PDA

View Full Version : Do we really need hitscan?


1337
15th May 2005, 04:49 PM
Do we really need it? I think they should ditch it if they want to have a more variety of weapons being used in the outdoor maps that we'd be seeing in Conquest mode. If the netcode permits it ofcourse. Not sure how well they'd be able to make netcode for super fast flying projectiles, however.

I seriously think the more projectiles the better.

Israphel
15th May 2005, 05:39 PM
I'm really crap with hitscan and therefore wouldn't really miss it a great deal...it would be one thing that might level the playing field a little between expert and new players.
But having said that, I simply can't see a UT game without the Shock Rifle.

I'd also like to see projectiles move a little faster, especially rockets, along with a projectile weapon that replaces the sniper rifle and LG, something with a zoom that fires projectiles, but not bullets, like a railgun or something. The projectile could move a little faster than the tank shell...not hitscan, but very very fast.

Tenkken
15th May 2005, 06:56 PM
I think conquest makes hitscan even more necessary; think about the distance. Also hitscan is not only used in a 1v1 distanced dm match, sr and lg are necessary to take down a raptor or manta.

BooGiTyBoY
15th May 2005, 06:59 PM
Tribes: V uses projectile weapons in huge outdoor environments. It also has vehicles that need to be shot down with them as well. It's been proven a non-hitscan game is very viable.

Dark Pulse
15th May 2005, 09:54 PM
Hitscan should still stay in, but it should be trimmed to only a few weapons. UT99 did this well - the only Hitscan weapons were Enforcers, Shock, Mini, Pulse Secondary, and Sniper. The rest were all projectile of some kind.

They also had a way to get around it - Enforcers had a slow ROF, Shock had a pretty slow Primary ROF, Mini, well, you could drain your bullets dry if your opponent was evasive, Pulse Secondary had a pretty short range, and the Sniper... well, the Sniper was overbalanced. But something like 2k4's Lightning Gun made it a good weapon - just enough ROF to not be spammy, but still plenty deadly if you got pegged. Perhaps less damage for non-headshots though, so as to discourage using it to peg opponents to death... 70 is VERY nasty. Even the 99 Sniper only did like 45 unless you got shot in the head.

T2A`
16th May 2005, 12:38 AM
Hitscan should still stay in, but it should be trimmed to only a few weapons. UT99 did this well - the only Hitscan weapons were Enforcers, Shock, Mini, Pulse Secondary, and Sniper. The rest were all projectile of some kind.:con: A) Sounds like the current Tournament. B) "The only hitscan weapons were everything except everything that wasn't." :p Also, I think the UT sniper did 60-something damage or more.

Yes, we need hitscan in this game. We also need the shock rifle, as it is, without a doubt, the coolest weapon in the history of FPS. What we need is hitscan that isn't so dominating. We need there to be a real reason to learn projectile weapons as much as point-and-click. There are numerous things they could tone down on the shock to balance it out a bit. Besides, if they get the player scale right in this version, hitscan won't be so powerful anyway. Regardless...

WE ALSO NEED OUR F*CKING LIGHTNING GUN BACK. WE DON'T WANT A PIECE OF ASS SNIPER RIFLE!

^ Hopefully Epic sees that. :D

Black_Seeds
16th May 2005, 03:05 AM
I simply can't see a UT game without the Shock Rifle.

BmB23
16th May 2005, 03:28 AM
Well... lets see SR LtG and other instant hit beam weapons should be the only ones carrying the dreaded hitscan virus... I mean treat.

edhe
16th May 2005, 03:43 AM
Reducing the power of the LtG bodyshots back to not-insane would be good. Getting rid of the 1-2 shock/LtG frag, or LtG/MiniORlink combo as much.

kafros
16th May 2005, 03:44 AM
I would feel naked in an ONS map without a SR to hit vehicles.

It is so nice against Raptors & mantas, and if you get some cover you can wreck camping Goliaths.

As said by many of you I cannot see a UT game without SR.

My only concerns with SR are pixelfrags and being placed in the air after a shot (you cannot dodge, which means if you get hit once then successive hits are more likely to come)

If they lowered the damage in proportion with distance and allowed the SR to push you but not prevent you from dodging, I think that there would be no need to change damage or ROF.

T2A`
16th May 2005, 04:29 AM
Your last point sounds good, but I'm not sure how they would pull that off. The push comes from it knocking you into the air, and being in the air means you can't dodge. :hmm:

-AEnubis-
16th May 2005, 05:12 AM
I doubt we will see it dissapear, simply because of difficulty in justifying a projectile based "shock beam" or "link-shaft". Reducing it greatly would make the remainder easy to balance, and that would be good.

Personally, I think shock beams and such makes it too easy to take out a vehicle on foot. I mean, a foot solider, vs a guy in a fighter craft shouldn't have such good odds of winning. As well, certain weapons, I feel shouldn't totally destory the vehicle, and retroactively, the pilot as well. If you took down a raptor with a minigun, disabling the vehicle, what again would prevent the pilot from bailing afterwards? I think there are some interesting un-thought of balance issues with vehicles, but that is the least of my concerns.

With average pings dropping though, reducing it and or nerfing it is a must. As long as this game remains somewhat "Sci-Fi" and retains the ASMD, it's elimination can't really be justified in the story content.

...and boogs is very correct about Tribes. You could very efficiently take out flying vehicles with a projectile based chain gun, you just had to triangulate a bit.

OMGSKILLHAX

Cursed_Soul
16th May 2005, 06:02 AM
hitscan is an art on its own,
it takes at least some skill to keep your crosshair on a target.

8-4-7-2
16th May 2005, 06:05 AM
You need at least one hitscan weapon for longrange fighting. Otherwise you might as well just not fire at all until you are closer together.
Especially with a gamemode like Conquest which is even more about huge outdoor areas


Changing the vehicle explosions would be good. Instead of always exploding in mid-air, they could first tumble to the ground and give the pilot the chance to eject. Further firing would destroy them completely

krjal
16th May 2005, 09:17 AM
Hmm, Enforcers, Stinger prim, Shock prim, Link sec, Ltg.... that should be enough I reckon. I think I'll just trust Epic on this one.

oh, and before I forget

WE ALSO NEED OUR F*CKING LIGHTNING GUN BACK. WE DON'T WANT A PIECE OF ASS SNIPER RIFLE!

LP
16th May 2005, 09:59 AM
Tribes: V uses projectile weapons in huge outdoor environments. It also has vehicles that need to be shot down with them as well. It's been proven a non-hitscan game is very viable.

but that game bombed baaad!

The_Head
16th May 2005, 10:43 AM
I would like to see a lot of hitscan go. ie the sniper could just have a really fast bullet. Lightning could should stay as it is (if they did bring it back like lots of people want)
Shock had better not change, except making the combo more balanced.

btw Sniper Rifle > Lightning Gun
:D

Selerox
16th May 2005, 12:48 PM
but that game bombed baaad!

I think he meant the Tribes series in general, but point taken :)

BooGiTyBoY
16th May 2005, 01:04 PM
Its not a matter of wether tribes was good or not.. just that its proven you can do a fully projectile game succesfully. Tribes didn't "bomb" because it was all projectile weapons.. it bombed due to crap-ass support, bugs galore, and a very bad time of release.

-AEnubis-
16th May 2005, 02:18 PM
Vehicles could still maintain some long range hit-scan for conquest. Hellbender rear turret, Sentry Turrets, Goliath Mini-gun turret, etc...

My main concerns are for DM/CTF. Besides, sniping with a projectile sniper rifle at a long range would be no different then doing so with an LtG on a 100 ping. It would simply take some skill, as opposed to just reaction time.

daloonie
17th May 2005, 08:12 AM
WE ALSO NEED OUR F*CKING LIGHTNING GUN BACK. WE DON'T WANT A PIECE OF ASS SNIPER RIFLE!

:stupid: I love that weapon :)

And no, hitscan shouldn't be a no-no in the UT world. It would almost make me not buy the 2k7 version if there wasn't any hitscan weapons.

BmB23
17th May 2005, 08:48 AM
I(!) am not saying they should ditch it completely. that would be bad yes.

But they should limit them!

Xaero_UT
17th May 2005, 06:49 PM
something with a zoom that fires projectiles, but not bullets, like a railgun or something.

being a quake 3 arena player before UT, (UT is better imho) but the railgun, was my favourite weapon, simply, because unlike most weapons, skill is needed to be able to actually hit a player, (while i still enjoy them) weapons like the rocket launcher and flak cannon, can easily become spam weapons.

also the beam can be colour customized, and that rox0rs.

obviously i wouldnt want to see a rip off the railgun, but if the developers can do it right, i think it would be a good addition.

JohnDoe641
17th May 2005, 07:41 PM
I wouldn't mind having only one hitscan weapon. As it would be the asmd, and well I just love the asmd. :)

Just as long as they ditch the sniper, I'll be happy. :)

-AEnubis-
18th May 2005, 12:36 AM
This whole skill = hit-scan association is really retarded. It takes a bit of skill to use hit-scan, or do anything in this game, don't get me wrong, but I think people have this seriously false conclusion about how projectile fire "can be used".

Everyone has a different definition of spam is seems, but one of the common ones seems to be firing at someone you can't see, achieved by exploiting the time it takes a projectile to reach it's target. This concept in itself is mostly balanced, and one on the recieving end of said fire can prevent it from happening to him or her, and that is a greater skill then use of any hit-scan weapon IMNSHO.

Ears are your friends. Pickups, and moving predictably are not. These are the first two lessons in preventing from being "spammed by projectile fire". If you can see it comeing, if you can see your attackers weapons' barrel, then him hitting you with said projectile fire takes far more skill then him using a hit-scan weapon at that time.

If you fire at somone you can't see, then that is either an educated guess: balanced by your ability to anicipate your opponent, dicatating whether you do damage, or waste ammo, supressive fire: forcing your opponent to take a different direction, or take damage, or use of senses other then your eyes: firing at known locations of sound cues.

You can class any non-sight driven projectile fire into one of those categories, and at any given time, I consider none of them luck on either side, good or bad. A mistake is made by someone each time, and that mistake is paid for in some way by that person. If you think it has anything to do with skill vs luck, or lack there of, there is simply something about that situation you are not considering, and you prolly have something to learn from it.

In case your curious, my personal definition of spam, is one spraying a weapon, constantly, without intent of letting up on the fire of said weapon, usually less then aimed, sometimes "pointed", and doing so regardless of change of situation, or action of target. For the most part I would consider spam in this game non-existant in most of the gametypes, and situations I play in. Minigun use being a rare exception.

krjal
18th May 2005, 01:55 AM
Well said.

Here's to hoping the stinger goes towards fixing the 'problem' without wrecking the UT feel.

edhe
18th May 2005, 04:04 AM
Generally hitscan is as much skill as opening up the start bar. It takes alot to make hit scan a skill, which in 2k4 frankly there's alot. All the movement and associated latency means that the genuinely hard shots are skill, there are the odd hard targets (moving xlocs) but generally the idea that you can shoot someone a couple of times down a hallway being skillful is retarded. If you're picking off someone's head whilst in mid air and they're dodgjumping down some platform, then yeah, there's alot of movement & prediction in that, added to latency and you have a prediction shot which is, essentially, not hitscan.

So IG fanbois saying that hitscan is pure skill, nah. The skill comes from much more than point & click.

Dark Pulse
18th May 2005, 07:21 AM
T2A: I always refer to the "Classic" damage numbers. The ones most people think of are the "Hardcore" ones, which is 150% of the Classic number. 45 x 1.5 = 67.5, which in UT would be rounded up to 68.

Either way, the point I tried to make was in UT, there was hitscan, but it was pretty balanced. In 200x, Hitscan is king. It should be in there, yes, but toned down a bit - which it should be, since Epic has stated it will return to more of that "In your face" feel.

edhe
18th May 2005, 08:59 AM
Hitscan was NOT BALANCED in UT.

Sniper's rate of fire, shock's rate of fire & damage and more importantly, the minigun's ROF & Damage made them king. Hence the big changes. But i would've rather they kept the body damage down on the LtG.

Dark Pulse
18th May 2005, 11:02 AM
I noted the Sniper. The Shock ROF is good, but the Damage should be at about the 2k4 level. As for the Mini... well, I've moved enough and outlasted someone's full Mini ho-ing attempt. :p

rhirud
18th May 2005, 11:55 AM
Thing is that for non- fragging based games, like onslaught, if you dont have hitscan weapons like turrets or lighning guns, it becomes far too easy to attack from a distance with a stream of primary link or rockets for example. By the time you take out the attacker with a projectile, he will have a large barrage of various projectiles landing on your undefendable target.

So as ever, there has to be a balance.

-AEnubis-
18th May 2005, 03:01 PM
You have to be exposed to a fast moving projectile to understand it, apparently.

Use the Halo sniper, or Tribes: V chaingun, and you will realize hit-scan is not necessary. They can make projectiles fast enough to traverse that long distance faster then a rocket or pulse bolt. It doesn't mean that "you might as well use rockets, and not snipe, because they are just as fast, and do splash."

...and yes, agree that certain exceptions with hit-scan take some skill. Most of my favorite ones include when your target isn't in your pov less then a second before you fire. I would just like to see those down the hall on the same latitutde shots take some skill.

FireCrack
18th May 2005, 08:53 PM
Why make uberfast projectiles when you can just use hitsacn though?

It woerks in tribes because that game has massive areas of combat but in UT there's no point, it just eats up bandwith.

BooGiTyBoY
18th May 2005, 09:41 PM
ons and conquest will have huge open areas.

I'd like to see the new sniper weapon limited by gametype. Problem solved.

-AEnubis-
19th May 2005, 02:11 AM
Because they don't have to be so uber fast that you can't tell the difference.

I'll say this in a short post, so it's more likely to be read, and understood.

Imagine shooting a sniper weapon that feels like it's at a 100 ping at a mid-long range.

It would naturally lessen slightly the closer to the target you are, but would hence still require some leading, and anticipation of your targets movement.

Anticipation, and triangulation = skill.

Clicking on your start button ≠ skill.

edhe
19th May 2005, 04:06 AM
Hehe.. this start button thing could get a following.

Real Pros don't whine, and IGers are the best at clicking Start.

NwS-bbanks
28th May 2005, 10:29 PM
so basically all the ut community wants is all weapons to be a variation of the rocket launcher? in 2k4 you have your hitscan, splash damge(projectiles) and you spam weapons. and just about every reply here sayss drop them all and put in all new rocket launchers. sounds like fun. and in a conquest map do you expect to hit a guy from across the map with a rocket? the 4 maps spliced togeather? i dont htink so. im gonna want some hitscan. enless they make flak so fast you can hit people in an instint from across the map. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

-AEnubis-
29th May 2005, 01:01 AM
Yeah, because all the link gun really is, is a modified rocket launcher :rolleyes:

Before shooting "across 4 maps spliced together" you gotta worry about seeing "across 4 maps spliced together", then assess the realism of being able to have any impact on anything happening at the peak of your visions distance.

Wowbagger
29th May 2005, 03:37 AM
To answer the top post, YES, yes we do.
Its all about variation and the fact that people like different ways to play.
Some of the skill and challenge of this game is the decisions we make, "switch to LG now, or Flak or SR? etc.

If we had only 10 different RL:s it would get boring quickly :)

-AEnubis-
29th May 2005, 03:57 AM
Who says variation would be lost? That is an un-educated assumption. There is currently vast differences between shock cores, link bolts, rockets, bio and grenades. What makes you think that if a sniper bullet was made to be projectile, it wouldn't be unique in comparison?

Wowbagger
29th May 2005, 04:10 AM
Hmm i read your previous post now and i realise people are talking about different things.
My post was about the weapon types themselves.

Making the sniper bullet a projectile sounds interesting but otoh where does that leave my favorite gun, SR?
I mean a UT without the SR combo is a NONO!

Israphel
29th May 2005, 05:31 AM
Don't worry, the Shock rifle is in UT2k7 :) You can see it in the gameplay video from E3.

Aenubis is probably the LAST person on this forum to argue that the SR should be taken out (look at his sig), and I don't believe anyone here really wants "10 different rocket launchers". I won't be sorry to see the back of the mini and the AR, the SR will stay, which just leaves the LG and Sniper open to debate. I like the LG, but one of the points behind this thread (and others) has been, not that ALL hitscan should go, but that there is too much of it. To have the LG and SR in the same map, and the fact that hitscan is one of the harder skills to learn, means that new players are faced with good players who can kill them without them getting close. Now, I'm not saying that that is completely wrong, but removing ONE hitscan weapon like the LG will slightly level the playing field without nerfing skilled players.

I for one am in favour of a projectile weapon that sits somewhere inbetween the sniper and the LG. Not hitscan, but very fast moving (like the tank shell). Not a bullet, but some kind of railgun with a sniper scope.

From what I've seen from the E3 video, the rockets move A LOT faster, as does the flak primary, then with things like the link and the cannister, there'll be planty of variety.

gregori
29th May 2005, 06:03 AM
Can anybody think of a good reason why at the height of technology in the future, people will make weapons that slow the projectiles down so you can dodge them?
It stands to reason that they will be actually faster than now so replacing all hitscan with projectiles is clearly dumb and a waste of bandwidth. Jesus, if they could only make them faster than instant hit!, ah well!

Point is UT should be more about shooting stuff up close and personal as opposed to dodging and avoiding a 1000ft away and hitscan has its place in the series.

carmatic
29th May 2005, 07:48 AM
i think that hitscan = 1000ft away, for every other situation you either have an IG'ers aim, or you choose between all the other weapons you can use

in fact even the rocket launcher should be able to work well over long distances , in open areas where your target is not dodging around etc etc, when you keep your crosshair on them long enough they'll lock and unless your target goes out of sight, all he will hear is just a swoosh and a loud bang
works even better if the rockets move as fast as they do in the e3 footage...

Black_Seeds
29th May 2005, 02:30 PM
Wooooooo Go Hit Scan, I suck with it but I love Instagib :P

-AEnubis-
29th May 2005, 04:04 PM
I'm not saying all hit-scan should go. The ASMD prime, and link shaft are fine. I don't mind an instant beam with no zoom. The RoF could be slowed a bit, and maybe damage tweaked, but yes, it is needed for combos, and not a bad thing to have (one beam weapon option - it's two that gets silly).

Rockets, if the scale and movement is more like UT, could go back to the way they were in UT. It was much easier to achieve a lock back then, and the rocket was capable of 3 or 4 very sharp turns. It wouldn't veer back towards it's owner, would only travel in the 180 it was shot into, but easier lock, paired with the fact that it also accellerated (slow up close, but sped up at distance) made it much more useful at long ranges. At current, yeah, it sucks for anything but being up close.

At current, from what we know about the weapons, here are my "takes".

Impact Hammer - It's back, much rejoicing. Secondary fire is ytbd. I wouldn't mind seeing a deflection capability, like a tweaked version of the original, or maybe a full charge punch, that naturally doesn't auto fire, but good for people who learn to time their melee attacks, or want to do quick jump, etc...

Enforcers - Back again. They can be hit-scan as well, though I fast moving bullet wouldn't be bad either. Same RoF and Cone as it's predecessors, and damage as well would prolly still be appropriate. Making it a bullet projectile might be grounds to up the damage or the RoF, not both. Either way, I don't care, 'cause I'd use the Hammer until I got two of them anyways.

Canister - Didn't play U2, so I can't really comment on changing ammos, etc. I imagine it will rarely be dicated by a map that is has multiple ammos in it, depending on the nature of Grenades, currently, we have two different kinds of grenades, both appropriate for certain gametypes. If they comprimise them, then who knows. I'd like to see goo back to more of how it was in UT (in all ways) but this is the weapon I'm most uncertain about. Not worried though, I mostly trust Epic.

ASMD Shock Rifle - Here to stay, physics wise, probably not changing. Hit-scan beam, projectile core. Damage on both now is fine, though I'd like to see the beam RoF back to the way it was in UT. If not, either less knock back, or less damage (not both), especially now since we lack the SG. Really can't say where I think they will go with cores, and combos, though I have feeling they will be much like either UT2004, or UT.

Link Gun - Again, I like it how it is. Rapid fire hit-scan balanced by limited range. Bolts will get more lethal if the player scale goes up, they may not need to change at all (since right now they are hard as hell to use). The only thing I might like to see added would be some very small splash maybe on the bolts, but may not be a good idea if player scale makes them more lethal.

Stinger - The potential for a fully projectile "minigun" style weapon is here. It's got style, it's Unreal. It could be / hit-scan and projectile, like UC2 (from what I'm told). It could be taken a step further, and make to be all projectile. Dunno how big a fan I am of the "seeking projectiles" concept, but from hearing how it was balanced, I think it could work well, since the only seek one target, not whatever is near them. The warming up concep I don't mind at all, especially if they are projectile, because you have time to avoid it... IE: get the hell outta there. I'd be happy simply with a projectile crystal shooting version of our current mini, but they will prolly change it up slightly more imaginatively then that.

Flak - Most stuff about flak will never change. I dig the current "one bounce" rule on shards. Damge for it are ok, some could be jacked up a little, but then so could chunk RoF. Major change I'd like to see is some skill put back into bomb use. Less bomb damage, less bomb blast radius, more shards from bomb, and more gravity interaction with bomb shards. Bombs used to be used like distance chunk: Fire it from where you wanna chunk from, and the shards extend from there. This was really cool when planting a bomb on a targets neck. Now it's much too much like a RL with lob, and the occasional random chunk off the ceiling.

Rocket Launcher - I prefer the 3 load, and no grens, very good for spam reduction. Most aspects of this weapon as of late are good. Damage could be a little better, but as such, would have to move rocket speed back to UT, with slow up front, to be accelerated for longer ranges. Mainly, the biggest change I want to see is easier locks. Locking really isn't extraordinarily useful now, and is hard as hell to do. One or the other I'm fine with. I think, though, lock difficulty is just due to player scaling, so it at least should be fixed.

Sniper Rifle - The big mystery. Creatively, the LtG was a phenominal idea. A sniper weapon that shoots lightning, and gibs people or lights peoples heads on fire. What more could you want? It's removal IMO must have a good reason, and the only one that I can dream up is they want the sniper weapon to be projectle. Can't make lightning projectile. I don't like the idea of a traditional sniper -bullet firing- "rifle", so I hope they come up with something creative. Something with a bright glowing, projectile round, easy traceability, without having to cloud your face, something that doesn't have that point and click ease, and takes some skill to fire, and something that is balanced for maybe more damage then current. Slightly increased Rof maybe, but most importantly, hightened switch away time. LtG's most lethal aspect it's the ability to bail on it when somone is in close. Also, it if interacts with the world in a way that justifies gibs, then all the better. At least taking off body parts consistantly. We currently have limb dismemberment, and applying that to a sniper weapon, so that whateverbody part you shoot, lops off would be awesome, even if not quite as cool as a bellyshot over kill with lighning gibbing your entire torso and up.

As you may hopefully now be able to tell, most of my view and opinions aren't based simply on what I am good with, or think is cool, etc... This game has "personality", and that is why most of us who love it do. Weapon balance, as well as maintaining that "personality" is what it's all about. Sub 50 pings are making it really hard to balance hit-scan.

FireCrack
29th May 2005, 04:19 PM
Oh yeah, i have no problem with that, except mabye the 1/2 : 1/2 hitscan : projectile thing on the stinger wich would make it awkward to use, all or nothing i say. My main point was that at typacal UT engagement ranges and character speeds projectiles might not be as big a difference as in say tribes where peole are whissing around like jet planes. Either way, as long as the tracers get synced with damage i'm happy. Also as long as the shock stays instahit as well as the sniper.

-AEnubis-
29th May 2005, 04:26 PM
Can't agree on the hit-scan sniper... but another point I'd stress, is that fast moving projectiles at non-tribes like ranges can feel close enough to hit-scan, most people won't even be able to tell the difference.

As far as tracers synchronized with damage, do you mean via amount, or when they contact? If it's amount, that is effected I believe by the world setting, and on "Holy Sht" settings, there is a tracer per bullet, or at least a lot closer to it. It still amazes me when I see my roomate use the mini secondary (the more accurate one). There is almost a solid stream of tracers on his screen. I usually see one per 5 bullets or so, if not less.

1337
29th May 2005, 04:30 PM
Can anybody think of a good reason why at the height of technology in the future, people will make weapons that slow the projectiles down so you can dodge them?That isn't a valid point, as this is a spectator sport with a controlled environment. What is more exciting? Trying to hitscan someone all the way across the map with -20% accuracy? Or actually getting in there and getting your hands dirty.

The waste of bandwidth part might be valid though. As it depends on how fast sniper rifle projectile will go and how much it will affect gameplay, because if has it is no affect to gameplay and requires more information to be communicated between the server and clients then it is indeed, a waste of bandwidth.

T2A`
29th May 2005, 07:45 PM
Sniper rifles should be hard to use, IMO. Maybe not on the order of the Rainbox Six series, but something similar. High damage but low rate of fire (which then affects switch-away time) seems like the best thing to do. There's really no reason to have a fast-firing sniper rifle because then it's just a more powerful shock primary, which is powerful enough. I'm writing a simple mutator to raise the damage on the lightning to 85 while slowing down the firing rate to see what happens. :p

1337
29th May 2005, 07:58 PM
Also ltg ammo depletes the slowest. So you almost never run out of it.

Silas Mercury
29th May 2005, 08:26 PM
Hitscan weapons currently cannot fire through warpzones, I'm not sure if the editor in UT2007 will work the same way or not but it's very troublesome to be able to see your target and fire your gun, only to have the ammo dissapear in midair.

kafros
29th May 2005, 11:36 PM
I post it already in this thread but here it goes again:)

The easiest solution to hitscan balance problems can be solved by making the damage proportional to distance. As it is now, the further away your target is the easier it is to hit with the SR, and as many ppl said in the thread that gives players a safety distance. If they make damage drop in proportion to that "safety distance" then they can keep ROF as is with out the domination of hitscan.

lucifur
25th Dec 2009, 09:16 AM
I learned something again, I don't play on public servers that often but I never herd the spamming thing before.

What you guys are calling spamming I have all ways called "cover fire" a typical tactic used to disorient the enemy and possibly soften the enemy up as a bonus.

Also my connection isn't that great and my ping is generally around 100 to 200 on average while every body else is in the 60s and 80s, were they can pull the trigger on a high velocity weapon and get good results I tend to have to take lag into account,... and spreading an apparent random fire in the direction of an opponent is a useful tactic.

my rule of thump is to take advantage of every passable scenario, unless it's a true glitch.

Interesting.

Shane

JohnDoe641
25th Dec 2009, 12:58 PM
Hey, good job on bumping a thread from 2005, buddy. :tup: