4 ms·

> If your game allows your sights to just teleport on people's heads and take that as the winning condition then that just sounds like bad design, there's no re

by komali2 11mo ago

> If your game allows your sights to just teleport on people's heads and take that as the winning condition then that just sounds like bad design, there's no reason to allow infinitely fast movement and omitting strategy even from a shooter This is interesting, because I feel like the fundamental gameplay of an fps is players exposing themselves to each other's field of view, and then trying to click the other's head first. Skill is a measure of map knowledge (so you can try to expose yourself to a possible field of view but not where the enemy is actually looking at that moment) and speed of clicking head. How would you design FPSs to remove this "bad game design?"

DJBunnies 11mo ago
> How would you design FPSs to remove this "bad game design?" I think we just need to accept that bots will always be better at reaction based KPIs & abusing "knowing" too much game state, we should just remove those conditions. 1) Move most of the application logic to the server, the client should be a fairly dumb terminal that knows how to render and accept inputs, and only receives the state that it needs. No more spying issues. 2) Just give everybody auto aim & immediate/auto controlled firing, etc. No more aim bot issues. 3) Improve the quality of gameplay around the types of interactions which bots are bad at. Decision making, strategy, communication, execution, adaptation.
- nerdsniper 11mo ago
  > No more spying issues. This isn't possible. And this explains why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFw4F2AyaP4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFw4F2AyaP4 We can only minimize the amount of extra information given to the client, not eliminate it. And at high enough skill levels, even 1-2ms of extra information will always be actionable, even by humans (not just bots).
- vanviegen 11mo ago
  Sure, feel free to make an entirely different type of game that's not as vulnerable to cheating. But some people just want to play competitive fps shooters. And currently obnoxious anticheat toolkits are the way to provide that, unfortunately.
- Hikikomori 11mo ago
  >just give everyone aimbots, no more aimbots issues
- jpadkins 11mo ago
  what if more people want to play an action shooter game, and not a slow strategy game?

by komali2 11mo ago

DJBunnies 11mo ago

> How would you design FPSs to remove this "bad game design?" I think we just need to accept that bots will always be better at reaction based KPIs & abusing "knowing" too much game state, we should just remove those conditions. 1) Move most of the application logic to the server, the client should be a fairly dumb terminal that knows how to render and accept inputs, and only receives the state that it needs. No more spying issues. 2) Just give everybody auto aim & immediate/auto controlled firing, etc. No more aim bot issues. 3) Improve the quality of gameplay around the types of interactions which bots are bad at. Decision making, strategy, communication, execution, adaptation.

nerdsniper 11mo ago
> No more spying issues. This isn't possible. And this explains why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFw4F2AyaP4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFw4F2AyaP4 We can only minimize the amount of extra information given to the client, not eliminate it. And at high enough skill levels, even 1-2ms of extra information will always be actionable, even by humans (not just bots).
vanviegen 11mo ago
Sure, feel free to make an entirely different type of game that's not as vulnerable to cheating. But some people just want to play competitive fps shooters. And currently obnoxious anticheat toolkits are the way to provide that, unfortunately.
Hikikomori 11mo ago
>just give everyone aimbots, no more aimbots issues
jpadkins 11mo ago
what if more people want to play an action shooter game, and not a slow strategy game?