lethality of weapons

(tokamak) #41

Wow where did you get this?

(shirosae) #42

What, the table?

I went on to an empty DB server, and fired my guns against a wall and timed it. Then I did the same in ETQW. At the time I suspected that DB’s guns could kill faster than human reflex time and some player’s ping, so I did some testing to make sure it was true before bringing it up.

(tokamak) #43

Ah I thought you managed to get into the source. Right now I’m not sure which is more impressive.

And yeah reflexes aren’t the only skill that should matter here, otherwise a simple flash game would suffice.

There’s nothing wrong with games that put the emphasis on reflexes, like Counterstrike and Rainbow Six. But what these two games have in common is that a match consists of 10-15 lightning fast rounds of team survival. That’s where these combat mechanics make sense. In a prolonged match with respawns it starts to get messy because you can’t anticipate where your enemy might be in the same way you can in short rounds simply because after the first minute the range of possibilities has widened too far for anything to be deduced.

(ailmanki) #44

A fight should last longer then highest possible ping, around 400 before none plays. So maybe a minimum of 300msec. If it takes 4.5 sec to empty a clip in ET, then it would take around 450msec to make 3 headshots.

(tokamak) #45

It’s a sympathetic but rather arbitrary benchmark wouldn’t you say?

And though the length of an average duel of two players bumping into each other is a useful unit to discuss with, we also need to keep in mind that duels are only a part of the gameplay. It’s a tactical shooter so ideally the majority of fights are resolved in multiple numbers or where one side has obtained itself a clear advantage over the other.

Once you start making duels last longer, you also risk meddling with the tactical nature of the game. And this is where I feel Brink, at least on the PC, went wrong. The fights lasted long and ultimately it felt very deterministic. There wasn’t much one player could do about the outcome. The game felt very much like risk where you’re a peon moved along with other peons to an area where the number of peons of both sides would determine the odds of victory.

(tangoliber) #46

That wasn’t because of the time to kill…it was because of the bullet spread. When there is skill-based gunplay, even with a long ttk, one player still makes a difference. The ttk in Brink felt very good to me…only the guns didn’t. I’d say that if anything, the long ttk in Brink was responsible for any tactical feeling that it did have…by making the boundary between team-controlled territory and enemy-controlled territory very pronounced, and giving players more time to coordinate in fights.

(tokamak) #47

Yeah I think you’re right. And it probably suited the console play, at least, I really did enjoy Brink for the moments I played on the Xbox.

Still I’m hesitant about letting players live longer. In both ET games it was very possible for one guy to outsmart an entire group and mow them down on his own. That doesn’t happen in Brink because it takes so much time to kill someone regardless of the situation.

(stealth6) #48

[QUOTE=tokamak;419312]Yeah I think you’re right. And it probably suited the console play, at least, I really did enjoy Brink for the moments I played on the Xbox.

Still I’m hesitant about letting players live longer. In both ET games it was very possible for one guy to outsmart an entire group and mow them down on his own. That doesn’t happen in Brink because it takes so much time to kill someone regardless of the situation.[/QUOTE]

Pretty sure you could do the same thing in Brink, just carry two guns. Except in Brink it didn’t feel as rewarding.

Also I think this is a funny comment coming from you. In W:ET in order to “outsmart” multiple players and kill them head on you need to place yourself tactically and then combine that with good aiming skills. Which would seem like something you like from your previous posts (Not just relying on pure aiming skill)

If you’re not using the environment to your advantage and still winning then they are just below your skill (aiming wise) and I wouldn’t consider it outsmarting.

(tokamak) #49

It makes sense in the way that I really like a substantial difference between stationary accuracy and mobile accuracy. I like QW but for me it could be even more pronounced.

(Ashog) #50

Kudos to DA for the shots. But tbh I don’t see any eye openers in the screenies, apart from the horizontal spread/wobbling added in DB to ADS fire. The fair thing would be also to add crouched hipfire spread shots for ETQW and DB, as this would be a better comparison to ET & RTCW.

Regarding the shirosae and DA words on TTK, I think we must specify explicitly every time what we mean - head shots or body shots. I am still not convinced about the shots to kill - I am afraid and suspecting that the damage to head and to body for DB is quite similar, in contrast to other games. It would be interesting to measure how many body shots, leg shots and head shots are needed for medics in DB and in ETQW to kill a medic.

(Anti) #51

[QUOTE=Ashog;419350]Kudos to DA for the shots. But tbh I don’t see any eye openers in the screenies, apart from the horizontal spread/wobbling added in DB to ADS fire. The fair thing would be also to add crouched hipfire spread shots for ETQW and DB, as this would be a better comparison to ET & RTCW.

Regarding the shirosae and DA words on TTK, I think we must specify explicitly every time what we mean - head shots or body shots. I am still not convinced about the shots to kill - I am afraid and suspecting that the damage to head and to body for DB is quite similar, in contrast to other games. It would be interesting to measure how many body shots, leg shots and head shots are needed for medics in DB and in ETQW to kill a medic.[/QUOTE]

DB has considerably higher damage for head shots than in any of our previous games. I suspect this is part of the problem, although I’m certain the issue comes down to a number of different factors.

(Ashog) #52

Well, yeah, just tested it with timestart. Medic kills a medic with 3 headshots or 7 body shots or 9 legshots.

I guess the reason is too high ROF then. I see no other possibility.

(Maca) #53

And one thing I personally want to emphasize again: please give us the opportunity to have center dot on the crosshair. At least for me it affects the aiming quite considerably not having it

(Anti) #54

[QUOTE=Ashog;419368]Well, yeah, just tested it with timestart. Medic kills a medic with 3 headshots or 7 body shots or 9 legshots.

I guess the reason is too high ROF then. I see no other possibility.[/QUOTE]

60% of kills, in a recent sample of 30 matches that I took, come from the side or behind. Map flow might have as much to do with it as ROF.

(tokamak) #55

Wow that’s a spectacular statistic, I didn’t know such a thing was possible. Do you also have such numbers for previous games?

(Anti) #56

Sadly not, and I need to spend more time looking at it, with a bigger sample and comparing it between maps. Right now, with no baseline to compare it to, it is just an interesting stat, even if it does strike me as higher than I’d expect.

(tokamak) #57

30 matches with about 150-200 kills in a match seems to be a big enough sample. Does it vary between maps?

And yeah, it’s pretty difficult to get anything to compare it to.

(Mustang) #58

For me the current “creep vs forward sprint speed vs strafe speed” triangle means that when I’m in trouble I’d rather opt to turn and flee exposing my behind rather than strafe away to protect my ass.

If creep were reduced and forward sprint speed decreased I’d be more inclined not to wave my buttocks in my enemies face and instead do the sideways crab jump to safety.

This is just me personally but I’ve found more success doing it this way thus far.

(Bloodbite) #59

Right. A decent selection of custom crosshairs would be nice.

(Maca) #60

I also find that this is definitely something that has affected that statistic