Community Question: Shooting While Sprinting

(INF3RN0) #141

No they are not… it’s just a different style of weapon mechanics. Why do people pick ET over CS? It’s the speed of the game. If you have the ability to run-and-gun as a standard, then the overall game speed is fast and you have to think just as quick. Tactical shooters are much slower paced and thus long-term planning/thinking take more precedent, which is also why their main game mode is bomb. I like those games and have played them quite a lot, but you get just as much tactical play without that stuff. Why don’t you just put your suggestions into ravenshield 3 or something, no need to alter one of the selling points of ET because your a camper.

(tokamak) #142

Why don’t you just put your suggestions into ravenshield 3 or something

Because that’s not what I want. I apologise if I didn’t make myself clear on that even though I suspect it’s a highly convenient point to argue against as well. I like the way Raven Shield specialises itself in this hair-triggered style of combat, but it would be really detrimental for an objective based shooter.

Dynamic spread should play a substantial role but it should determine the outcome of every fight in the same way that plain accuracy shouldn’t determine the outcome of every fight.

(INF3RN0) #143

[QUOTE=tokamak;386757]
Dynamic spread should play a substantial role but it should determine the outcome of every fight in the same way that plain accuracy shouldn’t determine the outcome of every fight.[/QUOTE]

This is what your failing to realize in all of this. When there is “true aim” you have to be using an aimbot to hit 100% accuracy and it is the most difficult style of aim to be consistent in. Now what the speed of the game + tactical play does in this type of aim situation is to increase the difficulty of aim required in specific situations. There is not a single person who will consistently beat the odds, unless of course their opponent is awful. An individually good player in an ET game will have great aim consistency, but they will also be smart enough to avoid bad situations and put themselves in good ones. A player with great aim can camp a spawn all day versus multiple players with poor aim, but the majority of the time those players lack just as much in tactical approach. When your in a gun fight, it’s always about adapting your approach in order to increase your odds of survival which is going to directly influence the difficulty involved in aiming.

When I used to play 1v1s with my teammates/randoms, I would always put myself in situations where it was easiest for me to have aim consistency. I was stronger at certain distances than others, and so when my opponent would realize this they would alter their strategy to find my weakest point of aim consistency. Point is there’s waaaaay more going on behind the scenes than your acknowledge, which is normally ignored until you reach a level of play where the little things really matter in individual play.

(tokamak) #144

Moving does increase the difficulty of aiming but not substantially, at least that’s true for me, I of course have no idea how well you’re doing on that front. What it also does is that it makes you a harder to hit target so in a way it’s compensated, especially considering you’re the one who knows where you’re moving next.

This makes moving the best solution in almost any situation. I don’t think anyone is ever going to waste any brain cells on that.

(Kendle) #145

I’m going to have to wade in at this point as well because I have no idea what this means. ??

Spread simply adds luck, nothing more, nothing less. Whether it’s “dynamic”, static, strawberry flavoured or yellow with pink spots, spread = luck.

If you want to punish someone for moving (and being a long time DOD:S player I fully appreciate the trade off between running and shooting as opposed to sprinting and not shooting) do it with recoil, which can be controlled, not spread, which can’t.

No game is ever improved with spread, it’s just something game developers use because they’re not clever enough to balance different guns by other means. The less spread a game has the less it’s broken, it’s really no more complicated than that. Spread adds nothing to a game, it only takes something away.

(tokamak) #146

You’re arguing against a high average spread, like Brink. With dynamic spread the minimum amount of spread achievable can still be incredibly low.

It’s not luck, it’s probability. Deciding which probability you’re going to trade off against what other action in the game is a skill that adds an enormous layer of depth to the game.

(Kendle) #147

It’s both luck and a probability. You’re trading the probability that by sprinting you may or may not get lucky against the (relatively speaking) certainty that by not sprinting you’re less likely to have bad luck, but it’s still luck.

It would be equally skilled (in the sense of weighing up probabilities) if the difference was recoil, except it would also be more skilled because you could control the recoil and luck wouldn’t be one of the probabilities you were having to trade.

(INF3RN0) #148

[QUOTE=tokamak;386759]Moving does increase the difficulty of aiming but not substantially, at least that’s true for me, I of course have no idea how well you’re doing on that front. What it also does is that it makes you a harder to hit target so in a way it’s compensated, especially considering you’re the one who knows where you’re moving next.

This makes moving the best solution in almost any situation. I don’t think anyone is ever going to waste any brain cells on that.[/QUOTE]

So why exactly do you lose individual gun fights then? I am not entirely sure how to interpret what you just posted… aim=how good you are at keeping your mouse on the player model. Add small high damage hitboxes+high speeds+dynamic movement and you have a high skill cap. If one guy is strafing behind thick cover he is at an advantage versus a guy in the open. If someone is climbing a hill, and the other is already at the top then height has the advantage. A guy in a narrow hallway versus a guy in an open space at the end of the hallway… the list goes on, but obviously there are situations where positioning+movement have a huge influence on aim difficulty for both people; that’s a big part of individual tactics. Dynamic spread won’t change anything other than the method of using a weapon, which tends to always require you to move at 1mph, but that’s the only difference.

(tokamak) #149

We’re talking about rapid firing rifles here, that means the dice are rolled often enough to reduce extreme flukes to a minimum. Flukes are rare enough not to be able to rely on them. What this means is that players can accurately predict how much of their bullets are going to hit the target (even just by watching how much of the target covers the spread bars of the crosshair).
This means that they can predict how long it will take them before they eliminate the player. They can also know by looking at the opponent’s posture how much of an accuracy he’ll (and even additional information like being familiar with your opponent by having met before) have and thus how long it will take him before he downs you. Hold these two odds against each other and you can weigh all your options.

With a flat spread all of the above is true as well, but both odds of the players will be equal (ESPECIALLY in a competitive setting where players are approaching the skill ceiling). That’s why it will always make sense to keep running and gunning no matter what. Because, well, there’s pretty much nothing else to do. You don’t really have any other viable options.

(Kendle) #150

Ooo kay

I’m gob smacked. In 10 years I’ve never seen someone argue randomness is predictable. Next you’ll have me believing black is white.

I’m going to do a Darkangel and back out as quickly as I jumped in because this is a waste of time.

(tokamak) #151

They skipped the statistics chapter at maths?

(Kendle) #152

In a single firefight spread will add luck to the outcome, fact. Just because over time all players of equal skill will statistically have as much luck as each other doesn’t make it OK.

(tokamak) #153

I’m not even talking about the collected sum of players. I’m talking about the amount of bullets usually fired at a player, that’s enough shots to base a predictable outcome on.

(Kendle) #154

No, it isn’t. Some of them will hit, some of them will miss. You won’t know how many will hit, or miss, and you couldn’t do anything about it even if you did. Assuming 2 players of equal skill luck will determine the winner. The outcome is only predictable between players of un-equal skill.

The degree of difference, how un-equal the skill difference needs to be, lots, some, hardly any, whatever phrase you wish to use, we can argue till the cows come home, but if there were no spread there would be no luck factor at all.

(tokamak) #155

You can express the combat potency in the average time it will take before you eliminate the target With so many odds taken in such a short amount of time you’ll find that there’s very little variation in between these different lengths of time. And this is provided all other factors are eliminated, the external factors will have a far bigger impact on lowering the predictability of your elimination time than the spread itself has.

(shirosae) #156

Especially because your brain is trying to do all of the battle awareness/ strategy stuff at the same time, at a pace made much faster by bringing the spread levels down so you can’t rely on the lottery spread artificially extending the bullet exchange.

Also lol @ the sound thing; putting on a pair of good headphones and paying attention to your ears is incredibly important for advance warning during an extended firefight, with free information about the approach enemies are taking from their footsteps, whether they’re reloading, how many there are, whether there’s fighting going on nearby, how intense it is, how many are dying, which weapons they’re using, how many grenades they’ve expended and stuff, so you can be doing the whole battle awareness / strategy thing to adjust your approach/escape strategies as you’re fighting.

The best bit is how much information is there for you if you’re willing to listen: more than you can possibly interpret all at once. And so you play, and practice and get better, and you can feel more of what’s going on around you as you fight, and then Tony shouts NICE KNOWING at you lots because you heard him coming and waited for the reload sound.

Now compare with Brink (for example), that insisted on making me deaf repeatedly as soon as anything interesting happened. Le sigh. All that glorious strategy at breakneck pace has been replaced by mindless turtling.

(tokamak) #157

Most of the sound is relevant before the combat starts. And sounds become only more useful under a dynamic spread system exactly because you get to prepare.

Oh and I loved the sound drop-offs. Being able to disorientate your opponent is a great tactical asset.

(Humate) #158

Randomness is still random
But managing the extent of the randomness, is still management.
When an action, like standing still, crouching, going prone or tap firing lowers the maximum spread value, you are effectively managing or controlling the extent of the spread.

You can control recoil all you want in etqw, but if youre holding down mouse1 the bullets are going to hit the area outside of what youre aiming at, by not allowing the weapon to return to its minimum spread value. (I believe its called spread_max_settle_time)

(Humate) #159

Now compare with Brink (for example), that insisted on making me deaf repeatedly as soon as anything interesting happened. Le sigh. All that glorious strategy at breakneck pace has been replaced by mindless turtling.

:slight_smile: Exactly

10char

(AO) #160

I voted for the first one, sprinting while shooting, but with a penalty.