By their very nature projectiles are harder to get direct hits with than hitscan.
Depending on the speed, distance, and size of the projectile there is an additional layer of difficulty. Hitscan must simple aim at the enemy and shoot. Landing a projectile involves prediction because there’s an amount of time between shooting and your projectile landing during which the enemy might have moved.
You can argue that you don’t think the difficulty gap is big enough to matter, but you can’t deny that that it exists.
Pharah and Junkrat are the classic examples of needing to predict to land your shots. Their explosion radius is supposed to give them some leniency because hitting direct shots is very difficult for them.
and that’s not necessarily always going to work in favor of the shooter. not to mention hitscan benefits more from “favor the shooter” due how little delays there are from shot being fired to “reaching the target”/target getting hit.
but the main point is that projectiles have a significant source of error that gets wider with longer range, hence why projectiles generally don’t have the same falloff damage mechanic as hitscans.
Do you buddy?
Because you just got called out on an overexaggeration and every post you create pivots 3-4 more times with 1 of my sentences. Its not that I cant keep up, at this point is annoying when someone nitpicks 1 sentence and when gets refuted, starts talking about something else Ive never argued against, like for example “prediction is not absolute”. Like what? Never said that, but you act like players dont predict AT ALL.
Dude, the WHOLE point is that we know why projectiles dont have falloff and generally higher damage numbers. We know. Did you read that? Let me reiterate: WE KNOW.
The issue is that when you increase the damage penalty to hitscans to that extent, the ratio of “balance” (on the fall off range) goes off. Like HARD.
Why? Because projectiles on average do numbers that are EXPONENTIALLY bigger than hitscans. When you add the hitbox and the AOE damage, then it becomes stupid.
All you wrote before, refutes nothing, just mischaracterizes what I said because you got called out, so dont wreck your brain, let me reiterate the FACTS:
Hitting targets with hitscans is NOT easy (like you all like to pretend) when the enemy is at 45+ mt away.
It is harder on projectile. But the damage per bullet/orb/whatever, the bigger hitbox and in some cases the AOE added, makes the comparison stupid. Specially on 45+mt distances.
Your reply was overexaggerated and with appeal to ridicule fallacy.
Thats all there is. Since you are not clearly admitting it, this ends here
the fact that you call my points “pivots” and that you’re unable to see how they’re directly relevant counterpoints that cumulatively disproves your arguments is exactly how you aren’t keeping up.
no, my arguments have been completely independent of players predictive capabilities. i.e. the zen shooting at a target 45m away example whereby there’s like 2.75m-ish or so variability for the target strafing around of which the zen has 0 control over. that variability/source of error is inherently there no matter how good the zen’s predictive capabilities are.
most projectiles with splash don’t work like ana’s nade whereby getting touched by splash applies the full effect/damage, in most cases splash is <=50% of the damage of the shot (hmmm ain’t this a familiar concept…kinda like hitscan fall-off ). to treat only landing splash as equivalent to a direct shot is simply disingenuous and stupidity.
bih I already showed you the objective math in the reddit post I wrote showing all the ranges which projectiles mathematically can be reactively dodged and a lot of them are lower than >=45m (not to mention taking into account reactions times + projectile size).
and before you go “but it doesn’t take into account prEDiCtION”: the dead center scenario is legit geometrically the median scenario.
e.g. if they’re heading to your right so you aim further to your right, them changing directions and going the opposite direction (your left) geometrically makes them have a much shorter distance to travel to get out of the projectile’s trajectory compared to the dead center scenario.
I alluded to it before here already somewhere but you cannot gauge lethality simply based on the accuracy stat when you have damage changing depending on distance which that stat doesn’t take into account. It tells not even half the story. In the gif I linked, Hanzo makes a kill in 1.10 seconds, Cree takes 4.2. Cree’s accuracy alone without changing damage to come close to Hanzo’s lethality at that distance would have to increase nearly 3x which is impossible.
I’m not sure why people feel that just because a Hanzo arrow manages to hit a target at VERY long range which let’s be honest at that point is likely heavily influenced by luck unless the target is standing still, deserves its full close range damage. The argument for it is that it needs the damage to compensate for loss of accuracy, so in other words, “Let’s reward you for you lack of ability to aim at long distances”. How does that make sense? Why is an inaccurate aimer obligated to get rewarded for bad aim?
But Cree gets massively punished because it’s apparently SO MUCH EASIER to hit tiny pixels at the same long range. I have news for you, it’s not 5x easier.
Yeah you keep telling yourself that, like you havent been pivoting and strawmaning hard.
Sure bud, sure.
I already debunked this dude, do you have memory issues?
Not counting prediction when talking about projectiles its like me pretending people dont control recoil with soldier. Those are ACTIVE factors to be consider in realistic scenarios but like I already proved before: Your scenarios are not realistic.
You are literally talking ANY realistic factor and calling “dodgeable” ranges when specifically measuring it in a 1v1 scenario, where nothing is going on, and both players have perfect positioning to dodge to any side.
Again:
Just because something is “dodgeable” doesnt mean the average player will dodge it 100% of the times in a REALISTIC scenario.
Your maths do not represent a realistic scenario. You have nothing mate.
Its all debunked. And thats not even counting favor of the shooter.
Thats all there is. Again - telling it like it is
No more replies since you are just rolling over the same unrealistic scenarios, not taking into account key factors on purpose because otherwise your maths fail.
What obviously is being claimed though is that everyone can magically see arrows and icecicles being launched at them the majority of the time and they all have the chance to try and doge.
This is another example of outlandish BS that sounds good on paper that is nowhere close to what happens in game. The vast majority of the time, no one sees the icicles or arrows coming, and the vast majority sure as hell don’t have the reaction time or aren’t already preoccupied performing another action to then try and dodge them. The reason most long range projectiles miss are because they are hard to aim, not because players have matrix reflexes to doge them. And bad aim or aiming far far outside of a range where prediction becomes close to impossible ls no legit excuse to reward shots that do land with as much damage as they would have if they hit a target 5 meters away.
do you have mathematical and/or logical understanding issues?
the variability I’m talking about is always inherently there IRRESPECTIVE of one’s predictive capabilities. unless you have some sort of crystal ball to tell you 100% where they will be t time in the future and somehow have that timeline/pathing locked in, there will be that variability.
heck, in a non 1v1 or in your so called “realistic” scenarios,
does the projectile speed of projectiles suddenly spike up from their theoretical amount? no
does whoever the projectile target always never see most of the projectile trajectory? no.
are targets of projectiles always close enough that the travel time of the projectile is physically impossible for them to move out of their trajectory in time? no.
you’ve debunked nothing.
a projectile taking time to reach the target (whether if you aimed straight at them or you aimed where you think they’re heading) inherently happens. and my calcs above directly quantify how the inconsistency from that travel time scales with range for most projectiles.
how much do you seriously think you need to travel to dodge most projectiles? the largest projectile in the game has a radius of 2m iirc and if you think you need to travel the entire diameter to get out of it’s trajectory, you’re either really bad at geometry or you just like eating projectiles. the “needing enough space to move out of the way” is a low bar just from projectile size and even when taking factors like reaction time + projectile speed into account, the larger projectiles still have a worse effective range as shown by the calcs.
I don’t think anyone has claimed that either. You can predict where someone is going to shoot a projectile like arrows or icicles and dodge preemtively which is easier than doing the same with hitcans.
Regardless, it’s still easier to dodge projectiles than hitscan.
Your argument seems to be against projectile spam being too effective. Shouldn’t the game be balanced around skill? I’m not convinced that balancing around the occasional lucky shot is a good idea though a reduction of spam damage is always welcome.
now zen’s projectiles approx have a radius of 0.15m (source)
now in light of this, even without “matrix reflexes” and talking about just normal random strafing of the target that’s completely blind to the zen’s orbs, how likely do you think that orb will land on a target that’s doing 2.75m-ish worth of strafing before the orb reaches the desired range?
you can even try this thought experiment at 30m whereby there’ll be like 30/90 x 5.5 = 1.83m-ish worth of strafing for the target.
Regardless, it’s not magnitudes easier warranting the damage reduction differences.
You would think so, but if it were there’d either be no falloff on anything or just not punishing “easier” aiming heroes by artificially handicapping their damage output so projectile heroes feel like they can be on equal footing. This is what was attempted and if Blizz really thinks nerfing Cree’s damage output 5x at the same range as a Hanzo arrow is balanced they must be too busy being drunk in the office and doing their cube crawls
Either you’re playing against Bronzies or I’m playing in games with loads of Zen aimbotters because I can’t tell you how many times I get torn up by these hyper accurate Zens that I see on my killcams. How likely? Apparently more than you personally feel should be the case obviously. I think your issue is you don’t play projectile heroes and have no idea how “easy” it is for those who play them with many hours invested to calculate where they need to lead the crosshairs to land shots.
or you’ve got selective bias in what you remember of zen’s shots (i.e. you’re obvs going to take more notice and remember the shots that land/kill than the various ones that miss).
in a 2.75mx2 horizontal line of possibilities of where the target will end up, the zen orb of radius 0.15m takes up 5.45% of that line.
heck even if you assumed the target had like a 3m width with their center being on the edge of the +/-2.75m extremities, we’re talking 0.15 /(2.75-1.5) = 12% of the line.
I’m not saying those are the exact probabilities of a shot landing at that range with zen orbs (because a uniform prior for strafing is assumed there and this is only considering left and right directions of strafing), but they are references points that show how much room and variability there is in the scenario without consideration of “matrix reflexes”.
If you remove falloff then hitcan damage would have to be lowered to account for it being easier to land shots making them less effective at close range than they are now.
I’m not sure why you wouldn’t want heros to be on equal footing.
I play Zen a lot and find hitting shots at range much harder than when playing hitcan.
?? Then what’s the point of having different heroes if you want them all to have the same chance to do everything? I don’t expect to have the same capacity as Junkrat to headshot as well as Widow can at 60 meters. I don’t expect to survive being shot in the face as well as a Roadhog can while using breather… And so on.
). to treat only landing splash as equivalent to a direct shot is simply disingenuous and stupidity.
