3 ms·

> Lars shoots a different style, which is basically "draw and loose" with very little "aiming". The aiming done in that situation is to basically "look at what

> Lars shoots a different style, which is basically "draw and loose" with very little "aiming". The aiming done in that situation is to basically "look at what you want to hit". Reminds me of a friend's bachelor party out in the woods where we were shooting guns. A couple friends brought big revolvers and so I tried shooting them at some targets. Missed every one. I decided if I wasn't gonna hit anything, I should at least have fun, so I took two of them and did a Yosemite Sam impression firing them akimbo at the targets in rapid fire and I heard a PING PING PING PING of 4 shots hit in a row from 2 different guns fired in tandem. Sometimes the best aim is no aiming at all.

pencilguin 4y ago
US military had a training program for this some decades back (Viet Nam era?) called, IIRC, "Quick Kill". Gun was held well below shoulder level, and pointed by whole-trunk motion.
Nextgrid 4y ago
If video game experience is of any relevance, I noticed that taking shots on the move with no time to react yields better results than consciously aiming. There are times where I have time to line up my shot and track the enemy in my sights and yet in some cases I miss all my shots (I actually end up being out of sync with the enemy’s lateral moves, essentially lagging behind). On the other hand, there are times where an enemy surprises me and I move my mouse in a sudden motion, shooting while it’s still moving - I manage to land the vast majority of those shots (sometimes shooting twice in panic, but the first one turns out to be a hit - this is on PC so no aim assist as far as I know). Not that I would like to “prove” this hypothesis in actual combat, but I wonder if taking shots “by feel” is actually better than doing so carefully and consciously.
- saulpw 4y ago
  Sundance: "I'm better when I move" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbhI31AWzns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbhI31AWzns
- dagmx 4y ago
  You’re just describing carefully designed video game mechanics for adaptive hitboxes. The game is effectively giving you a way more massive hit box when you’re not scoping than when you are. In turn you are more likely to hit something but you usually do lower damage and bullets will prefer the torso hit box, so you’re unlikely to get a head shot.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    Is that really true in PC, multiplayer shooting games?
    - dagmx 4y ago
      Yes. Adaptive hit boxes are a staple of FPS games for time immemorial. Since you emphasized PC I assume you’re also thinking of aim assist on consoles. Those are related but different techniques to help gamers. Aim assist moves the reticle closer to a hit box centre in screen space. However it doesn’t increase the hit box size because you’d often have overlapping hit boxes in screen space. Adaptive Hit boxes exist in world space and grow and shrink accordingly to user aim mode.

pencilguin 4y ago

US military had a training program for this some decades back (Viet Nam era?) called, IIRC, "Quick Kill". Gun was held well below shoulder level, and pointed by whole-trunk motion.

Nextgrid 4y ago

If video game experience is of any relevance, I noticed that taking shots on the move with no time to react yields better results than consciously aiming. There are times where I have time to line up my shot and track the enemy in my sights and yet in some cases I miss all my shots (I actually end up being out of sync with the enemy’s lateral moves, essentially lagging behind). On the other hand, there are times where an enemy surprises me and I move my mouse in a sudden motion, shooting while it’s still moving - I manage to land the vast majority of those shots (sometimes shooting twice in panic, but the first one turns out to be a hit - this is on PC so no aim assist as far as I know). Not that I would like to “prove” this hypothesis in actual combat, but I wonder if taking shots “by feel” is actually better than doing so carefully and consciously.

saulpw 4y ago
Sundance: "I'm better when I move" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbhI31AWzns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbhI31AWzns
dagmx 4y ago
You’re just describing carefully designed video game mechanics for adaptive hitboxes. The game is effectively giving you a way more massive hit box when you’re not scoping than when you are. In turn you are more likely to hit something but you usually do lower damage and bullets will prefer the torso hit box, so you’re unlikely to get a head shot.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  Is that really true in PC, multiplayer shooting games?
  - dagmx 4y ago
    Yes. Adaptive hit boxes are a staple of FPS games for time immemorial. Since you emphasized PC I assume you’re also thinking of aim assist on consoles. Those are related but different techniques to help gamers. Aim assist moves the reticle closer to a hit box centre in screen space. However it doesn’t increase the hit box size because you’d often have overlapping hit boxes in screen space. Adaptive Hit boxes exist in world space and grow and shrink accordingly to user aim mode.