A best of both worlds compromise for Aimpunch.

Let me first say that I know this will attract a lot of people who will just complain that want aimpunch entirely removed, which personally I think may be better than the current implementation for some reasons, but is bad for others but because we all know SD does not intend to completely remove aimpunch I feel that conversation is somewhat pointless and I would rather look at a compromise or a 'best of both worlds' between what SD wants the system for and what the community wants/dislikes about it.

Personally I think the main concern about aimpunch as it is in the game at the moment is that it's a feeling of no control players get once they understand the mechanic. I also believe that the system as it is is just as unfriendly to more casual minded players as much as it is 'punishing' to more hardcore players. Mainly meaning that if a mechanic is to a degree RNG dependant, at a technical level aimpunch is not RNG but in combination with recoil and spread it usually feels at such, it punishes players who want to learn the mechanic(the high end) but also punishes newer casual players because the mechanic is essentially 'unlearnable'. The system as of now widens the skillgap as much as it closes it, a newer or more casual player could improve a lot faster if he wasn't held back by an unlearnable factor.

Now the pro's for aimpunch, and I know a lot of people disagree here but realistically they are simply true and SD wanting them has valid reasons, are mainly forms of feedback. Mostly, what is hitting me and from where? And 'uhh' ;). There is also the question of allowing a player to react, but personally I think Dirty Bomb's higher TTK(longer to kill) already does that. The strafing, walljumping etcetera allow you to react and adjust whereas in low TTK games you would already be dead. So this argument as a pro for aimpunch, I think, is a bit unfair.

In my opinion, aimpunch should be something that addresses mainly the things above: Something that still provides these forms of feedback in a form of aimpunch, but without creating a feeling of no control once a player wants to 'invest' or understand the system behind it.

A system that in a way is quite similar to Wolfenstein Enemy Territory, a game that a has a lot of similarities even at core gameplay to DB as DB was originally based on it. But taking a more DB fitting spin on it, as W:ET was very drastic with it's viewkick implementation and I can see that being very disruptive, moreso than current DB, if just copied 1-to-1. Essentially a milder version that translates more information to the screen. Currently in DB your crosshair is where your bullets go(not considering spread for a moment), the change would be that the viewmodel, your camera, would move independent of your bullet trajectory. A visual guide below:

https://imgur.com/AaPGHhB
The red dot indicates crosshair placement, the blue dot indicates bullet trajectory.

This will allow to keep the pros SD wants for aimpunch, there will still be clear visual feedback. However this will allow players to learn to 'ignore' aimpunch because bullet trajectory is what really matters. Knowing 100% regardless of aimpunch where your bullets will be going, essentially giving you the control that removal of aimpunch would create.

The only counterargument that I have had when discussing this version of aimpunch would be that new players, or players not wanting/invested in trying to learn the system would not understand where their bullets are going. Whilst a reasonable argument I feel like this is just as true for the current implementation of aimpunch, simply because of that no-control feeling of where your bullets are going. A newer player has to learn things, regardless of what it is, with that in mind I would 'vote' for a system that is learnable and easy to understand opposed to something that is easy to understand but not learnable/uncontrollable. I might perceive this wrong(I haven't been a new player/FPS player for along time :D), but my assumption would be that it is easier for a new player to be able to learn "my bullets will always go straight but my crosshair will be there" than "my bullets will always go where my crosshair is but I don't know where my crosshair and bullets will go".

An example of that is how the most recent aimpunch changes seem to have only increased the feeling of jerkiness and no control eventhough technically there is less aimpunch.

Also, on the topic of the forms of feedback, currently aimpunch is mostly impacted by RPM, this is why weapons like the hochfire can feel very disruptive to play versus even when it's only doing 2/3 damage per bullet from very long range. I think this should also be changed to be more around feedback of range and weapon type. As in all the assault rifles will give say X% aimpunch, all the LMGs will give Y% of aimpunch, all the SMGs will give Z% of aimpunch etcetera. Merc design is limited by weapontypes and to a degree about what effective ranges they will have access too. I think communicating this in the aimpunch is more important than how fast a weapon shoots. Also since with the reworked idea stacking of aimpunch will be less relevant as bullet trajectory is independent.

I know that this is likely a much more intensive rework than just tweaking values, but I do think it is the best version of aimpunch for a game like Dirty Bomb without sacrificing either 'sides' pros and wantings, for the long term.

Long read maybe, but with how SD's stance on this seems to be and the community feeling unheard/ignored I felt like posting my two cents. This idea has been brougth up by myself more often aswell as by other players but I wanted to put it down for, possible, more players to consider, I will be posting this on the Official DB forums and Reddit to see if opinions vary widely between these places, as some have claimed. Thanks for reading and feel free to discussion and give opinions :). Regards, ADETO.

Comments

  • nokiIInokiII Posts: 574
    edited April 3

    I think one of my main problems with aimpunch (current iteration and your proposal) is , that if you get hit by something the screenshake is so erratic, that it feels like an FPS drop due to the sharp sawtooth shaped curve the crosshair makes (linear crosshair incline/decline).

    For that reason I would propose in addition to your changes a sine wave based curve to smooth out the jerkiness, which would get a similar effect to W:ET, which, as you said, has very disruptive viewkick, but it doesn't feel like your FPS goes into the trashcan when it transitions at the highest or lowest point.

    nerf snippers.
  • @nokiII said:
    I think one of my main problems with aimpunch is , that if you get hit by something the screenshake is so erratic, that it feels like an FPS drop due to the sharp sawtooth shaped curve the crosshair makes (linear crosshair incline/decline) which probably wouldn't be different to your model.
    For that reason I would propose a sine wave based curve to smooth out the "shakiness", which would get a similar effect to W:ET, which, as you said, has very disruptive viewkick, but it doesn't feel like your FPS goes into the trashcan when it transitions at the highest or lowest point.

    Yea this just contributes to the no-control feeling, I used abit of a general term because I didn't want to just seem 'whiney' about the annoyances :P. Making larger more drastic aimpunch would smooth out the feeling but I feel in DB if you make a much larger curve the bullet trajectory problem just gets very big. As you'll have to aim at knees to compensate for headshots/upper body. Personally I just believe separating bullet trajectory is what SD and the community will, eventually, agree on or it will just always be a them vs us problem. The only argument against imo would be a technical limitation related to viewmodels and trajectory but fingers crossed rite?

  • nokiIInokiII Posts: 574
    edited April 3

    @F1032B8728B0 said:
    Making larger more drastic aimpunch would smooth out the feeling but I feel in DB if you make a much larger curve the bullet trajectory problem just gets very big.

    You don't have to have a higher kick to smooth out the feeling, as long as the crosshair doesn't move at a linear speed (which it does atm) all the way up and down, but accelerates in the middle and decelerates at top and bottom, resulting in the same amount of kick height and length, but smoother feeling as there are no abrupt changes in direction.
    I'm kinda bad with words, but I hope I got the point across. :>

    nerf snippers.
  • @nokiII said:
    You don't have to have a higher kick to smooth out the feeling, as long as the crosshair doesn't move at a linear speed (which it does atm) all the way up and down, but accelerates in the middle and decelerates at top and bottom, resulting in the same amount of kick height and length, but smoother feeling as there are no abrupt changes in direction.
    I'm kinda bad with words, but I hope I got the point across. :>

    Yea I get what you're saying, I could definitely help. Don't know if it would address the other concerns but would atleast address the jerkiness.

  • nokiIInokiII Posts: 574

    Oh no it wouldn't. That would be something more of a quality of life change than fundamental design change, but if you're starting to redesign / recode the whole thing anyways, why not do it properly.

    nerf snippers.
  • n-xn-x Posts: 783
    edited April 3

    @F1032B8728B0 said:
    This will allow to keep the pros SD wants for aimpunch, there will still be clear visual feedback. However this will allow players to learn to 'ignore' aimpunch because bullet trajectory is what really matters. Knowing 100% regardless of aimpunch where your bullets will be going, essentially giving you the control that removal of aimpunch would create.

    Afaik, clear visual feedback has never been the reason SD gives for aimpunch. Their reason is, that you get an advantage for positional play and shooting first (additional to the advantage you have by a better position and shooting first) and to throw off the aim of your opponent.

  • @n-x said:
    Afaik, clear visual feedback has never been the reason SD gives for aimpunch. Their reason is, that you get an advantage for positional play and shooting first (additional to the advantage you have by a better position and shooting first) and to throw off the aim of your opponent.

    True, definitely also a factor. Is addressed pretty much the same as the forms of feedback with both systems I think. They carry over pretty much the same visually, you would still have the benefit of giving the other player aimpunch before they give it to you, they will have to adjust first etc.

  • n-xn-x Posts: 783

    I dont want to get into a long fruitless discussion with you, as I like your approach of visual aimpunch instead of real/physical aimpunch, but I dont think what you try to pass as a compromise here is a compromise, as it does not contain the effect SD wants aimpunch to have.

    But it is also hard to say what effect SD wants from aimpunch as their reasoning behind it is not very sound.

  • @n-x said:
    I dont want to get into a long fruitless discussion with you, as I like your approach of visual aimpunch instead of real/physical aimpunch, but I dont think what you try to pass as a compromise here is a compromise, as it does not contain the effect SD wants aimpunch to have.

    But it is also hard to say what effect SD wants from aimpunch as their reasoning behind it is not very sound.

    From what I've seen publically and in direct conversation myself to devs the effect is mainly forms of feedback, a form of positional reward, and a form of skill gap closure. 2 out of 3 boxes checked with the least 'fitting' for DB's gun play dropped as the compromise. The reasoning SD has is fine to be fair, from a 'balancing' perspective for the current playerbase, but that's why I think it needs to change for the long term. Balancing your players skills vs eachother should be a matchmaking area, not a weaponbalance one imo.

  • XenithosXenithos Posts: 1,691Special Editor
    edited April 3

    Why can't we just have it so that when one person continually shoots at you, the first bullets within the first half second or so will give aimpunch, but everything after that FROM THE SAME TARGET stops giving aimpunch for about ~3 seconds or so?

    This fixes CONSTANT rng in the bouncing by meaning if the player couldn't kill you in the first half second you now both have equal chance etc, and they would also have to remove aimpunch from affecting the person that shot at you in the firstplace too for when you manage to start getting hits on him that way the primary shooter still gets his half second of high advantage, and it doesn't lend to feelings of loss of control for longer than a half second to the shooter's target.

    ALSO in this format, it would mean that if you got shot from 3 different places at once, you would of course still get tons of aimpunch, punishing players that aren't moving tactically and still rewarding teams that are together. Win win. THATS a compromise.

    I don't care how much you've played or how good your aim is - If you haven't touched the game at least twice in three months then I see your "opinion" as hot moot.

  • bgyoshibgyoshi Posts: 1,116
    edited April 4

    @Xenithos said:
    Why can't we just have it so that when one person continually shoots at you, the first bullets within the first half second or so will give aimpunch, but everything after that FROM THE SAME TARGET stops giving aimpunch for about ~3 seconds or so?

    Except the part where it completely removes the advantage of shooting first

    @F1032B8728B0 said:
    This will allow to keep the pros SD wants for aimpunch, there will still be clear visual feedback. However this will allow players to learn to 'ignore' aimpunch because bullet trajectory is what really matters. Knowing 100% regardless of aimpunch where your bullets will be going, essentially giving you the control that removal of aimpunch would create.

    Like I said in my other forum post

    Pros don't like aimpunch, they don't want aimpunch, and they want it to be something you can ignore so that learning to ignore it is a skill. When that happens, the team with the best aim will win the game. A well-balanced team of mercs with worse aim than a 5 man team of only medics will lose. If aimpunch didn't affect the location of your bullets, then all you have to do is aim better than your opponent.

    Aimpunch isn't only about feedback. Aimpunch is there so that you have no control when you're being shot. Aimpunch is there so that you are rewarded for getting the jump on your opponent, and aimpunch is there so that you have to keep tracking your opponent.

    It's there so that your first reaction to being shot is to take cover, not to turn around and return fire

    It's there so that you learn to dodge and try to escape your opponents fire and turn the tables on them with some aimpunch of your own

    It's a mechanic specifically designed to @$!# up your bullets

    If you remove the mechanic that @$!# up your bullets then you remove 90% of the strategy from the game

    That's what the pros like. A game with 1 best strategy so they can all focus on having the best aim.

    Pros don't like tactics

    Pros don't like strategy

    Pros don't like planning

    Pros don't like thinking on the fly

    Pros just want to aim at the head and win

    I'm glad you put out your idea but the only reason why this game has any strategy at all is because of aimpunch.

    And in all honesty, the aimpunch isn't that jarring at all, and it's not so bad that aiming is impossible. I never feel completely "out of control" with aimpunch and, if my only option is to shoot back, I don't have a problem hitting my opponent. It makes HEADSHOTS a lot harder, but sometimes all you need to do is lay bullets into their chest while adadad'ing and adding some ducking in so that they lose their tracking and you get the beneficial aimpunch instead.

  • WatchAsILeadWatchAsILead Posts: 64

    @bgyoshi said:

    @Xenithos said:
    Why can't we just have it so that when one person continually shoots at you, the first bullets within the first half second or so will give aimpunch, but everything after that FROM THE SAME TARGET stops giving aimpunch for about ~3 seconds or so?

    Except the part where it completely removes the advantage of shooting first

    @F1032B8728B0 said:
    This will allow to keep the pros SD wants for aimpunch, there will still be clear visual feedback. However this will allow players to learn to 'ignore' aimpunch because bullet trajectory is what really matters. Knowing 100% regardless of aimpunch where your bullets will be going, essentially giving you the control that removal of aimpunch would create.

    Like I said in my other forum post

    Pros don't like aimpunch, they don't want aimpunch, and they want it to be something you can ignore so that learning to ignore it is a skill. When that happens, the team with the best aim will win the game. A well-balanced team of mercs with worse aim than a 5 man team of only medics will lose. If aimpunch didn't affect the location of your bullets, then all you have to do is aim better than your opponent.

    Aimpunch isn't only about feedback. Aimpunch is there so that you have no control when you're being shot. Aimpunch is there so that you are rewarded for getting the jump on your opponent, and aimpunch is there so that you have to keep tracking your opponent.

    It's there so that your first reaction to being shot is to take cover, not to turn around and return fire

    It's there so that you learn to dodge and try to escape your opponents fire and turn the tables on them with some aimpunch of your own

    It's a mechanic specifically designed to @$!# up your bullets

    If you remove the mechanic that @$!# up your bullets then you remove 90% of the strategy from the game

    That's what the pros like. A game with 1 best strategy so they can all focus on having the best aim.

    Pros don't like tactics

    Pros don't like strategy

    Pros don't like planning

    Pros don't like thinking on the fly

    Pros just want to aim at the head and win

    I'm glad you put out your idea but the only reason why this game has any strategy at all is because of aimpunch.

    And in all honesty, the aimpunch isn't that jarring at all, and it's not so bad that aiming is impossible. I never feel completely "out of control" with aimpunch and, if my only option is to shoot back, I don't have a problem hitting my opponent. It makes HEADSHOTS a lot harder, but sometimes all you need to do is lay bullets into their chest while adadad'ing and adding some ducking in so that they lose their tracking and you get the beneficial aimpunch instead.

    This is how I've always felt about aim punch, Veterans just want all weapons in this game to have no recoil and shoot like lasers so they can melt through people faster. Even at its current state Dirty Bombs aim punch and recoil is the lowest in almost any game I've played and it surprises me that Vets want even less.

    I personally like it, I'm not anywhere near as good as the best players in this game and Aimpunch gives me a chance to play smarter and have some sort of fighting chance against a level 200 sweaty virgin Fragger, vets complain about the game not being competitive and then proceed to ask to remove mechanics that make the game competitive.

  • SzakalotSzakalot Posts: 3,229
    edited April 4

    meh, imo the skill-gap closers are all the things OTHER than shooting: explosives, one hit fire supports, flashbangs, fires, super high HP or super high HP regeneration.

    Why not keep the gunplay clean. I think the arguments that 'good players want aim to be the win-all' are very simplistic, considering all the other skills in the game, other than aim (map knowledge, abilities, movement, gamesense, teamplay)

    edit: plus the idea that aimpunch is there so that you seek cover first before returning fire... i don't really know what to say, it sounds like people are playing a completely different game

    First!

    48px-First_Blood.png?version=ee44701eadae9f5eb7db0d17c0edc6c9
  • bgyoshibgyoshi Posts: 1,116
    edited April 5

    @Szakalot said:
    meh, imo the skill-gap closers are all the things OTHER than shooting: explosives, one hit fire supports, flashbangs, fires, super high HP or super high HP regeneration.

    Why not keep the gunplay clean. I think the arguments that 'good players want aim to be the win-all' are very simplistic, considering all the other skills in the game, other than aim (map knowledge, abilities, movement, gamesense, teamplay)

    edit: plus the idea that aimpunch is there so that you seek cover first before returning fire... i don't really know what to say, it sounds like people are playing a completely different game

    It's there so that seeking cover first is more feasible and enticing than returning fire right away. When your aim is at the top level, the aimpunch you receive will throw you off enough that returning fire isn't really an option anymore. Playing casuals and casual ranked like what's happening now, there are few who have that kind of aim, and it's almost always possible to have some return fire. Like I said.. dodging and jumping around to try and turn the table.

    Teamplay is irrelevant in 5v5. There's too few people to warrant any team strategy aside from just running in a 5-man ball. Flanking is risky, splitting up is losing, and sneaking around isn't really a thing. You stick together, shoot at the enemy, it's pretty boring.

    Map knowledge is something everyone knows in competition. It really doesn't affect the game much at all.

    The abilities are great as they are now, but if aimpunch didn't exist, then they would be largely useless unless they were one hit kills.

    Same thing with high HP and high HP regeneration; neither of those things stand up to headshots from a high RoF weapon, which are just infinitely easier to maintain without aimpunch.

    Aimpunch really is the core of the mould holding the tactics and abilities together in this game.

  • @bgyoshi said:
    Pros don't like tactics

    Pros don't like strategy

    Pros don't like planning

    Pros don't like thinking on the fly

    Pros just want to aim at the head and win

    This is entirely untrue, Pros want a field where all of these factors are decided mainly be team and player skill rather than elements of 'non-control'(at a technical level you can say 'well just aim for body shots to compensate for the effects of aimpunch that is control', but then we are having a discussion about are we still promoting the importance of headshots properly). As someone who has played at the highest level in competitive activity peaks, I know that things like explosives/stategy/timing/positioning can all be, and imo SHOULD be, as impactful as aiming and the majority of high level players agree. Personally I feel that the "remove aimpunch or game ded" is just as stupid if not more stupid than the current implementation of aimpunch btw.

    I entirely disagree with a lot of sentiment in the "Pros" community that everything should be decided by aim. This idea has become a trend purely because of the long term Sniper/Burst rifle meta that existed but before that as far back as early Alpha, DB has always known a balance between how much aim can do compared to other factors(mainly explosives/strategy/timing/coordination as a team etc). This was the same in Enemy Territory, which ofcourse a majority of DB is based on at a core level. But I do think that, and I know I'm not alone here and this isn't a feeling that only exists in the competitive scene but in the casual scene aswell, DB has become a bit too favoring towards Abilities lately and I think a fair part of the Aimpunch discussion is an attempt to 'reel it back' to emphasize gunplay. There is plenty to be said about other changes that can be done to return slightly to the less ability 'heavy' gameplay DB set out with, personally I think other factors than aimpunch are larger issues here, but that doesn't 'invalidate' that Aimpunch can be a better system than it is atm.

    Also have to say that Aimpunch really isn't what holds tactics and abilities together, or if it does it is at a very minor level for things like hitting a Kira trying to target her laser etc. Strategy/tactics/ability usage comes from timing/synergy/coordination. I know that these are less emphasized/practiced levels of gameplay in public and even Ranked, but if the 'catchphrase' is team focused shooter, then these should always be prioritized teamwide imo.

    My proposal above doesn't really diminish any of the values you describe you want as well, all the benefits you describe of aimpunch will still exist and you will still be able to use them to your advantage same as any other player, it just adds a layer that both you and the player you are shooting at benefit from.

  • pumpkinmeerkatpumpkinmeerkat Posts: 790

    thanks for post. would be lovely of SD to join the discussion :smile: was never a huge fan of the way aimpunch was implemented in DB but the most recent changes are a step in the wrong direction IMO.

    @Exedore
    @massE
    @stayfreshshoe

    IMO

  • henki000henki000 Posts: 425

    I think aimpunch should be more effective. Skill gap in Dirty Bomb is already at very high level. "Pro" players can wipe entire team of new players alone. Thus making game too difficult and unfair experience for masses. It's unrealistic appearance. I think aimpunch with it's rng effect give new players better chance to fight back or atleast get that one important revenge kill. If they strike "pro" player from behind and get positional advantage. If there is no aimpunch, it would make high damage/slow rof weapons more effective. Along with sniper rifle, how about Javelins rocket? Would people like that rockets does not suffer any aimpunch? I'm surprised how much people want those weapons nerfed, but same time, same people, would buff those with aimpunch removal. Without aimpunch there is too much vision and focus for health balance. Players will be avoiding enemies they know they cant beat. And pro players will find new players camping more in spawn.

  • -OCB-Wildcard-OCB-Wildcard Posts: 273
    edited April 8

    @bgyoshi said:
    Teamplay is irrelevant in 5v5. There's too few people to warrant any team strategy aside from just running in a 5-man ball. Flanking is risky, splitting up is losing, and sneaking around isn't really a thing. You stick together, shoot at the enemy, it's pretty boring.

    That statement is not only slightly misleading but entirely untrue as that completely ignores everything that happens in the gameplay aside from the team fights that will occur at times within that setting. If you ignore every other part of the map, outside of when all 5 members are in the same exact spot as the other 5 players, then yes its fight in a 5man group or fail; but there is more that goes on during a game than that as such fights mostly occur during the defense of an objective point outside of specific scenarios (making it situational and thus no longer feasible as an example of the current norms).

    Underground is an example of this as you can have a Nader take down one gen while the other has C4 planted on it; this is then followed by the Engineer moving to the roof to meet up with the rest of the team to drop down as the right-lane door is opened by Nader, with minor variation on placement depending on team composition. An Aura/Rhino combo alters this so that they will position themselves either on the roof or the right-lane door ,to help create a crossfire with anyone holding roof via the opened door, to help cover the C4; this creates a good deal of pressure as many areas are seemingly being assaulted at once, and covering all of them in such a short span of time in a 5v5 format is extremely difficult assuming a balanced match. You are still fighting together but you are not in a 5-man Ball as you put it; a 5-man ball is basically asking to get wiped by a few well placed explosives and is not at all feasible in the current or even prior meta-game as what you described implies a very closed formation.

    Now perhaps this is merely something lost in translation due to poor word choice or ambiguously constructed commentary, as that is entirely possible, but the way you phrased this gives off more of a description of a Zerg Rush as opposed to what usually happens within DBN Competitive play; not that it doesn't occur but it is not typically the go-to strategy as a single Fragger and/or Stoker can heavily impede such an attempt, if not cause heavy casualties to those attempting it.

  • teflonloveteflonlove Posts: 607

    @henki000 said:
    I think aimpunch with it's rng effect give new players better chance to fight back or atleast get that one important revenge kill.

    As someone with an aim as bad as the average new player's, I can state that no iteration of aim punch ever made any difference to me.

    Forget the cobalt Kawaii stick, better listen to some Kawaii rock.

  • henki000henki000 Posts: 425

    @teflonlove

    Yes, aimpunch is quite insignificant in it's current state. Chances from old aimpunch to new aimpunch is almost nonexistent. That update just cultivated this subject to light. Real effects should be presented to community in form of statistics. Did it have any impact? And how much when compared to other updates (pointing at burst rifles). I have this hunch, we are talking about microscopic chances to actual gameplay. Knowledge is power, but ignorance is bliss.

  • bgyoshibgyoshi Posts: 1,116

    @-OCB-Wildcard said:
    Now perhaps this is merely something lost in translation due to poor word choice or ambiguously constructed commentary, as that is entirely possible, but the way you phrased this gives off more of a description of a Zerg Rush as opposed to what usually happens within DBN Competitive play; not that it doesn't occur but it is not typically the go-to strategy as a single Fragger and/or Stoker can heavily impede such an attempt, if not cause heavy casualties to those attempting it.

    No, a 5-man ball means everyone is in the same area attacking the same targets at the same time. Whether you set up a crossfire, shoot from the same angle, hide behind the assault, whatever it is, everyone has sight of and access to the same firefight at the same time. You will almost never have a situation where 3 players are luring enemies away while 2 players are sneaking side objectives, or 2 players are poking a flank to distract the assault while the other 3 are coming back from respawn, or a sneaky proxy/phantom/fast class is crawling around enemy spawn to flank the medic for a suicide takedown.

    Those things don't happen

    You all have to stick together and fire on the same area. Whether that's sitting on the roof shooting down while the rest of the team comes in from the side, or poising two players in back while three players crossfire from the front, doesn't matter. 5 players will be close enough together to assault the other team at the same time. You can't afford to firefight with 3 players so two players can get behind the enemy to kill the sniper. You'll just lose if you defend the objective with 2 players so that 3 players can pin the enemy in a flank after you die.

    You coordinate a position and assault together

    That's 5v5, it'll always be 5v5, and it's not very creative, intense, or fun. It's sterile and dull, and it's just the kind of low-effort strategy that pros want

  • SzakalotSzakalot Posts: 3,229
    edited April 10

    i dont want to be offensive or sth, but what game have you been playing. maps are SUPER SMALL, for anything other than what you desribe. There is only ever a single objective, and respawns are far too quick to do anything but pushing the main objective.

    6v6 wont change that. 8v8 wouldnt change that either. You’d need at least 10v10, and maps the size of double the old dome

    First!

    48px-First_Blood.png?version=ee44701eadae9f5eb7db0d17c0edc6c9
  • bgyoshibgyoshi Posts: 1,116

    @Szakalot said:
    6v6 wont change that. 8v8 wouldnt change that either. You’d need at least 10v10, and maps the size of double the old dome

    In 6v6 Underground you can push with 4 or 5 people while 1 or 2 sneak down the elevator to repair or stealth plant. If they're covering the elevator you can push with all 6 to overwhelm the top side. Vice versa, you can defend the topside with 5 and leave one down below to cover the elevator. You can't do that in 5v5, since defending or attacking the top with 4v5 or 3v5 is impossible

    In 6v6 Bridge you have all different kinds of split ups you can do to attack the final obj since there's 3 access routes into the sample room and they all have their own combat zones. In 5v5 you have to push one route at a time.

    In 6v6 Terminal the final obj area has three routes with two different combat zones that you can also split your attack between. In 5v5 you have to push one of them at a time.

    I could keep going on but yeah. Most of the maps have a final objective that has multiple routes and multiple combat zones. In 5v5 you can't split your team up between them, you just lose on the spot. In 6v6 you can

  • SzakalotSzakalot Posts: 3,229

    hmm, not convinced.

    In your underground example, no serious defense would mount at the stairs. With the elevator sound its also hard to imagine anyone 'sneaking by'.

    Dunno about bridge either, in 5v5 its uncommon to push a single joke due to all the spam coming your way.

    I don't really recall how serious 5v5 terminal last stage was played, or what the meta is now. Back in the day, typical split was combo one way, and aura/eng/DPS push some other lane.

    I'm not sure so much would change. Not that its disgusting or terrible or whatever, 6v6 works pretty well in DB too.

    First!

    48px-First_Blood.png?version=ee44701eadae9f5eb7db0d17c0edc6c9
  • bgyoshibgyoshi Posts: 1,116

    @Szakalot said:
    hmm, not convinced.

    In your underground example, no serious defense would mount at the stairs. With the elevator sound its also hard to imagine anyone 'sneaking by'.

    Dunno about bridge either, in 5v5 its uncommon to push a single joke due to all the spam coming your way.

    I don't really recall how serious 5v5 terminal last stage was played, or what the meta is now. Back in the day, typical split was combo one way, and aura/eng/DPS push some other lane.

    I'm not sure so much would change. Not that its disgusting or terrible or whatever, 6v6 works pretty well in DB too.

    We've also never seen comp 6v6 because it doesn't exist, but alas

    In all the comp and pub 5v5 I've ever seen or played, splitting up doesn't happen. Yet in all of the 6v6 I've seen and played, splitting up is regular and common. Especially in maps like Bridge first obj, where you can hold the bridge and push both lower sides all at once. Unlike 5v5 where you usually only have one person harassing the other side of the 4 that are pushing. With 2 people harassing, the harassment can turn into a legitimate push especially if a player dies right before spawn timers and rejoins on the harassing side instead.

    In any case, all of my viewed and played 6v6 games have a much more organic and strategic feel than all 5v5. 5v5 is slow and painful since everyone is dying at the same time and the low ttk + ball grouping makes firefights end in just a few seconds.

  • watsyurdealwatsyurdeal Posts: 4,805

    Just reading some of the stuff here, I can honestly say two things.

    1. 6v6 could in theory work well for Dirty Bomb because it works well in general for class based games, where you can have a small groups 3 go different areas and regroup elsewhere. But in truth the maps have to be well balanced for that, and I'm not sure Splash has a definite decision on that. On one end, I feel like they make pub maps, and on the other I feel like they make comp maps, or compromise. But for a map to be truly competitive, anything that becomes a stale mate point needs to be looked at. A good team should be able to hold a point, but often times pub players just do not do that.

    2. A game without aimpunch is boring? I chuckled hard at that, but no, a game with Snipers, and no aimpunch, is frustrating, that's why the mechanic exists at all. But the way they added it to affect hipfire is just not fun, at all. We'd better off with visual only aimpunch, and having to compensate our shots for recoil and spread. We could really take a LOT of tips from Overwatch in that regard, and how we handle Assault Rifles and LMGs. SMGs really should just be face melters, but only in certain ranges. But that's really more of a weapon discussion than a general game one.

    I said it once and will say it again, the ONLY first shot advantage you should get, is being able to deal damage to a target while they are still reacting to you. That's about 0.2 seconds, and in Dirty Bomb's case with good aim and prefire, you will be able to get away with a lot of crazy kills. Which is ironic considering this game came across to me as more of an Arena Shooter, not this Counter Strike ish bull crap.

    So hey, I have a small guide here you may like, go ahead, read it, you know you want to.


    ダーティーボムは非常に良いですが、あなたは非常に悪いです
  • -OCB-Wildcard-OCB-Wildcard Posts: 273

    @watsyurdeal said:
    Just reading some of the stuff here, I can honestly say two things.

    1. 6v6 could in theory work well for Dirty Bomb because it works well in general for class based games, where you can have a small groups 3 go different areas and regroup elsewhere. But in truth the maps have to be well balanced for that, and I'm not sure Splash has a definite decision on that. On one end, I feel like they make pub maps, and on the other I feel like they make comp maps, or compromise. But for a map to be truly competitive, anything that becomes a stale mate point needs to be looked at. A good team should be able to hold a point, but often times pub players just do not do that.

    2. A game without aimpunch is boring? I chuckled hard at that, but no, a game with Snipers, and no aimpunch, is frustrating, that's why the mechanic exists at all. But the way they added it to affect hipfire is just not fun, at all. We'd better off with visual only aimpunch, and having to compensate our shots for recoil and spread. We could really take a LOT of tips from Overwatch in that regard, and how we handle Assault Rifles and LMGs. SMGs really should just be face melters, but only in certain ranges. But that's really more of a weapon discussion than a general game one.

    I said it once and will say it again, the ONLY first shot advantage you should get, is being able to deal damage to a target while they are still reacting to you. That's about 0.2 seconds, and in Dirty Bomb's case with good aim and prefire, you will be able to get away with a lot of crazy kills. Which is ironic considering this game came across to me as more of an Arena Shooter, not this Counter Strike ish bull crap.

    I agree that any section of map that becomes a stalemate needs to be looked at and reworked, I've said this for years; in particular 1st phase Bridge, Underground, and Terminal come to mind with maps that can easily become obnoxiously drawn out in their 1st phase. I do understand that 6v6 could work, but at the same time the game has never been balanced around the format. Ultimately it means that changing it now, with the current circumstances present, would just invite more problems into a setting already riddled with unfixed bugs and neglected issues. Aimpunch is a touchy subject, and one I typically avoid discussing, where often-times people are dead-set in their stance on the matter. Typically, I find attempting to convince them of anything outside their opinion on the matter to be akin to talking to a brick wall.

    If anything I don't mind it so much as I object to the degree of sway it has on bullet trajectory; with some guns aimpunch is so severe that landing that first shot and continuing to land consecutive shots, especially headshots, means fighting back while under that fire is futile as every shot will likely miss its target entirely. This is especially true when you consider that in the formats the game is balanced around on PTS servers, with merc limits active, people will focus their fire on targets of key value; when multiple people are shooting you in such a manner the aimpunch is obnoxious to deal with even with cover, as revealing any part of your body to them will reward you with insane amounts of aimpunch. There is a reason why the Focus Augment is considered as strong and useful as it is these days; aimpunch doesn't stack for one gun shooting alone but SD ironically neglects to say whether that applies to being shot by multiple people.

    Sure you could argue you should be behind cover and retreating in that situation, but you can't play that passively in Dirty Bomb; playing as such will lose you the match almost every time. Besides even with minimal exposure of your body for them to shoot at it's still chipping away at your health, all the while hindering your ability to do anything to retaliate in response. It's basically creating a isolated mini-stalemate between the one being shot at and those focusing them down, the same issue that plagues more than a few maps in this game during one phase or another.

Sign In or Register to comment.