Do we really need aimpunch?

[Jurmabones]

Personally I think it should not exist. This game is not meant to be nor is it remotely realistic. Aimpunch just adds an anti-fun element to shootouts. Nobody wants to lose control of their character.

[KangaJoo]

[quote=“Amerika;65670”]
Proper training…or using a 3rd party crosshair/dot on your screen. I don’t like aimpunch but lets not try to sell that visual aimpunch is a better alternative to random aimpunch. It can be easily gotten around (depending on how it’s implemented).[/quote]
Have you played ET? Even with a third party crosshair on your monitor you wouldn’t be hitting the target that way. Your view moves up when you get hit and you basically have to imagine your crosshair moves down at the same rate to stay on target. If you went off a third party crosshair you’d still be aiming in the wrong spot. Basically you just pretend you never got hit and that your screen never moved.

I’d prefer it be entirely gone. But I’d definitely prefer light handed random aimpunch over not random since many people would simply use a 3rd party program or put a dot on their screen which would forge a bigger gap between the players who know to do that and the players who do not know.

Again, that’s not how it works. Your whole screen moves up so if you have a third party crosshair overlay it will move up too and it will not show you where you should actually be aiming. Plus they could easily just make it so your screen moves but your crosshair stays in the same spot. That way new players can understand how the mechanic works just by looking at where their crosshair points rather than going off feel.

[Amerika]

[quote=“ChinaRep;65854”][quote=“Amerika;65670”]
Proper training…or using a 3rd party crosshair/dot on your screen. I don’t like aimpunch but lets not try to sell that visual aimpunch is a better alternative to random aimpunch. It can be easily gotten around (depending on how it’s implemented).[/quote]
Have you played ET? Even with a third party crosshair on your monitor you wouldn’t be hitting the target that way. Your view moves up when you get hit and you basically have to imagine your crosshair moves down at the same rate to stay on target. If you went off a third party crosshair you’d still be aiming in the wrong spot. Basically you just pretend you never got hit and that your screen never moved.

I’d prefer it be entirely gone. But I’d definitely prefer light handed random aimpunch over not random since many people would simply use a 3rd party program or put a dot on their screen which would forge a bigger gap between the players who know to do that and the players who do not know.

Again, that’s not how it works. Your whole screen moves up so if you have a third party crosshair overlay it will move up too and it will not show you where you should actually be aiming. Plus they could easily just make it so your screen moves but your crosshair stays in the same spot. That way new players can understand how the mechanic works just by looking at where their crosshair points rather than going off feel.
[/quote]

You might want to read what I actually typed and not assume Note the part where I didn’t mention ET and I said “depending on how it’s implemented”. Some games do implement view kick in a way that allows you to cheat it. That’s what I am worried about.

This is how ET viewkick works.

[LifeupOmega]

You told people to adapt to a random element, which cannot be adapted to.

It’s like the TF2 players who keep saying you should adapt to random crits and, thankfully no more, spread.

[Fap_Fap_Master]

Arty has a hard time painting the EV because of this.

[Gi.Am]

[quote=“Gi.Am;65741”]Actually I’m pretty sure you don’t want equal sides. Because if the sides where as close to equal as possible, statistical 50% of the games would be won on the defenders side (full hold at one of the objectives). What we want atleast in a game like DB is a bias towards the attackers, because actual finishing all 2/3 objectives and racing for the faster completition time, is alot more exciting. Or in other words the game should be biased for attackers to ensure that the game is won on the attacker side.

Then why are you for something that favours the defenders so much?

[quote=“Gi.Am;65741”]The thing is, while defenders have an advantage in the fights (defense is easier than offence, given the same means), everytime they do loose a fight, the attackers can progress. And infact as soon as the attackers get a plant going, they become the defenders.
While the defenders have to attack under a strong timelimit.[/quote]
Yes, they get to progress and plant. Then the defenders get 2 full spawn waves - 3 if the timings match up - to try wipe the attackers, defuse and reset everything back to how it was. Extremely defender favoured.[/quote]

Because I don’t buy the argument that aimpunch disproportional benefits the defenders side.
I’m also fairly suspicious on the claim that the defenders are disproportional winning overall. Because in my experience they don’t (unless the attackers don’t know what they are doing but those teams, will stomp them on attack aswell).

If the attackers have the means to overcome the defenders on a regular basis, the question wether they are stronger in direct firefights becomes moot (think about the various omaha beach maps, defenders get very strong positional advantages / weapons to mow down the attackers by a dozen. But the maps are designed in a way that the attackers will eventually win when they work together).

Take the C4 example. The attackers get 5 minutes average, to clear the objective (assuming 3 objectives and all have to be finished). If they make an attack every spawnwave that equates to 10 plant attempts (12 to be exact but lets omit those 2 waves for transitional and setup times). They have less time pressure aswell, they can afford to slowdown for a spawnwave or two, wait for cooldowns or setup a stronger push.

The moment attackers get the plant through, the defenders have 50 sec to defuse.
Fail to do it and the objective is lost (while the attackers fail with a plant they can try again).
That timepressure alone, leads to sloppier attacks (or attacks without abilities because of cooldown).

But that is not all. Outside of underground first objective, every single C4 objective favours the attacker side, when it comes to defending the plant. They get MG nests, that aim at the plant area. They get more ways to the plant area compared to the defenders forcing them through 1-2 chokepoints and giving them multiple angles to cover from. They get better sightlines on the plant area, allowing snipers/fieldsupports to cover the plant fairly easy.

The whole objective is setup so that attackers have the disadvantage first and as soon as they overcome it. Defenders have a last (or 3) uphill battle chance of preventing defeat.

Don’t get me wrong the fact that the defenders can complete nullify a plant attempt, is atleast in my opinion the major reason why a stronger defender team can shut down a weaker attacker team way too easy (making it harder to break spawncamping aswell). But that is a balancing issue outside of aimpunch.

Aimpunch adds a specific feature to the game, suppression. The ability to get someone out of position and into cover without killing them. That mechanic can and does work for both sides. Defender positions are by far and large known quantities making pre aiming them fairly easy and common. Likewise attackers do get more than one route to the objective making flanking possible (for some attacker crossfire). Both gives attackers ample opportunities to benefit from aimpunch.

I like the ability to supress enemies, since it allows weaker players to buy some time, till the big guys arrive, it also allows ways around snipers and to press enemies out of position. I mean I’m all ears, if someone knows a mechanic that allows for reliable suppression.

[Szakalot]

[quote=“Ghosthree3;65744”][quote=“Gi.Am;65741”]Actually I’m pretty sure you don’t want equal sides. Because if the sides where as close to equal as possible, statistical 50% of the games would be won on the defenders side (full hold at one of the objectives). What we want atleast in a game like DB is a bias towards the attackers, because actual finishing all 2/3 objectives and racing for the faster completition time, is alot more exciting. Or in other words the game should be biased for attackers to ensure that the game is won on the attacker side.

Then why are you for something that favours the defenders so much?

[quote=“Gi.Am;65741”]The thing is, while defenders have an advantage in the fights (defense is easier than offence, given the same means), everytime they do loose a fight, the attackers can progress. And infact as soon as the attackers get a plant going, they become the defenders.
While the defenders have to attack under a strong timelimit.[/quote]
Yes, they get to progress and plant. Then the defenders get 2 full spawn waves - 3 if the timings match up - to try wipe the attackers, defuse and reset everything back to how it was. Extremely defender favoured.[/quote]

Because I don’t buy the argument that aimpunch disproportional benefits the defenders side.
I’m also fairly suspicious on the claim that the defenders are disproportional winning overall. Because in my experience they don’t (unless the attackers don’t know what they are doing but those teams, will stomp them on attack aswell).

If the attackers have the means to overcome the defenders on a regular basis, the question wether they are stronger in direct firefights becomes moot (think about the various omaha beach maps, defenders get very strong positional advantages / weapons to mow down the attackers by a dozen. But the maps are designed in a way that the attackers will eventually win when they work together).

Take the C4 example. The attackers get 5 minutes average, to clear the objective (assuming 3 objectives and all have to be finished). If they make an attack every spawnwave that equates to 10 plant attempts (12 to be exact but lets omit those 2 waves for transitional and setup times). They have less time pressure aswell, they can afford to slowdown for a spawnwave or two, wait for cooldowns or setup a stronger push.

The moment attackers get the plant through, the defenders have 50 sec to defuse.
Fail to do it and the objective is lost (while the attackers fail with a plant they can try again).
That timepressure alone, leads to sloppier attacks (or attacks without abilities because of cooldown).

But that is not all. Outside of underground first objective, every single C4 objective favours the attacker side, when it comes to defending the plant. They get MG nests, that aim at the plant area. They get more ways to the plant area compared to the defenders forcing them through 1-2 chokepoints and giving them multiple angles to cover from. They get better sightlines on the plant area, allowing snipers/fieldsupports to cover the plant fairly easy.

The whole objective is setup so that attackers have the disadvantage first and as soon as they overcome it. Defenders have a last (or 3) uphill battle chance of preventing defeat.

Don’t get me wrong the fact that the defenders can complete nullify a plant attempt, is atleast in my opinion the major reason why a stronger defender team can shut down a weaker attacker team way too easy (making it harder to break spawncamping aswell). But that is a balancing issue outside of aimpunch.

Aimpunch adds a specific feature to the game, suppression. The ability to get someone out of position and into cover without killing them. That mechanic can and does work for both sides. Defender positions are by far and large known quantities making pre aiming them fairly easy and common. Likewise attackers do get more than one route to the objective making flanking possible (for some attacker crossfire). Both gives attackers ample opportunities to benefit from aimpunch.

I like the ability to supress enemies, since it allows weaker players to buy some time, till the big guys arrive, it also allows ways around snipers and to press enemies out of position. I mean I’m all ears, if someone knows a mechanic that allows for reliable suppression.[/quote]

sorry but that sounds like a lot of bull. There is almost no suppressive fire in the game, with the exception of maybe the MG position.

Majority of fights people move all over the place, and when you mastered movement well enough you rarely get stuck in a position, unless you’ve put yourself in it.

50second to defuse is 2 waves which is more than enough to push attacker’s away; its just that on pubs people don’t push against the attack and everyone converges on the plant, making it easy to wipe a defense with lots of AoE.0

In comp we’ve seen 5+ plants all easily shutdown, and fullholds on 1st plant objectives on maps like trainyard and terminal, where an organized defending team just kills the attackers with their spawn-distance supremacy.

You’re saying: 10 plant attempts, but in truth its closer to 3-4, since it will take 5-6 waves to get anywhere close to the plant area.

In pubs its hard to say which way a maps sways since its mostly about the individual player skills, and pub matches are usually so unbalanced that one team steamrolls the other, regardless of the map and which side they are on.

In comp, map after map, team after team, we see major fullholds on 1st, 2nd objectives; at least that has been the case a month ago (anything changed? don’t think so!)

[Gi.Am]

Interesting, got any endscreens / links to the matches?
Because out of curiosity and to see if my claims hold up, I tallied the matches on the dirtycups youtube channel (and the ones on pixeltwitches channel) and my findings so far look different. Could be interesting to add more samples, to what I got.

Anyways for those interested.

66 matches total. 12 matches ended with both sides fullholding on defense. 15 matches ended with both teams setting times. 5 matches had the first team fullhold an objective and than beating the time on that objective. The rest of the matches had one team, set a time and than fullhold afterwards.

My interpretation: Considering that the amount of both teams set times, and both teams full hold. Are in the same ballpark and the majority of wins have one team take both rounds, indicates, that the sides are fairly equal and a stronger team has no problem taking both sides. While teams that are equal either fullhold each other or both set times (depending on the teams strength and weaknesses)

Additional findings that might relativate my interpretation slightly.

Trainyard (14 matches total) is by far the most defense orientated map. out of the 12 fullholds 9 happend on trainyard (2 terminal 1 underground) while no match saw both teams set times. However out of the 14 total matches 8 saw a fullhold at the last objective.

My guess the delivery objective is to easy to defend. Changing that part of the map would decrease the fullholds on that map. And bring down the ammount of dual fullholds making the game more attacker oriented.

5 of the dual fullholds, happend in the CBT Series (last one outside of proving grounds/SD Nexon) no other tournament saw so many.
There could be several things at play here looking at the changees that happend in the week before the tournament (Sparks update) sees several balancing changes to terminal, reshuffle of the ammoboxes, and propably most noteable the first change to prevent revive trains.

Maybe revive trains where a needed, technic for attackers to keep going (considering their longer way to the objective it would make sense). Likewise maybe scouting out for ammunition gives the defenders more room to defuse a plant.

Alternative explaination a shift in tactics, maybe teams have improved their defending capabilities.

If this is an ongoing trend and fullholds do increase (terminal for example, saw its only dual full holds in that last tournament) maybe maps need to be rebalanced to reduce the defender bias. Or we could indeed see if removing aimpunch reduces it, or likewise if going back to revive trains would.

[KangaJoo]

You might want to read what I actually typed and not assume

You might want to read what you replied to initially and not assume I was reading your comment by itself rather than the whole convo :). You replied to someone talking about how aimpunch worked in ET and that it could be compensated for with proper training. You even added on to his sentence, which revolved around how aimpunch worked in ET, by saying “Proper training… or a third party crosshair.”

Anyway, I don’t see a problem with the devs trying out a visual only aimpunch system. If your fears become a reality and they implement it in a way that can be exploited, the devs can always modify their implementation of aimpunch so that it cannot be exploited. There are plenty of examples for them to go off and plenty of players that would be willing to provide suggestions.

[Jurmabones]

Can anyone actually provide a reason or argument for why aimpunch is even a good thing or should be in the game to begin with? I see mountains and mountains of arguments against aimpunch with actual reasoning related to gameplay and balance.

P.S. Realism isn’t a valid response. Nearly nothing about this game is real/realistic.

[RenLou]

Sorry if this has been posted before, but there was a short discussion about aimpunch with competitive player Lauren “Pansy” Scott and one of the developers, Smooth, on reddit. This was in response to a video she made about the topic :

http://i.imgur.com/K5wsmla.png

Hope this clears some doubts you guys might have about the devs’ intentions.

[KangaJoo]

[quote=“Jurmabones;66296”]Can anyone actually provide a reason or argument for why aimpunch is even a good thing or should be in the game to begin with? I see mountains and mountains of arguments against aimpunch with actual reasoning related to gameplay and balance.

P.S. Realism isn’t a valid response. Nearly nothing about this game is real/realistic.[/quote]
According to one of the devs, SD feels it needs to be in the game for 3 reasons:

1. To let players know they’re being shot at.
2. To give players a way to counter snipers via suppressive fire.
3. To reward good positioning and awareness by giving an extra reward to players who land the first shot.

Honestly, those first two goals are pretty bs. It’s pretty obvious without your screen flying all over the place that you’re getting shot at. Good positioning allows you to setup crossfires, take cover, and play off teammates so its enough of a reward in and of itself. Same with fast reflexes; if you land the first shot you’re one step closer to killing your opponent than he is to killing you.

As for countering snipers, there are other ways to do that like making it so headshotting a sniper makes them unscope. Not saying that’s the best solution but the point is that there are other ways to balance them that don’t involve destroying the gunplay.

[RenLou]

Put plain and simple, to me it seems like the devs are trying to appeal to the casual crowd, either because more $ that way(in their view anyway) or because that’s just what they want to do with the game.

This worries me. Like Pansy said, “lower the skill ceiling accounting for the lowest common denominator”.

[Jurmabones]

To be honest, their reasoning is extremely flawed. Plus their word choice is quite misleading. First they mention how long aimpunch has been around, as if to imply tradition alone ought to justify its existence. Then they say they have “several reasons” but only list 3, all of which are quite flimsy.

1. It puts more emphasis on anticipation, positioning and reaction time by rewarding the first hit more.

Having better anticipation and reaction time inherently gives you a better chance of getting the first hit which equates to having a better chance to kill first on its own anyways. Adding aimpunch minimizes the opportunity of anything but the person who shoots first to ever win a gun fight.

As for rewarding positioning, this sounds like a good reason but it’s backwards logic. Having superior positioning is, again, an advantage on its own that gives a better chance of getting the first hit to begin with. On top of which, advantageous positioning is automatically possessed by the defense on any map in any game mode.

2. It gives players a defence against campers and snipers, by means of suppressing fire.

If they want to keep snipers and campers in check they should get rid of aimpunch. Someone waiting for an enemy to approach is almost always going to have the first shot, and snipers tend to camp on top of having high damage per bullet (meaning your damage taken is higher, which aimpunch scales up with). Your own fire is being suppressed by aimpunch BEFORE YOU CAN SHOOT because you got hit first. Snipers and campers tend to get the first hit.

3. In no uncertain terms it lets you know you’re taking damage.

This is a completely meaningless reason/non-factor/bad excuse for aimpunch. There’s the damage indicator (huge red thing that even shows the direction you’re being hit from!), on top of tracers, blood splatter and audible indications that already do a lot to let us know when we’re being hit. Taking away player control isn’t needed on top of everything else just to know you’re being hit. It doesn’t just add to knowing you’re being hit, it reduces your ability to do something about being hit.

---

Hope this clears the confusion you guys might have about what aimpunch actually does.

[Gi.Am]

@RenLou tnx for posting that. Wasn’t aware of it (only saw the intial short Dev answer).

I’m obviously pleased with the explainations, they pretty much match my own (including that defenders bias should be fixed in map) .

Interesting tho that aimpunch is less random than suggested. Not sure how I feel about it. On one hand it means it can be accounted for (by correcting downwards. Turning what would under normal circmstances be bodyshots, into headshots) on the otherhand it invalidates my point that a non random aimpunch doesn’t do its job. Well maybe the still existent uncertainty of how strong the vertical recoil is going to be is enough for that.

[immenseWalnut]

[quote=“ChinaRep;66304”][quote=“Jurmabones;66296”]Can anyone actually provide a reason or argument for why aimpunch is even a good thing or should be in the game to begin with? I see mountains and mountains of arguments against aimpunch with actual reasoning related to gameplay and balance.

P.S. Realism isn’t a valid response. Nearly nothing about this game is real/realistic.[/quote]
According to one of the devs, SD feels it needs to be in the game for 3 reasons:

1. To let players know they’re being shot at.
2. To give players a way to counter snipers via suppressive fire.
3. To reward good positioning and awareness by giving an extra reward to players who land the first shot.

Honestly, those first two goals are pretty bs. It’s pretty obvious without your screen flying all over the place that you’re getting shot at. Good positioning allows you to setup crossfires, take cover, and play off teammates so its enough of a reward in and of itself. Same with fast reflexes; if you land the first shot you’re one step closer to killing your opponent than he is to killing you.

As for countering snipers, there are other ways to do that like making it so headshotting a sniper makes them unscope. Not saying that’s the best solution but the point is that there are other ways to balance them that don’t involve destroying the gunplay. [/quote]

Funny how they say all of that, but then introduce a perk (available from purchasing Loadout cards) which then negates aimpunch and invalidates their reasoning. Saying that though, all three of those reasons are rubbish, so I believe it exists solely to provide an additional perk to counter it (which is tied into the cash shop, so it becomes deliberate inconvenience, you pay to remove it).

In fact, the entire buff/nerf cycle looks like a solid way of cycling Loadout cards to constantly change which one is the best option for any given merc, forcing players to buy new ones to replace the redundant ones. Cynical I know, but this is Nexon we are talking about. Give it a couple of weeks and the current batch of best weapons will likely be nerfed.

[Ghosthree3]

I don’t understand why the fact that it’s been in the game a long time makes it ok. How does that make sense. Do you know how many issues in general have been around a long time that people want fixed? Not speaking of video games here, ANY issues.

[Szakalot]

[quote=“Gi.Am;66214”]
66 matches total. 12 matches ended with both sides fullholding on defense. 15 matches ended with both teams setting times. 5 matches had the first team fullhold an objective and than beating the time on that objective. The rest of the matches had one team, set a time and than fullhold afterwards.[/quote]

Good analysis, I’ll just stick to this, because we perhaps differ on how SW should be played. 12 out of 66 matches being double fullholded is REALLY BAD. Like… REALLY, REALLY BAD.

Double fullhold should be an extremely rare occurrence that only happens on maybe one map out of the pool, when both teams are famously known for good holds, but lack the offensive tactics.

That’s almost 20% of matches, 20% of matches ending up in a non-conclusive draw, in a competitive game.

Imagine 20% of any sport ending up in a non-conclusive draw. This was one of the major complaints with ETQW as well, and pushed people away from the game. Double fullhold is a boring game.

In any case, this isn’t even the reason why I dislike aimpunch. I just don’t see how it brings anything to the game, except annoyance.

Maybe if we only kept it for some guns, to distinguish them more (dreiss with aimpunch? maybe people would actually use it!)

[Gi.Am]

Tnx, I don’t think we are too far off on SW actualy.

My Personal feeling is that the defenders side should be slightly easier when it comes to raw mindless fighting (better positioning). However the attackers should benefit more from overall teamplay (communication, tactics, Merc synergy/abilities) and should be able to overcome defenders on a regular basis when they do employ it. After all this is a teambased objective oriented game, and the defenders are pretty much just a roadblock the attackers have to overcome as a team.

Depending on the game I don’t mind draws (and a dual fullhold is technically not even a draw), but the dual fullholds can be quite boring. Seeing them 20% of the time is too much indeed. Don’t think it is realistical tho, to aim for low single digits. The attacker bias you need to achieve that would mean that attackers could quite often walz through the map on autopilot. Would pretty much shift the whole pressure and skill demand into the defenders hands.

10% - 5% would be nice tho. And considering that a wooping 75% of the fullholds happend on a single map. I do feel that this would be a easy priority target to bring down those fullhold numbers.

Aimpunch on selected guns? hm, would make things a bit more inconsistent, and would shift the whole blunt amount of aimpunch hate towards specific guns. I don’t think they deserve that .
Dreiss is IMO one of the guns that doesn’t need it actually. 2 headshots kill a vassili and you get them out very quickly. Its more about buffing weak weapons without increasing the DPS, so things like the secondaries or Hochfir/SMG-9 seem to be the more logical candidate (tho I wouldn’t promote the Idea at all just to be clear).

[Jurmabones]

[quote=“Gi.Am;66439”]Tnx, I don’t think we are too far off on SW actualy.

My Personal feeling is that the defenders side should be slightly easier when it comes to raw mindless fighting (better positioning). However the attackers should benefit more from overall teamplay (communication, tactics, Merc synergy/abilities) and should be able to overcome defenders on a regular basis when they do employ it. After all this is a teambased objective oriented game, and the defenders are pretty much just a roadblock the attackers have to overcome as a team.

Depending on the game I don’t mind draws (and a dual fullhold is technically not even a draw), but the dual fullholds can be quite boring. Seeing them 20% of the time is too much indeed. Don’t think it is realistical tho, to aim for low single digits. The attacker bias you need to achieve that would mean that attackers could quite often walz through the map on autopilot. Would pretty much shift the whole pressure and skill demand into the defenders hands.

10% - 5% would be nice tho. And considering that a wooping 75% of the fullholds happend on a single map. I do feel that this would be a easy priority target to bring down those fullhold numbers.

Aimpunch on selected guns? hm, would make things a bit more inconsistent, and would shift the whole blunt amount of aimpunch hate towards specific guns. I don’t think they deserve that .
Dreiss is IMO one of the guns that doesn’t need it actually. 2 headshots kill a vassili and you get them out very quickly. Its more about buffing weak weapons without increasing the DPS, so things like the secondaries or Hochfir/SMG-9 seem to be the more logical candidate (tho I wouldn’t promote the Idea at all just to be clear).[/quote]

How do attackers benefit more from team play when they suffer inherently from worse positioning? You’re just saying empty things as if it makes it so. You want defense to have an easier time with positioning to justify aimpunch, then you say the attackers “should” benefit more from “communication, tactics, merc syngergy/abilities” and “should” be able to “overcome defenders” when they do employ it. How is it that the case? The opposite is.

What happens when defenders employ equal team play? They automatically win. You don’t even know why you’re defending aimpunch. For real.