from one another. Either way it seems like the models are designed along with their weapon, but it would benefit SD micro-transaction options if all the models had similar proportions and the same hitbox.

[warbie]

[QUOTE=strychzilla;439725]Is their a quota needed from us before you guys start making changes (not being sarcastic?) We’ve posted numerous times over the past few months that the spread is too high on the guns. Now that we see the hitboxes and isolated part of the problem can we fix it and get some more accurate weapons?

Changes that should be made:

Remove the addition spread increase when hitting forward (have it match strafing)
Make the spread increase slower
Reduce the maximum spread (slightly)
Increase the speed in which the spread returns to normal
Greatly reduce spread when crouched and by greatly I mean so it’s almost none existent, that way you can crouch fire from long range.

In addition to this, since you are making female models smaller than males can you make their loadouts the gimmick loadouts you guys want to do so we don’t see them in comp play?[/QUOTE]

+1

10 char

[Anti]

Is their a quota needed from us before you guys start making changes (not being sarcastic?) We’ve posted numerous times over the past few months that the spread is too high on the guns.

You can say things till you’re blue in the face, it doesn’t change the approach we’re taking to building the game.

When you say you want something all you need to think about is…that you want it. Once you’ve decided you want it, you just state that over and over again.

When we see you folks say you want something we have to consider:

[ul]
[li]Is it best for the whole game?
[/li][li]Will it be good for comp play?
[/li][li]Will it be good for pub play?
[/li][li]Do we see the issue in our own tests?
[/li][li]Do we see the issue in the stats data?
[/li][li]How long will it take to make?
[/li][li]What else do we lose or stop by making this change?
[/li][li]How many other assets (animations, audio, code, UI etc) does it affect?
[/li][li]Where will it fit in our schedule?
[/li][li]What else will it unbalance?
[/li][li]What other factors might be causing this issue?
[/li][/ul]

So, even supposing after we’ve discussed this that we agree with you folks, it might still take several weeks to get the work done, and it may still require several iterations to get to the final goal to ensure we’re not affecting other things.

If we don’t do this we’ll inevitably break more stuff than we fix and there is no doubt it would lead to longer delays in making the game and a higher cost to build it.

In this particular case we’re well aware of the factors that could be causing problems (hit box sizes, damage, rate of fire, spread size, spread growth and recovery, clips size) and we’re tweaking each of them over time to see where we get a good impact and where we don’t.

Weapon spread and creep will be reduced on most weapons next patch, that’s the next iteration. We’ll see how that goes, if it still isn’t where we’d like it we’ll go through the process again. If that means some adjustments to hit boxes then we’ll look into it.

I know it seems slow to you folks some times, maybe this is the downside of letting people play the game so early in its development, but this is how long it takes to make games the right way

[pulley]

but as we don’t see what you are doing, testing and planing we only have this forum to complain about it XD
So just life with us winning over the game don’t beeing rtcw

And maybe it would help if you dont try to put things right. Just read it. Say ok maybe and most of us will be quiet after that. But trying to reply makes thinks worse

[Anti]

[QUOTE=pulley;440055]but as we don’t see what you are doing, testing and planing we only have this forum to complain about it XD
So just life with us winning over the game don’t beeing rtcw

And maybe it would help if you dont try to put things right. Just read it. Say ok maybe and most of us will be quiet after that. But trying to reply makes thinks worse[/QUOTE]

That’s an odd one, in the past we always got accused of not talking to the community enough, but I’m more than happy to stop discussing things with you guys if you want though, I could get more work done then

[Volcano]

we still have ages to get this game fixed and to add new things, cant expect things to change quickly, at least sd is listening to us even if it taking a bit of time

[Rex]

…, maybe this is the downside of letting people play the game so early in its development, …

But here are also many testers who don’t talk and act like some guys with inappropriate language and an impatient behaviour.

[Ecano]

I know it seems slow to you folks some times, maybe this is the downside of letting people play the game so early in its development, but this is how long it takes to make games the right way

It might help to include these topic(s) iterations in the DB Feature ‘Road Map’

Take your time and make a great game.

[pulley]

no anti. Sure you have to talk to use. But arguing with us must be frustrating.
Just take the chance to learn from our experience. Hopefully this will help SD to provide us a game we all like

[SockDog]

I think the point is that SD are listening and people need to exercise some patience, engage some civility and maybe, in part, learn to accept that ultimately changes made in DB have bigger consequences for SD than any player in this test.

Expecting them to change their entire development process because we’re part of the alpha isn’t helping anyone.

[Anti]

[QUOTE=SockDog;440070]I think the point is that SD are listening and people need to exercise some patience, engage some civility and maybe, in part, learn to accept that ultimately changes made in DB have bigger consequences for SD than any player in this test.

Expecting them to change their entire development process because we’re part of the alpha isn’t helping anyone.[/QUOTE]

To be clear, I wasn’t suggesting anybody was suggesting that

It’s more a case of having some patience around what can change and that rate at which it will, these things take a bit more time than you folks sometimes realize. Just because you’ve said it a few times doesn’t mean it can be done any quicker, neither does it mean we’ve ignored it.

[Samurai]

It’s more a case of having some patience around what can change and that rate at which it will, these things take a bit more time than you folks sometimes realize. Just because you’ve said it a few times doesn’t mean it can be done any quicker, neither does it mean we’ve ignored it.

Yeah i get where you are coming from and understand it takes great time for changes to develop, from our perspective it can be hard to know what thought path you guys at SD are on for some of these topics, where you stand on them in the office and how any statistics back up any of our points (as we don’t get to see them).

Just a little input like Mr. Ed did in the sliding crouch thread is really useful as it let’s us know if we are on the same line of thought, and whether it is worth us putting more detailed feedback (so time) into debating an aspect of the game that has a possibility of being implemented.

Edit:

Weapon spread and creep will be reduced on most weapons next patch, that’s the next iteration. We’ll see how that goes, if it still isn’t where we’d like it we’ll go through the process again. If that means some adjustments to hit boxes then we’ll look into it.

That’s awesome to hear, really look forward to testing out these changes!