"Confirmation" crosshair/circle

[exLupo]

Originally Posted by Vancha

T?

Default bind for 3pv.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by exLupo

And 4) You gain the ability to see around corners. T is being removed for a reason.

Perhaps not free intel. Replace it with "excessive and easily obtained intel". As far as your bullet points, only the first means much. You only waste ammo if you don't hit someone so using grenades as radar pings is something that experience tempers. However, running the risk of friendly fire implies that the user can't read their mini-map and, at that point, using aoe weapons at all is enough of a danger.

However, you've essentially argued in favor of removing the hit flash. You are of the opinion that using it for intel is inefficient and dangerous. Even without the intel argument, if your points actually are of merit then having the flash accomplishes little so removing it would have little benefit. If the intel argument holds water then removing the flash has great benefit. Removing it is a win/win regardless of which argument is best. Or both!

Getting a hit marker =\= 3rd person wall humping

I'm sorry, you just can't equivicate the 2.

Also, while you were observant that I was conceding the risks of using it for intel, you misunderstood my point. Essentially, the choice to throw a grenade around a corner is a risk/reward calculation. Throwing a grenade contains certain risks and rewards, while NOT throwing a grenade and poking around the corner first ALSO carry certain risks and rewards.

Frankly, whether you get a hit marker or not, people will still make that risk / reward calculation of whether or not to throw a grenade (or maybe a jammer or flashbang) around a blind corner. My preference is for hit markers on all weapons without cherry picking.

[TerminatorUK]

The hit marker was done very well in PS1 & is fairly integral in a modern fps. I think it's important in order to counter any network lag and to confirm what you thought was really was or not in the game.

[Quovatis]

I never liked it and don't really want it. That's provided there is enough feedback on the target to give you the same information (i.e. blood splatter for infantry or sparks/smoke for a vehicle). PS1 didn't have enough cues and the crosshair indicator was needed.

[Sovereign]

Well I cant think of a modeled fps out there that doesn't have a confirmation system to some extent via crosshairs etc...

Especially not in the case of your instance with splatter which the last game didn't have and lets say that if its the case that its predecessor wont have any gore either then how do you go about making a coherent fps experience?

[Kechiro]

Voted yes. Mainly because it worked fine in PS1 and I don't like how gaming companies continuously fix things that aren't broken to begin with. SOE is really REALLY good at that. Leave everything that made PS1 epic at the start in PS2, polish it up, and then add the new concepts.

Hit markers were great in PS1. They weren't game changing, everyone could use them as creatively as possible (throwing nades a round a corner to see if people were there is an annoying but ok tactic to use) and it never condemned you to certain doom just because someone got a hit marker on you.

I can understand and respect the arguments to remove them, but since they were a double edged sword to everyone (meaning you benefited from them just as much as the enemy) it doesn't really need to be changed.

Isn't broken, don't fix it.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Quovatis

I never liked it and don't really want it. That's provided there is enough feedback on the target to give you the same information (i.e. blood splatter for infantry or sparks/smoke for a vehicle). PS1 didn't have enough cues and the crosshair indicator was needed.

I've read this 10 times and it still looks like the 1st sentence is a 100% contradiction of the last sentence. Admittedly my reading comprehension skills are perfect, so I need someone to explain this to me.

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by Raymac

I've read this 10 times and it still looks like the 1st sentence is a 100% contradiction of the last sentence. Admittedly my reading comprehension skills are perfect, so I need someone to explain this to me.

He's saying that the reason the orange circle was needed was because we couldn't otherwise tell that we'd hit our targets, but if there was some confirmation of a hit in the form of blood spatter/vehicle sparks, then a confirmation circle wouldn't be needed.

Personally, I imagine it'd look a little silly seeing blood spatter for every bullet shot.