Community Question: Spread vs Recoil

(edxot) #121

YES, it’s time to disable those ridiculous prediction restrictions.

(tokamak) #122

Definitely!

And although I’m a fan of complexity, I really like the weapons to remain hitscan rather than projectile. Hitscan just adds that little complication to fights that takes a lot of the fun out. The damage-fall off over distance also compensate for ridiculous long range shenanigans and makes projectile ballistics unnecessary in balancing the gameplay.

(Dthy) #123

Since we ended up leaning onto lag and netcode/hit reg etc, a weird/awesome for me moment has happened on promod during a match. Here it is from both perspectives.

My POV (and external)

//youtu.be/RKy--qSDG44

Kordin’s POV

//youtu.be/Jf2WOcwVrCc

(Senethro) #124

I honestly can’t tell what you’re saying here. If you’re attempting sarcasm its a stupid post because you’re making such a bad reading of my post that it has to be disingenuous. If you’re being sincere its a stupid post because its an obviously bad idea.

(tangoliber) #125

I prefer zero spread, no need for iron sights, and no accuracy penalty for moving. Deterministic recoil is fine. Even CS 1.6 could be made less random.

This works best with high player health, but with a significant headshot bonus. Roughly 2-3 seconds to kill when shooting at the body… with quick kills possible if you manage to land a stream of headshots.

(edxot) #126

so, you didnt understand what i was saying…

but there is something you did understand quite well: either way, i am stupid.

…

well, let me tell you something about me: sometimes i am stupid. but i also can be many other bad things. however, those didnt bother you. just the stupidity. why ? easy answer, because you are also stupid and similar people dont like each other.

…

ok, now i know you are stupid. so i am taking a bit of a risk here. but let’s give it a try:

why is it a bad idea ? why not resctrict prediction in a range, like between 5 and 150, instead of having it at a fixed value 20 ?

(tokamak) #127

What values are you talking about here?

(Dthy) #128

It’s not fixed. You can change it.

@toka He’s talking about net_ClientPrediction in ETQW. So it’s nothing to do with the actual thread topic.

(Senethro) #129

[QUOTE=edxot;404618]so, you didnt understand what i was saying…

but there is something you did understand quite well: either way, i am stupid.

…

well, let me tell you something about me: sometimes i am stupid. but i also can be many other bad things. however, those didnt bother you. just the stupidity. why ? easy answer, because you are also stupid and similar people dont like each other.

…

ok, now i know you are stupid. so i am taking a bit of a risk here. but let’s give it a try:

why is it a bad idea ? why not resctrict prediction in a range, like between 5 and 150, instead of having it at a fixed value 20 ?[/QUOTE]

hey don’t be down on yourself, i said the post was stupid not you

good people sometimes do wrong things but they’re still good

its ok

Seriously though, what are you talking about? All I said previously was that I’ve enjoyed playing games with successful implementations of lag compensation. I made no comment about how to implement it, so I don’t get why you’re asking me about it.

You want a guy who codes nets. Netcoding, if you will.

Bawb?

(edxot) #130

i was talking because i ear the “coming from walls” escuse a lot. like if high ping would be better than lower.

(BMXer) #131

Spread is lotto and creates randomness in firefights that is super unfair.

A player who out aims his opponent should ALWAYS win the fight!

It should never come down to a random number generator to determine who wins in a skill based contest!!!

(tokamak) #132

It’s not a lotto if you can control the standard deviation. Knowing which spread is preferably against what type of mobility completely comes down on your judgement of the situation, which is the most important skillset in a tactical shooter.

(Humate) #133

If we are talking about symmetrically balanced factions, yes whoever has the better aim wins with the same weapon. But once its asymmetrical, its about playing to the strengths of the weapon, vs the skill differential b/w two players.

(INF3RN0) #134

It also allows for randomness to determine the outcome of a situation where both players perform under the same judgement. Why not make things more difficult by forcing them to actually have to pixel aim 100% of the time. The only reason not to would be a need to cater to players with aim weakness that find some sort of “tactical” substance where in reality there is none- it’s just plain out less skillful and slows everything down. Also you would be wise to consider the fact that this “tactical style” is meant for SnD as the main game mode. Objective mode already has a perfect compliment, and that’s not it.

(Humate) #135

Controlling the degree of the lotto via stance is still lotto… but its not that important since youre not aiming at a single pixel.

(tokamak) #136

The amount of shots fired per firefight actually reduce the random effect considerably. You’re firing a 3-dimensional bell curve at your opponent and releasing 15 shots at your target on average makes that bell curve pretty smooth.

There’s nothing stopping you from firing with extremely low spread safe for wanting to have your cake and eat it.

(Senethro) #137

The problem is if you take 15 bullets to kill at short range or less, you’re kind of a chump. Its not a competition of who shoots best over a large number of shots, its who reaches a very low damage threshold first with a tiny double value bullseye thrown into the mix.

Spread makes that pretty damn lotto (hate using the word like that btw)

(INF3RN0) #138

Toka, you might be thinking that spread adds some sort of “thinking element” to a game, but it really doesn’t differ as much as you think from pixel tracking- other than pixel tracking is more pure aim demanding and has no random factor. Spread control and weapon shooting function are still really just a simple matter of knowing where to aim, you just hope that the random variables are in your favor. There’s enough tactical stuff that comes from a player’s game sense in terms of when/where to engage and how their decisions compliment the team. Shooting styles still fall under the skill category, which is perfected through practice and not thinking.

(shirosae) #139

It occurs to me that if you really wanted to offer the same tedious slow turtle gameplay that almost every other FPS has offered for the past few years, you could do it by replacing spread with a damage modifier based on the same stance/movement curves. Over several thousand shots you get a distribution of damage identical to spread, but the distribution keeps the same shape with small sample sizes.

Spread is pretty much literally the worst option available. Random distributions don’t work on small samples.

(tokamak) #140

Although that would be a nice compromise and would certainly be the best solution to combine the importance of accuracy and situational awareness, it would not be the same thing. That modifer would interact differently with accuracy than spread would. Rather than your combat power being the average of your spread and accuracy averaging out on each other, they interact according the weakest link principle.

At short range the spread matters less. Trying to bend an example like that is a bit moot. 15 bullets on average for a kill seems like a fair estimate to me.