s/fur
A notorious problem in any combat game is that accurate weapons increase more in effectiveness with skill than inaccurate weapons do, meaning that for an accurate weapon to be balanced in low-level play it must be overpowered in high-level play; and anyone cheating with an accurate weapon is outright unbeatable.
Have any games ever demonstrated a solution for this other than making it so that long range weaponry isn't hitscan?
...
...
First for possibly froggos
...
Stronk!
...
Cute :3
What do the bats even hang onto?
I'm going to bed. have a nice furry friday night, guys and gals.
one last dragoness pic for you
G'nitey
I always liked how it's handled in counterstrike - the accurate weapons are limited by your movement, and players have tools that let them break lines of sight (smokes and flashes)
nn bro!
Apparently Tsampikos does oddly-coloured froggos
These balls of steel
...
stop making these fucking threads
FURFAGS YIFF IN HELL
...
Yep, though CS has had a LOT of problems with aimbots and cheating over the years - I gave up on it eventually
...
the ride never ends
...
...
user, you're becoming infected.
Run away while you still can.
...
That's a terrible way of handling it though.
It makes snipers camp even more than they do in reasonable games, doesn't solve the problem at all (especially for aimbotters), and isn't even realistic.
Like, it's not like moving makes your aiming cone widen by several degrees, back when my father was in the army he and the person in command of him would tease the people they were training in sharpshooting by walking along behind them after finishing, while picking off every target still standing.
...
Bulbosaur isn't exactly a froggo, but he's an amphibian, right?
...
...
...
...
The sniper role in games is usually that of an area denial tool - they lock down long open areas forcing opponents to flank
if they're able to shoot accurately while moving then there isn't any point in ever playing anything else because they have the best damage, or if they don't have the damage than there is no point in picking them over more mobile/ higher fire rate guns
I still think tf2 and cs have done it best, other games the sniper is either always overpowered or always useless
...
...
...
hahaha oh wow
...
...
...
...
>tfw nerfed AWP
...
in cs:go?
I mostly played source and 1.6
...
>Have any games ever demonstrated a solution for this other than making it so that long range weaponry isn't hitscan?
In World of Tanks, weapon accuracy is rendered part of strategic thinking.
Less accurate weapons tend to fire faster (at the cost of alpha damage) or have higher alpha damage (at the cost of rate of fire).
As such it gives the player the option to either get closer so as to have more shots hit more often thereby rendering the enemy tanks less combat-effective (since you can disable certain parts of their tank, which in itself is another part of strategy), or simply peekaboo around corners and minimise time exposed to the enemy, poking out only when needed to and doing massive damage in that short amount of time.
...
...
I guess TF2 was better than TF, where maps literally turned into sniper team vs sniper team with one or two brave folks being scouts. I still found it pretty easy to rack up a lot of kills as a sniper, and I'm nothing special as a gamer.
I'm old, and played the original. I know it's still very powerful, but it used to be even more so. I seem to remember in 1.6 you could sometimes survive a hit from it.
...
...
...
I'm not even talking about the sniper role though, I'm talking about accurate weapons in general.
There just doesn't seem to be any way to have a perfectly accurate weapon in a game without making it be underpowered amongst low level players but overpowered amongst high level players and a favourite tool of cheaters too.
...
...
leg hits don't one shot, which is how it should be
if you can't hit center of mass you're a scrub
cool guys used the scout anyway - those jump shots are the best
And reload times in WoT are extremely long compared to FPS games.
I remember in Soldier Front the Cheytac M200 was the slowest but most accurate and powerful weapon in the game, but I still pwned with it since it still fired about once per second so I could slaughter enemy teams very quickly.
In WoT, you usually trade between alpha damage, RoF and accuracy. Reload times can range anywhere between 7 seconds for low-damage weapons to 23 seconds for OMG-guns that take away 40% hp in one shot, leaving plenty of time for people to maneuver into a position to kill you easily even if you hit and do damage in your first shot.
...
...
But still, if you had a bunch of tanks with accurate weapons and players who aimed perfectly, victory would be trivial against equally skilled players using inaccurate but more lethal weapons.
Unless there was a sneaky route all the way to the long-range combatants, it would be an automatic win for the snipers.
Hell yeah man - the scout is solid, and you actually feel like you've done something when you get a scout headshot. Like you say, getting a bodyshot is nothing to be proud of (even more so in TF2).
Dammit, now I feel like playing TF2. Do people even still play TF2?
...
if a weapon is perfectly accurate all the time it needs to have low damage
if it's only accurate while standing still or scoped in (which reduces fov by a lot) then a high refire time is usually sufficient to keep it balanced
really though it usually comes down to the utility tools players have - if you can dash and teleport around or make smokescreens and shields than just accuracy is a lot less valuable
map design is also a huge factor
...
eh it used to be my favorite game, I haven't touched it in a couple years now though
I think it still has a pretty solid player base
I tried overwatch, but it turned out to just be tf2 where everyone gets a "kill people for free" button every 30 seconds and with no good maps
...
...
...
Gross. I've not tried it - as soon as I saw it I thought 'that looks like TF2, but without the funny.'
...
...
...
There is a very simple tactic called "Don't get shot".
The entire rule of thumb of combat in WoT is to put yourself in a position of advantage over the enemy. This usually implies choosing the rules of engagement. Don't engage or be engaged when not in a prime position to do so. Getting the jump on someone, while you yourself are in a very good location, is 80% of the battle.
That, and just because you hit doesn't mean that you do damage, especially at long range, since your shells don't penetrate armor effectively at distance, and thus do zero damage.
A typical battle that might suit your conjecture is this: A medium tank with low armor, high-accuracy and low-damage weapon engaging at long range a heavy tank with high armor, low accuracy and high damage.
The medium, despite having an accurate gun, actually does zero damage to the heavy tank at range due to the heavy's armor protection. However, the medium has low armor and is easily damaged by the heavy tank, even though the heavy has a less accurate gun.
As such, the heavy has de facto chosen the rules of the engagement and forced the medium to come closer (in which case the heavy is more likely to do damage since its target is closer) or fuck off entirely.
Medium tank with accurate gun either loses or is forced to retreat.
Maybe the way to make accurate weapons always balanced is to have them be not too powerful, but include things in the game that make them useful.
Like, if Robocraft made railgun easier to aim with but less powerful, it'd be a perfect example; you can observe and target critical points of your enemy.
Pity Robocraft was made by people who are idiots at balancing.
The damage algorithm was for damage to pass from block to block, which meant that narrow beams would take far more damage from explosions than chunky blocks, thus the best bot design was just a brick; if you had any other parts, they'd just attract a lot of damage.
...
...
...
But then what's the point of highly accurate weapons if they're useless except at ranges where less accurate weapons are better?
Or are accurate weapons extremely niche, and only useful against low-armour targets?
...
wot was really fun
I got kinda turned off by the grind and "lol that guy has a tank three tiers above yours enjoy not being able to ever scratch his paint"
I really liked the whole scouting and artillery mechanic, made for some interesting strategy
I thought most of the maps were pretty good too
>low armour
Not a tank unless you're in a game where a character can dodge like fuck
...
I'll be honest, I played a lot of CS, and yes, you respected a team with someone who had an AWP, but well designed maps and smoke grenades, it wasn't that bad. Super important weapon that made people think, but I never felt it unbalanced the game.
...
I hope bunnies are super-stretchy, because damn
>Pity Robocraft was made by people who are idiots at balancing.
Robocraft reached its peak around the time Megabots were introduced.
It has been downhill ever since.
I consider accurate weapons to be niche weapons and effective against low-armor targets, yes - Perhaps only because I have an extremely aggressive playstyle and take pride in my close range combat skill.
However, accurate weapons also allow the player to more accurately shoot certain parts of enemy tanks at range to lower their combat capability. For instance, it's easier to shoot the enemy's tracks to force them to stop moving.
Accurate guns are also good when you're not engaging heavy tanks directly from the front, since the front is usually where the strong armor is. As such, it takes a bit of strategic thinking and maneuvering to get to their side or rear, where they are vulnerable, even at range. However, the heavy only has to turn its hull in order to nullify this, so it's best to do this only when the heavy is already pre-occupied with another target in front of it.
The stats of the gun matter not, but how it is used does.
Yes
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
>Dude never beat Xaero on nightmare.
pleb
...
I think the main problem is figuring out how to prevent aimbotting, and then balance the game from there.
Which means the game would have to be as tamper-proof as possible, totally breaking if the player even attempts to change the data sent by their computer to the server.
...