Originally Posted by Sturmhardt
Or another reason for that could be that I'm on a small island in Thailand right now with unstable internet and only my phone
|
My apologies, it seemed like you were conveniently ignoring points that might threaten your position. But that still doesn't mean you can selectively choose which points to read and respond to and expect not to be called out on it. Address all points of opposition, or our argument is flawed.
Originally Posted by Sturmhardt
...and your arguments are not really that strong.
|
...to you.
Originally Posted by Sturmhardt
But cqc is not limited to encounters under 5m. For example if you fight around a tower you will have fights everywhere from 0 to 75m. Bunny hoping only helps on VERY short range if you shoot. Have you actually tried it? It fucks up your aim pretty hard, try hitting something beyond 10m while jumping around. Maybe VS weapons are not affected that much, but NC weapons definitely are.
|
Again, a moot point. cqc is by definition "close quarters combat", within the 0-10m range. Anything outside that range falls under a different rule set in terms of encountered situations and proper responses. If you're arguing that bunny hopping is only marginally effective at best outside of 10m, I agree with you, wholeheartedly. That's not what I'm arguing. And yes, I have tried it.
Originally Posted by Sturmhardt
No it's not. An op weapon or vehicle is not available to you instantly all the time. But you could ALWAYS bunny hop if you wanted to, immediately and in every situation. It might be something you don't like but it can't be OP. There is no situation where you can NOT do it, so it can't be unfair. By that logic strafing or taking cover can be called OP too, which is stupid.
|
You missed the point of the analogy (even though it could be argued that OP vehicles in this game ARE freely available to everyone at all times, but that's another thread entirely). It was not to draw a parallel between OP weapons/vehicles and bunny hopping. If that were the case the analogy would only prove your point, that OP weapons/vehicles, when made readily available to everyone, do not imbalance the interactions between players, because all players would then have access to and use the same tools.
The point of the analogy was to emphasize bunny hopping and its effect on cqc combat as a whole. In the same way that introducing an "OP" weapon stagnates game play and limits player choice (bad game play), so too does the effectiveness of bunny hopping in cqc essentially enforce an established norm in player behavior that detracts from game play variability, player choice, and (least importantly) realism.
Originally Posted by Sturmhardt
I think you have not tried it, because I believe the downsides are so big that bunny hopping isn't worth it. Except maybe with these infrared scopes that doesn't really make sense and should be fixed.
|
I have, as I mentioned before, and on more than one occasion. If you had taken the time to read other peoples' input on a subject when in dialogue about it, you'd have seen it. I do it quite often in cqc, and more often than not the other player simply cannot react in time. It's quite common practice for me, as it is for most of the other BR50+'s I play with/have encountered thus far, so it's safe to assume that all of them share my position that bunny hopping is quite effective in cqc.
Originally Posted by Aurmanite
How is this different from a player suddenly zigging? Or zagging...Or making any sudden movement with the intent of disrupting their enemy's aim? The truth is, when someone jumps their path of travel is fixed, they can't change direction in mid air like they can on their feet.
The solution is to use your mouse accordingly.
|
You are right, they are essentially the same (if you define them by their basest similarities, as you have done here). The difference is only in degrees. I'm going to assume by zig zagging you mean strafing back and forth (because with the other interpretation, sprinting back and forth, the downside is clear - you can't shoot back at all). This method of avoidance, while still effective, can be coped with and overcome given a modicum of practice by most players, as it is essentially limited to a single plane of movement (technically two, but moving back and forth has no effect on avoidance). Bunny hopping introduces a second plane of movement and a trajectory change that is sudden and random (to the defending player), and is very often too difficult for most players to compensate for in cqc, because it introduces many, many more possible vectors of movement.
As a community (and more importantly SOE should be doing this), then, the question becomes not whether bunny hopping is OP (though that line of argument shouldn't be ignored per se), but whether in cqc bunny hopping should be acceptable common behavior for players, and how, if at all, this affects/limits/expands player behavior and choice/responses to that situation.
Also, by your (very) rough definition of evasive behavior, teleporting (blinking) could easily be defined as, "any sudden movement with the intent of disrupting their enemy's aim". If we then added this mechanic into PS2 and make it a freely available ability to all players, would it be considered balanced, since everyone could do it? Would it encourage good game play?
Originally Posted by Aurmanite
What does that have to do with nanites, bro? Natural movement. Makey no sense-y.
|
No one said anything about nanites.
2013-02-25, 10:55 PM
Linear Mode
