Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Recent Profile Visitors

9,229 profile views
  1. We're talking about console FPS games. Literally every single one that people enjoy "aims for you." CE has plenty of reticle friction and TONS of bullet magnetism. But I'm sure, being the expert that you are, you know that. And you're not just repeating exactly the same axioms that you've heard from a bunch of "halo veterans" as if they constitute real arguments unto themselves. You have no argument, so you repeat brain dead gibberish like that while unintentionally acknowledging that Halo 5's skill ceiling is significant, which is why you would get dominated in the game by a decent player. Why you feel that you are qualified to discuss how much it does or does not "aim for you" when you suck at the game is beyond me. Never mind the arbitrary comparison to CE, a game that's shooting skill gap basically amounts "even the top 1 of 32 total players GOAT literal freak god gamer regularly mag dumps to get 1 kill, so it must be HARD."
  2. A significant percentage of people on this forum confuse not being able to consistently hit your target with difficulty and by extension think weapons that DO consistently hit where you aim are just "easy." These same people very often get shit on in gun fights by players who think weapons that consistently hit what you aim at are a good thing in a competitive game. Literally everyone "misses" all the time? Holy FUCK, the skill ceiling must be INSANE! Halo CE is so sick.
  3. Absolutely agree. There is no reason to pander to console players with a PC port. All it will accomplish is undermining the real potential of the PC experience, holding it back to recreate the mediocre experience the console players are nostalgic for. I can think of no good reason to support aim assist for controllers in a PC FPS and I have about as much interest in playing against console aim assist in match-making as I would playing against players with aim hacks (or, rather, aim hacks that aren't built into the game to help controller players). Controller is worse than a mouse in that it is objectively less precise. It is NOT worse than a mouse in terms of actual effectiveness in many games, assuming aim assists are enabled. Given the extremely long kill times, slow movement, giant reticles, etc in Halo and the relatively low aim requirement for all but the head shot, the advantages of mouse aim aren't likely to be a factor in most fights, even ignoring the rest of the sandbox (like grenades). The only weapon I can think of where mouse aim is likely to provide an advantage over aim assist is the sniper rifle. If anything, the console players will have the advantage in most fights. Which is the primary reason I am not interested in match-making cross-play or full controller support on PC.
  4. Quake pick-ups and Halo pick-ups aren't even remotely comparable, lmao. Stop.
  5. Yeah, definitely better to stick to discussing goofy gimmick weapons, so no one takes personal offense to anyone questioning deeply entrenched, obsessive nostalgia.
  6. That's probably because no one made that claim. I said that when projectile travel time is so small that no one is accounting for it, it is effectively random variance. This becomes a problem at the edge of its "basically hit-scan" range. And the example I provided was the H3 sniper on Arena-sized maps.
  7. That has nothing to do with the question I asked. You are essentially rephrasing the assumption I wanted explained and you're ignoring the specific context I provided. I know you think projectile inherently takes more skill. EXPLAIN IT. This is why I quickly lose patience with these conversations, but whatever. I'll respond anyway. The idea that the aim skill for projectile lead somehow scales infinitely with distance is silly. More realistically, it can be divided into two real situations. Distances where leading is necessary and distances where it is not. At distances where leading is relevant, you are effectively guessing the distance to determine lead and then correcting when you miss. There is a unquestionable element of luck to this, as much as people want to pretend that you can consistently judge long distances in videogames, you usually can't, unless a specific mechanic exists to help you calibrate. Longer distances involve more GUESS WORK. Not more "skill." Again, unless you actually know what the distance is, which you don't. At distances where noticeable leading is NOT necessary, projectiles introduce a largely uncontrolled factor that might as well be random. And before someone points out that it's not literally random, I know. This is the range I am currently referring to. I asked, SPECIFICALLY, in a scenario in which lead time is so tiny that no one actually accounts for it (H3 sniper on arena maps), is projectile more skillful? And, again, WHY?
  8. Honestly, the way this conversation has gone is exactly the reason I don't bother posting here. If you say anything contrary to the entrenched "Halo veteran" position, 50% of the response are just repetitions of the same old assumptions. The rest of the responses are "lol guys I cannot BELIEVE someone would think this amirite upvote me fellow correct opinion havers" and the usual "I am above such PETTY squabbles, but feel the need to let everyone know about it" posturing (you know who you are). And still the fundamental presupposition that I pointed out at at the beginning of my post was ignored, just like every other specific point I made. So, I'm going to make this easy for you. I'm going to be simple and EXPLICIT, so you can't just fall back on the same old mantras and ignore what is actually being written. Let's start with fundamental axiom: This has been repeated in various forms or inferred from other related statements repeatedly in nearly every "pro projectile" post and yet, in this entire conversation, not ONE person has actually justified it in any way. I asked for a justification and didn't get it, so let's add a bit more structure. Take two variations on the H3 sniper rifle being used on a standard sized competitive map. One is hit-scan and the other is projectile. All other factors are completely identical. Precision is the same. Netcode and connection quality is the same. Awful H3 console aiming is the same. The players are the same. Does the projectile version inherently take more skill (I know most of you think this)? If so (and here's the IMPORTANT PART), why?
  9. My favorite part of Internet forum arguments is all of the awkward weirdos who feel the need to interject lul randomly into discussions they haven't even bothered to engage with in any meaningful way. And don't forget to upvote and downvote but never actually say anything. Is this how you behave in real life? HAHA can you BELIEVE these people are talking about this? amirite guys?! HAHA tell me im right with upvotes
  10. What I'm saying is that tiny factors with huge potential variance and minimal feedback are not something that you can account for anywhere near as consistently as less granular, more transparent properties. It's the same basic distinction between analogue and WASD movement. WASD is more consistent because you know EXACTLY what will happen when you press any combination of those four direction buttons. Analogue movement is more granular, but you never actually know how far the stick is deflected. I have no doubt that someone who plays the game a lot will develop a better feel for projectile lead, but I am not at all convinced that the "skill" factor outweighs the inconsistency of hoping that you estimated the the distance and resulting trajectory from travel time, gravity, and "sway" (lol). I'm also not convinced that a significant percentage of good players actually rely on leading ability to a significant degree. The more specific problem with the lead in games like Halo 3 is that it's not actually significant at all and the fact of the matter is that most good players are... putting their reticles on the target and not actually leading one pixel to the right. So what it really accomplishes is allowing for a lot of missed shots that LOOKED like they were on target (because the reticle was), while they were technically misses because the enemy's face move just barely out of the way before the projectile got there. That does not promote skill to any meaningful degree. It might as well be random spread in most cases. To be clear, my primary issue is with the idea that projectiles are inherently better for hit-scan style precision weapons, as opposed to weapons like the plasma gun and rocket launcher in Quake, which is why a basketball comparison doesn't work. A basketball is a comparatively large, slow moving object. The target is stationary. The ranges you're expected to throw it are fairly short. You can easily see exactly where it went and in what sort of arc when you throw it.
  11. It's not a point. It doesn't rebut what I said at all. Yes, better players who grind a game will be MORE consistent. Shocker. That's true of anything. Please point to where I said otherwise.
  12. Wow. You're so edgy and smart. Maybe at some point, you'll actually address a real argument.
  13. Shit. You're right. That's EXACTLY the same thing as aiming a tiny projectile moving at hundreds of meters per second at a small moving target in a videogame.
  14. Oh boy. Let's unpack some of this. I'm not even going to bother addressing the pointlessness of discussing "gun skill" in the context of console shooters that are inherently reliant in significant assist mechanics to be playable. First and foremost, your entire position is built on the assumption that travel time inherently introduces skill, but what you are actually describing is adding a bunch of inconsistency to gun fights. This presupposition is at the core of every single assertion you have made. Every single time you talk about projectile properties, you equate it to skill as if this were some objective fact that doesn't require any explanation. You seem to think that adding tiny, difficult to control factors somehow guarantees to good players will account for them, when there is no real evidence to suggest that is the case at all. I am going to explain exactly why that is reductive and largely inaccurate. And a prime example in your mind was Snip3down snapping to people's backs with aim assist in an unranked super random Battle Royale hero shooter? LMAO. Pub stomping in that game has exactly nothing to do with projectiles being some secret ingredient to pure skill gameplay. Apex is not a hard game. Snipe3down's success (for what it's worth) has exactly nothing to do with PC players not being able to figure out how to aim slightly ahead of their targets like high IQ console gamers can. So, let's talk about why this is more inconsistent than it is "skillful," particularly with CE magnum style projectiles (larger, slow projectiles are a bit different). This misconception is also at the core of why people believe CE gun fights are skillful despite the well documented fact that both spread and bullet magnetism are HUGE factors. Lead distance changes drastically based on distance to target. This is a video game, not real life. You do not have depth perception, so judging distance consistently is... not going to happen. Fast, small projectiles are difficult to track visually, and therefore actually KNOWING whether you were on target is very difficult. Without actually knowing where your projectile went reliably, you cannot consistently ADJUST in the future. So, on top of adding travel time, you ALSO want to introduce tiny modifiers to bullet trajectory based on the player's movement vector AND modify bullet altitude based on distance? And you think that somehow good players are going to account for all of this bullshit on TOP OF hitting a small, moving target at a medium to long range? This notion that granularity is equivalent to precision and therefore inherently promotes skill is bizarrely common, but maybe I've just spent too much time talking to Halo CE purists. I assume that you have the DPI setting on your mouse set to the maximum. No, this is not the difference. The difference is WHERE that "exact" point is can vary wildly based on a huge number of different factors and you have no guarantee that your target will continue moving in the same direction after you have fired. Meanwhile, with hit-scan, your target is exactly where you see it on the screen 100% of the time at the exact moment you pull the trigger. What you honestly think, and so seemingly do all of the people who believe Halo CE is the pinnacle of FPS gaming, is that good players are going to be performing ALL of this additional math in their heads in real time during every gun fight in the game? "Hmm, yes. He is 15m away and moving to the left at 3 m/s meanwhile, I am moving right at 2 m/s which will sway my bullets a further 15 degrees to the right and..." Give me a fucking break, dude. Literally the only evidence anyone has ever really provided for the limitless skill ceiling of CE gun fights is that even the best players in the world miss tons of shots. Hmmm. What does that sound like? Inconsistency. Oh no. This game that is literally unplayable without generous aim assist and giant console reticle bullet magnetism is all about GUN SKILL and sick projectile trigonometry. lmao. What ACTUALLY happens in a gun fight at close to medium range with projectiles is that people aim in the center of the strafe and hope their opponent strafes back into the bullet. Oh, I should mention that I mean in games that don't have bullets that curve towards your target when your "aimer" is red. With hit-scan, you can actually afford to think about their movement directly, because you have to be on target WHEN YOU PULL THE TRIGGER. You absolutely can dodge shots with hit-scan and "fast projectiles." What you are doing is throwing off their AIM. The difference between those two (hit-scan vs fast projectiles) is that ONE has, as you describe "2 to 3 frames" worth of variance, I mean, "skill." Inconsistency that you honestly believe someone like Snip3down is accounting for in his head.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.