Why about all current online fps have nothing to do with skill. - Games

I don't wanna bash anyone, i just want your opinion on this. As you all probably know, most modern fps with guns and multiplayer have a value called accuracy on their guns, wich determines how many of the bullets you shoot are gonna hit the center of your screen. It never say that, mostly some value between 1 and 100, but its a random factor, spread. Now while bullet spread is realistic and nice and all, i find that it takes away a great portion of skill while playing, for obvious reasons i hope. Normally you wouldnt even notice that, but i've had a Lan Party recently where everyone played UT3, and UT3 has weapons with full accuracy, like the shock rifle or the sniper rifle, and surprisingly i owned the shit out of people who laugh at me in Call of Duty. This is why i think shit like quickscoping and that crap are luck to a giantic extent nowadays, and even normal gunkills depend at least a bit on luck. Thus a player with good aim is not properly rewarded for his skills. Also, i'm not some pseudo-pro-tourneyfag shithead or something, this just bugs and bothers me when some 12 year old gets a noscope through the map in MW2 and thinks he's awesome. And if you're gonna say "woot halo is different" - only the sniper.

There is still a certain degree of quick reactions and aiming Other examples of OPs issue Counter Strike

Most developers make a balanced game so it'll sell effectively and they get good reviews from critics, but there's always a skilled player in a game. I understand where you're coming from, I've had the same shit in Bad Company 2 where you get some twat who will blast you with a GOL constantly, but the helicopter in BC2 for example requires [B][U]skill[/U][/B] to fly. [QUOTE=jlj1;24491766]There is still a certain degree of quick reactions and aiming[/QUOTE] Exactly.

I like how the accuracy of guns in reach go down over time, makes you burst fire more.

[QUOTE=jlj1;24491766]There is still a certain degree of quick reactions and aiming Other examples of OPs issue Counter Strike[/QUOTE] With AK and M4 your first 2 shots are going to hit where you pointed and that's enough for a headshot. With enough practice you can achieve level of an aimbot.

When a game takes a step towards realism, you should expect an element of luck to come along with it, in reality you can't ensure victory on a level playing field just by being an experienced fighter, the only thing you can do is influence the chances of victory in your favour by being a skilled combatant and ensuring you have environmental/gear related advantages. When there is a possibility of a certain action happening in a way you expect it to, and also a chance that it may not happen the way you expect it to, that is the point where things do become less about skill and more orientated towards luck. Luck based systems are popular because they allow players of any level of ability to take away a positive experience from a game just by luck of the draw, so it makes sense that they are beginning if not already are dominating the market. Yes, the modern first person shooter is less about skill than previous shooters, but they can still be an entertaining experience.

Two words. Auto Aim.

It's cause we don't have as many FPS competive games made for the PC and the PC only, I'd say. I could be wrong.

Assuming the OP isn't one of those "graphics whores" types, you should check out [url=http://infiltration.sentrystudios.net/]Infiltration[/url], a mod for UT99. They spent a long time with this very problem, and so the aiming system in that reflects this. The bullet will always travel straight along the barrel vector out of the weapon (then there's bullet drop afterwards over distance) but rapid firing, movememnt, injury etc all contribute to moving the weapon viewmodel around relative to the screen - so the gun is rarely pointing at the center of the screen, and is shifting around realistically. Far more realistic than an expanding crosshair or an arbitrary accuracy influenced random number generator, anyways. :v: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cVgm8oLZ14[/media]

[QUOTE=Generic_Monk;24492409]Two words. Auto Aim.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about PC, not consoles.

[QUOTE=subenji99;24492506]Assuming the OP isn't one of those "graphics whores" types, you should check out [url=http://infiltration.sentrystudios.net/]Infiltration[/url], a mod for UT99. They spent a long time with this very problem, and so the aiming system in that reflects this. The bullet will always travel straight along the barrel vector out of the weapon (then there's bullet drop afterwards over distance) but rapid firing, movememnt, injury etc all contribute to moving the weapon viewmodel around relative to the screen - so the gun is rarely pointing at the center of the screen, and is shifting around realistically. Far more realistic than an expanding crosshair or an arbitrary accuracy influenced random number generator, anyways. :v: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cVgm8oLZ14[/media][/QUOTE] Reminds me of ArmA or that SharrpEYE mod for Gmod. [editline]06:04PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Numidium;24492544]I'm tlaking about PC, not consoles.[/QUOTE] I know, but since many popular FPS games nowadays are console ports, this has got to have some bearing on our beloved PC. Either way, I just like blaming consoles for most of the ills in gaming.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmdz-Ka1O4Q[/media] If i am in the mood for a FPS i will play ArmA 2, In my eye's ArmA 2 is the most realistic shooter there is

You could consider compensating for your guns unpredictability to be skill too.

[QUOTE=Pj The Dj;24494590]You could consider compensating for your guns unpredictability to be skill too.[/QUOTE]Isn't that basically the idea of CoD Black Ops? I mean they have a goddamn crossbow.

The idea of bullet spread is you have to keep the gun in check and know when your bullet has a chance of hitting. It's not just a realism thing. To me it'd feel silly if all the guns were laser accurate. UT is about running very fast and jumping about, that's your method of avoiding bullets. In something like Call of Duty it would be silly if the characters were that mobile, because it's a "real life" ish setting.

Well, quickscoping is horse shit, so I guess I agree with the OP?

[QUOTE=analrapist;24495429]Well, quickscoping is horse shit, so I guess I agree with the OP?[/QUOTE][img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/rating/tick.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Numidium;24491654]I don't wanna bash anyone, i just want your opinion on this. As you all probably know, most modern fps with guns and multiplayer have a value called accuracy on their guns, wich determines how many of the bullets you shoot are gonna hit the center of your screen. It never say that, mostly some value between 1 and 100, but its a random factor, spread. Now while bullet spread is realistic and nice and all, i find that it takes away a great portion of skill while playing, for obvious reasons i hope. Normally you wouldnt even notice that, but i've had a Lan Party recently where everyone played UT3, and UT3 has weapons with full accuracy, like the shock rifle or the sniper rifle, and surprisingly i owned the shit out of people who laugh at me in Call of Duty. This is why i think shit like quickscoping and that crap are luck to a giantic extent nowadays, and even normal gunkills depend at least a bit on luck. Thus a player with good aim is not properly rewarded for his skills. Also, i'm not some pseudo-pro-tourneyfag shithead or something, this just bugs and bothers me when some 12 year old gets a noscope through the map in MW2 and thinks he's awesome. And if you're gonna say "woot halo is different" - only the sniper.[/QUOTE] The player with good aim will still have more hits than a player that can't aim, and holy shit would games be boring if all weapons were one-shot, 100% accurate weapons.

[QUOTE=darth-veger;24494506] [URL="http://www.facepunch.com/#"]View YouTUBE video[/URL] [URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jmdz-Ka1O4Q[/URL] If i am in the mood for a FPS i will play ArmA 2, In my eye's ArmA 2 is the most realistic shooter there is[/QUOTE] Got it, got ACE. Bling! [editline]08:10PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Chrille;24495776]The player with good aim will still have more hits than a player that can't aim, and holy shit would games be boring if all weapons were one-shot, 100% accurate weapons.[/QUOTE] Hey, Instagib is fun. [editline]08:10PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Chrille;24495776]The player with good aim will still have more hits than a player that can't aim, and holy shit would games be boring if all weapons were one-shot, 100% accurate weapons.[/QUOTE] Also, thats the idea, that the better player are better than the bad players. [editline]08:11PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Pj The Dj;24494590]You could consider compensating for your guns unpredictability to be skill too.[/QUOTE] So if i fire more bullets i have more skill?

True skill isn't quick reflexes, true skill is superior tactics/strategies, superior positioning and superior planning. Sadly most games are all about jumping around shooting, but even in those the 3 points above will give you a pretty big advantage. I enjoy instagib matches in UT, but if all games were like that it would be very boring.

the best 1.6 players are the ones that combine great aim with the ability to control their recoil and spread

[QUOTE=Numidium;24496578] Also, thats the idea, that the better player are better than the bad players. [/QUOTE] Did you understand what I was saying?

I don't really hate normal crosshairs and random accuracy, but [i]damn[/i] is it annoying when random accuracy applies when you're aiming down the sights in some games - BC2, for instance. Guns should shoot where they're aimed at, you know?

Awareness and to a point instinct are important too, aiming alone isn't what gets you anywhere.

This is why I use the M16 in MW2 when I play it. One burst fired down the sights hits where [B]I [/B]am aiming, and I don't lose the kill because of the gun, no matter the distance. People call it a stupid/noob tactic, but how could that be considered stupid if I don't lose kills because of random bullet spread, and get them because I can snap on and off of people pretty well in console shooters.

[QUOTE=Numidium;24496578]So if i fire more bullets i have more skill?[/QUOTE] No, then the recoil makes your gun even more unpredictable. The more skilled people manage the spread and shoot when they think they have a decent chance of hitting. I think that's what he meant. Also, instagib works because you jump about and dodge the bullets, and the guns don't shoot very fast. Something like Counter Strike would be pretty un-fun if all the guns were 100% accurate.

It still takes skill to get 30 kills and no deaths. 100% accurate weapons take just as much skill as MW2 weapons. I've played sauerbraten and quake live.

tribes 2

Bad Company 2 is alot of skill. i just had a 4v4 match, me and a buddy and 2 randoms against a clan of rank 50s in squad rush who were all on teamspeak. normally in games i dont stress, people just die and die and die and contribute to my k/d, but these guys were good. headshots and quick reflexes and insane skill were the name of the game. unfortunetly those 2 other guys were nubs and because of that we couldnt win anything more than a decent k/d it was epppiicccc [editline]04:39PM[/editline] in other words, bad company 2 is the best fps out there right now, buy it. it doesnt have any of the problems listed in the op. (unless you go around spraying at people accross the map and expect yourself to get a headshot just because the hip ret tells you you should.) the problem with older games and the instant bullets and all is thats not skillfull, its just clicking on peoples heads. bullet drop and travel time makes for fun games.

[QUOTE=MegaJohnny;24497073]No, then the recoil makes your gun even more unpredictable. The more skilled people manage the spread and shoot when they think they have a decent chance of hitting. I think that's what he meant.[/QUOTE] I agree. Anyone can hold down the fire button - the skill lies in one's ability to manipulate and predict the recoil to land shots on a target.