Your opinion about enlarged hitboxes
.trixX.
Budapest Join Date: 2007-10-11 Member: 62605Members
Budapest Join Date: 2007-10-11 Member: 62605Members
I'm genuinely interested what the actual players think about the bigger hitbox mesh.
Please don't be sarcastic, I still have a glimmer of hope that the devs pay attention to their playerbase.
EDIT:
The poll is not about hitreg, it's about the size of the new hitboxes
Please don't be sarcastic, I still have a glimmer of hope that the devs pay attention to their playerbase.
EDIT:
The poll is not about hitreg, it's about the size of the new hitboxes
Comments
Bad quality comparison: (downsampled for posted skulk image size)
Team W:L stats collected by UWE:
Which proves even this tiny amount of change in surface area has a HUUUGE impact on the gameplay
The graph also seems to prove, that the aliens have adapted to the change after a while, because the trend was going towards 50/50 again, even before the melee change.
Well it is right to be only be able to hit where the model is. The screenshots show you exactly that they changed that. Ingame "feeling" is not very accurate.
Ill shut up, dont want to influence the vote (too much
Should've added this as a 5th option... any way to do that now?
I don't know. I summon forum wizard @Ironhorse .
The problem is with the way they've been going their "counter balancing" will probably be even worse changes that utterly obliterate balance and fun beyond any hope of recovery.
It all just feels way too similar to the way Faultline went about balancing combat... If you'll notice nobody plays that anymore.
Is that all there is to it? Like I said, I'm not an expert on this matter. I just find it weird that other fast paced multiplayer games don't even try to have a 1:1 model:hitbox at all. Like, you can shoot next to their head or between their legs and still hit.
Im not so sure about that. Sure, it's not so tight as NS hitboxes were, but their main goal in CS was to eliminate those sharp edges where there were no visible mesh elements at all.
I was playing competitive CS for a long time (1.6&Source), and our main grievance in Source was inconsistent models and hitboxes. I'd rather have realism; if there is nothing to hit, then I don't expect damage to be registered. Otherwise, it seems cheap and badly designed.
There is also a backlash against the ridiculous hitboxes in overwatch.
EDIT:
My impression is that sloppy hitboxes in other games are not a question of design, but rather technical limitation/performance optimization.
But hey, lets stick to the NS2 context, I dont give a rat's arse about CS or OW...
In terms of speed, NS2 may be comparable to TF2 and TF2 also uses hitboxes that are way bigger than the model.
Or how about reflexes hitbox:
CS and NS are very similar in pace... Sometimes no engagement for several tens of seconds, then BOOM 3-4 enemies and a fast skirmish.
And as a bonus, NS is asymmetrical... and which team's hitboxes were enlarged? The one facing ranged weapons
Also, I don't give think that UWE made this change with balanace in mind at all, but to provide a better hit registration feeling in general. By slightly increasing the hitbox, the benefit of the doubt is on the shooters side which is good imo. As alien you don't know whether or not the marines shots should have hit or not, except when he's hitting you around corners. I would expect more corner kills with this change, but I'm okay with this, because it is the aliens fault for not disengaging sooner or dodging better.
Not hitting when shooting the alien models edges is however more frustrating than that imo.
Also, your last option: is not mutually exclusive with increasing the size of the hitboxes. It would be possible to shrink the skulk to make it less of a target, while still having slightly more generous hitboxes so that damage feels more consistent.
It seems to me hitboxes are intrinsic to balance in an FPS game. You simply can't change them without affecting balance.
Well, can you point me to a more sophisticated poll system on the forums?
Also, i must disagree. Having smaller targets doesn't compromise your aim as long as its visible, the size of the hitbox does. And that holds for real life too, I've been on the hungarian national team in shooting for a few years.
Not really if you account for the fact that NS doesnt have "headshots" while all these big hitbox games have.
Those last pistol shots against a fleeing lerk are now overly easy there is no sense of achievement, same for meatshoting fades.
Beside that i dont like that i can hit someone when my aim is not on target.
Like the hillarious overwatch hitbox (is this fixed btw, always behind with news from games i dont play)
If not, its just amazing that our "NS2 hitreg is garbage"-"Pros" are playing this now instead of NS2:
Well, imo that only shows that people started playing more cautiously as aliens and/or turned to other exploits. You made it unreasonably hard for them to move around, and if your true goal is "player retention", then that's the exact opposite one would want.
You do not have to be an expert on this matter. The devs are also not experts on this matter. The increase in hitboxes is made to hide the Bad hitreg. But technically the hitreg hasn't got any better. The question is: Why in all means should it be any good for a game when you Hit a target that you reastically didn't hit?
It is just terrible Design. And yes, Most if not all other shooters have done a worse Job in this than NS2. But that is not what remi cares about. His logic he showed us here is: "Yea look at Overwatch guys, all good shooters have bigger hitboxes, so it Must be the better Way because you get e better feel now when shooting aliens." AGAIN instead of focusing on the strengths of the game, he tries to remove them. Please someone has to stop those Updates before it is too late.
Also it is a questionable attitude from a developer to take part in polls like this.
I think it would help me as a shitty skulk if the cuspid/canine teeth helped "define" the damage area. What's the point of having teeth if they don't actually show me anything or help me aim.
I guess only the top incisors do damage... ha.
But they rant about the changes being made are for the sake of player retention. Well, if you change the game every second week, how will new players feel about that?
We are but a few NS fanatics on the forums who will most likely stick to the game no matter what. But what about the rest? They play a few hours, then check back a few weeks later only to see that the game has changed. Nonsense at the max.
If NS2 has become a beta test for NS3 (which I highly doubt), then OK, I'm fine with that. But I want conformation in that case.
The way I see it, fun comes before balance in terms of priority.
You shouldn't implement or leave an unfun element in the game just to make or leave it balanced.
No, you change the element to make it fun, and if that breaks balance, you'll rebalance in other parts without making it unfun again.
The precise effect of this change was not forseeable. Testing it like they did was the only way to know what to change next.
Or they were changed to fix the hitreg problems, because the former hitboxes were not the best practice implementation for a fast paced shooter.
Care to elaborate what headshots have to do with hitting or not hitting?
You're exaggerating.