|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
8066
   |
Posted - 2013.09.05 18:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
If you want to try to justify that bunny hopping is a futuristic viable tactic I will have you say you're absolutely wrong.
Behold the IRL Aimbot
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/product-hero-660x371.jpg
Comes with GPS, ballistics programming, windage, range finder, and aim correction.
I don't see any technological advantages for weaving through a hail of bullets or helping out bunny hopping.
As I said in another thread, nothing in the history of military warfare was ever designed to get shot at outside of two things, Decoys, and Practice Targets. |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
8067
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 19:12:00 -
[2] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:nothing in the history of military warfare was ever designed to get shot at outside of two things, Decoys, and Practice Targets. You're right! No tank has ever been designed to survive multiple hits from enemy weapons! 
Tanks are specifically not designed to be shot at.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29
and that's just ground to ground, practically every single air to ground method known still works from way far back as ww2 still works against even the most modern of tanks. |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
8069
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 19:35:00 -
[3] - Quote
semperfi1999 wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:If you want to try to justify that bunny hopping is a futuristic viable tactic I will have you say you're absolutely wrong. Behold the IRL Aimbot http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/product-hero-660x371.jpgComes with GPS, ballistics programming, windage, range finder, and aim correction. I don't see any technological advantages for weaving through a hail of bullets or helping out bunny hopping. As I said in another thread, nothing in the history of military warfare was ever designed to get shot at outside of two things, Decoys, and Practice Targets. IWS your an idiot go away from the adults in this conversation. Noone is arguing that in the future soldiers will be bunny hopping through a battlefield. If anything those who are arguing for strafe/bunnyhopping are stating the RL does not play a role in this game. I play games to have fun and do things I cant do in RL. This game was never meant to be realistic (if it was then CCP missed their goal for this game even worse than I initially thought). What used to be fun about this game was the higher TTK with high strafe speeds forcing skilled gungame battles....until CCP ruined what little gungame they did have (uprising). Now gungame consists of letting the AA keep your aim on target for kills.
So... you're saying you want to cosplay a clay pidgeon? |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
8069
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 19:38:00 -
[4] - Quote
SgtDoughnut wrote:INFINITE DIVERSITY IDIC wrote:halo1pc Heres a link of a video of me back in the day that illustrates strafeing very well, pay close attention to how you had to lead your target as you could not hit square on when a target moved. Ps no aim assist in this game...... So aim assist is not part of ALL shooters. erm all that shows is that you have to lead your targets, just means the pistol in halo wasn't hit scan. That or you are just adjusting for lag compensation, not shooting ahead because you are strafing.
Hi
http://www.halopedia.org/Aim-Assist
BTW these numbers are not official they're reversed engineered. |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
8070
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 19:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
semperfi1999 wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:If you want to try to justify that bunny hopping is a futuristic viable tactic I will have you say you're absolutely wrong. Behold the IRL Aimbot http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/product-hero-660x371.jpgComes with GPS, ballistics programming, windage, range finder, and aim correction. I don't see any technological advantages for weaving through a hail of bullets or helping out bunny hopping. As I said in another thread, nothing in the history of military warfare was ever designed to get shot at outside of two things, Decoys, and Practice Targets. IWS your an idiot go away from the adults in this conversation. Noone is arguing that in the future soldiers will be bunny hopping through a battlefield. If anything those who are arguing for strafe/bunnyhopping are stating the RL does not play a role in this game. I play games to have fun and do things I cant do in RL. This game was never meant to be realistic (if it was then CCP missed their goal for this game even worse than I initially thought). What used to be fun about this game was the higher TTK with high strafe speeds forcing skilled gungame battles....until CCP ruined what little gungame they did have (uprising). Now gungame consists of letting the AA keep your aim on target for kills.
I also find it funny how mention this is a means of not doing things in real life.
After some quick reflection, where I used to work in the military staffing and bunny hopping can save your life there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c0lfwxRpj0
Had one snap on me went through 12 birds, 1 tactor and 2 people back in 2007 on the Kitty Hawk. striketron 102 lost their bird, one officer got fired. |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
8073
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 20:30:00 -
[6] - Quote
semperfi1999 wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:semperfi1999 wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:If you want to try to justify that bunny hopping is a futuristic viable tactic I will have you say you're absolutely wrong. Behold the IRL Aimbot http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/product-hero-660x371.jpgComes with GPS, ballistics programming, windage, range finder, and aim correction. I don't see any technological advantages for weaving through a hail of bullets or helping out bunny hopping. As I said in another thread, nothing in the history of military warfare was ever designed to get shot at outside of two things, Decoys, and Practice Targets. IWS your an idiot go away from the adults in this conversation. Noone is arguing that in the future soldiers will be bunny hopping through a battlefield. If anything those who are arguing for strafe/bunnyhopping are stating the RL does not play a role in this game. I play games to have fun and do things I cant do in RL. This game was never meant to be realistic (if it was then CCP missed their goal for this game even worse than I initially thought). What used to be fun about this game was the higher TTK with high strafe speeds forcing skilled gungame battles....until CCP ruined what little gungame they did have (uprising). Now gungame consists of letting the AA keep your aim on target for kills. I also find it funny how mention this is a means of not doing things in real life. After some quick reflection, where I used to work in the military staffing and bunny hopping can save your life there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c0lfwxRpj0Had one snap on me went through 12 birds, 1 tactor and 2 people back in 2007 on the Kitty Hawk. striketron 102 lost their bird, one officer got fired. Ouch that is pretty serious. I know those cables are huge but man the amount of power they must have if 1 cable caused that much dmg. Crazy....
Steel woven cable thicker than most people's wrists with 45,000+ lb bird tugging it at 250mph+ snapping like a rubber band.
Not my closest call to death myself but its comes at a close second by 5ft away.
|
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
8073
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 20:45:00 -
[7] - Quote
Killar-12 wrote:This is getting fun to watch! So IWS what's your opinion on the shorter TTKs?
Its a bit wee too short imo but there are other ways of extending it. Like I cannot wait for the new bubble shield or cortex activated abilities, and cloaking. I am watching a few more videos in slow motion (since I have no recording devices) and it seems that there is a bit more help from hit detection than AA at times. I am not even seeing the snap target to target in these videos. As for my experiences, the snap target to target is barely noticeable unlike the days before uprising was. As far as relative strength of snapping i am comparing it to call of duty which is pretty bad with the quick scoping and the short moments after the scope action. Its very rare a pro quick scoper would have to to shoot the same guy twice in call of duty.
I am enjoying the slight increase in weapon variety on the field at least, I still hate plate tanking because I the sort that values getting to cover fast enough and not being the open as much. Then again I only have access to tier 1 basic suits and since CCP downshifted all the reload skills to be unlocked at lvl 1 I am now getting those to lvl 2. Two weeks setback.
Either way the good type of feedback is slowly trickling into ccp right now they're still in observation mode on the new aim systems and how its down the middle. CCP Wolfman did announce that ADS will have separate sensitivity settings enabled in 1.5 so you guys can look forward to that. I am however going have to address the hardware workarounds in disadvantaging the mouse with CCP and what are their plans to deal with it.
Finally I am not sure if its a placebo effect wearing off or not but I am getting reports that AA seems to have been slightly toned down after today's patch but that is going to be near impossible to confirm. |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
8078
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 22:48:00 -
[8] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:I'm sorry, IWS, I didn't think you'd take my comment about tanks being designed to resist firepower as tanks being designed to resist specifically anti-tank firepower. The purpose of tanks is to make anti-infantry weapons obsolete. That was the reason they were invented, and their effectiveness at doing so is the reason they persist on the battlefield. Their presence as a weapon immune to small arms is the reason more powerful weapons were developed as a counter. The point being that tanks on real battlefields exist specifically because they CAN handle a certain level of enemy firepower without it being a real concern for them. If you could just spray a tank with an AR and it fell over dead, nobody would waste the effort building them. I'm actually surprised I got such a sensible reply, given the relative idiocy of what I was trying to say. 
Yet tanks are still not designed around the concept of getting shot though that's the thing.
Tanks are more about delivering a weapon system to a location its needed and all of its operators safely attempt to have every edge to ensure its the first one doing the shooting against another target.
The real reason why you don't design around the idea of getting shot is that there will never be a guarantee that the enemy you face WILL NOT have the weapons you are expecting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_Tears case in point that tanks are not clearly designed to withstand small arms fire at all.
Abrams boasts impressive defenses yet old cold war tanks can still severely damage an Abrams tank, what makes the abrams superior is that they can fire first, fast, and accurately to the point that the enemy would be lucky to have anything left over to shoot back with. The abrams has rarely been shot at by a serious armed force but if america where to go to war with any real armies we will quickly find out those tanks are nowhere near invincible as most of the public thinks.
There may have been a time where the thinking of getting shot may have been prevalent but I am pretty sure WW2 saw the to end of that. Every battleship at the bottom is testament to that.
BTW got a 6 kill streak strafing around as a scout in domination point in alpha on the orbital artillery outpost. Cover works really well now. |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
8078
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 22:52:00 -
[9] - Quote
semperfi1999 wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:semperfi1999 wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:semperfi1999 wrote:Yea um if you want you can go back through the forums during closed beta. I have no reason to do this and I could care less if you believe me or not. The fact that Dust has special MAG tribute suits doesnt mean anything of course......  Those were only done to appease us since we were the largest portion of the community outside of Eve purists. I was there for the closed beta and anyone that wasn't in your little elitist circlejerk was shouted down and ridiculed, now here we are in commercial release and ideas that were brought up then keep getting brought up (and in some cases implemented). You mad that you and your little elitist friends are losing to the flood of "worst players ever"? Is that why you stick around and do what you can to ruin things? Yes because Dust has been such a resounding success since they started listening more to the flood of "worst players ever" instead of listening to the competitive gamers who actually know a thing or two about FPS games. Please spare me. You all act like this game is succeeding. CCP themselves admitted the game is failing and they are attempting to correct some of that but honestly its probably too little too late. I haven't stated that the game is or isn't succeeding, though I will say that I like most of the things about 1.4 (bear in mind I said "most"). I sincerely hope that CCP is able to turn things around while including the opinions of the entire community, however there are some here that only want their segment of the community to be heard (i.e. the "competitive elite" which by definition needs to be viewed as being a very small portion of the community). On the upside, I do agree with you about the different tactics that immortality would allow from a lore perspective. See the problem here is that in general the opinions of the "non competitive elite" are usually not very good for game play. I have seen so many games literally die off because they listened to and made changes as requested by the non competitive gamers requests and all the gamers ended up leaving because the game eventually became just horrible. Meanwhile games that consider more heavily the competitive gamer element and work hard to make slight adjustments based on their comments tend to last longer with a larger playerbase. Counterstrike is a perfect example of this. Its still going strong after over a decade of playing...why? Because the devs knew to pay more attention to the elite/pro players than to the average gamer. Did they do everything the elite wanted? No they didnt but they did a pretty good job (not talking about new counterstrike...talking about Source and 1.6). Another example.......Starcraft 1/2. They work on balancing based on the elite/pro players not based on the average player.
Ahem why starcraft is bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w
and supplemental
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EitZRLt2G3w |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
8081
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 16:12:00 -
[10] - Quote
semperfi1999 wrote:Long Evity wrote:I knew you were insane, but I didn't know how far. Dust dreams of being half as good as starcraft is to it's audience. It's a game that knows how to strike a balance between what is considered 'noob' tactics that give easy win, to complicated strategies, that if used right, can assure the win even more. Dust has no strike in balance. And you have disowned any credibility you have saying Starcraft is bad while defending Dust. If I could double like this post I would. I was flabergasted when I saw IWS mention Starcraft and then call it a bad game...... Seriously??? If starcraft is a bad game then there are pretty much no good games out there....and dust well we cant even discuss dust compared to Starcraft. Dust doesnt deserve to drink Starcrafts urine much less anything else..........
Watch the videos. |
|
|
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
8082
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 16:38:00 -
[11] - Quote
The other fail is perfectly balanced, which results in boring game play and begins to boil down who can execute the stratagey the fastest, hence the massive emphasis of 300 apm+
|
|
|
| |
|