Hitscan: A calculation is made and if your "pointer" intersected a target, the bullet registered as a hit. This happens instantaneously, and bullet physics do not apply. Projectiles: each bullet is a projectile and it has to physically strike the target in order to hit it. They have a finite velocity and can have drop. I know the game has hitscan so far, but I'd much rather have projectiles, even with them consuming more server memory. Allow me to explain: Projectiles can reflect bullet velocity and drop. These traits really make a good job fleshing out weapon's feelings and limiting their range to where they are intended. Planetside 2 has made a good job with projectiles, each their weapons are very interesting because of the many traits and feelings the weapons have.If they managed to make a big scaled game with so many players work with projectiles, I think we can... or can we? Drop is more important, because of the scale of the game, distance should not be covered instantly by bullets. This will also make long range gunplay more interesting than "just hitscan their general direction".
Projectile always... I really hope they start making test about how viable 1 server will be, because a lot of us want projectiles instead of hitscan weapons, people want to have nids in the open world, people want NPCs defending friendly bases and I'm sure we will loose more stuff because it's not possible with one server. Don't get me wrong, one server worldwide has his pros but it seems like we are gonna give up a lot of stuff in order to have them...
Performance Harpy! BAWK But yeah this one is actually complicated, because while PS2 technically did it, it's up for debate whether it did it well. On a typical med-high power custom desktop, PS2 regularly ran at <30FPS for most players, and persistently has poor performance in high-intensity areas like amp stations even after the performance patches issued by the dev team. This is due to a lot of reasons, but it's certainly been held back a lot by the client-side calculations for their non-hitscan weaponry. Hitscan will also be less susceptible to lag, and would counter the dreaded "cover kills" where you die from a delayed projectile long after you've exited the line of fire. My vote is hitscan for most infantry weapons, with a randomized cone of fire to constrain accuracy. In a game like EC, simulated projectiles don't have a lot of bang for their buck: 40k doesn't care much about realism, the ranges are generally very close, TTK is relatively high, and sniping is actively discouraged as a playstyle. That's not to say we should exclude all of them - missile launchers and mortars should have distinct projectiles, obviously - but for basic boltguns, shootas and shruiken weapons, ballistic physics would just take performance emphasis away from more important elements like environmental detail, player rendering counts, and render distance. I would also very much contest the idea that PS2 has "interesting weapons". PS2's guns are boring as shit. Their only differences are superficial changes to models and minute statistical differences. 40k, on the other hand, has everything from ultra-close range fusion beams to monofilament clouds to arcing multiflichette laserguided missile launchers. I don't think we'll need complex projectiles to reflect the sheer variety represented by 40k's different factional weapons.
I thought PS2 did it server side... I might be wrong, gonna check it. It looks like I was wrong and is clientside hit detection. Not causing extra server strain I see no reason to have hitscan (well it can be just a design reason but I disagree with it ), I would rather turn down other options and have projectiles... hopefully our favourite techpriest and lead programmer sees this thread tomorrow and explain this like we are 5.
I'm pretty sure all projectile physics are managed clientside. That's why you get those cover kills - someone else's computer was still rendering you out in the open, and thus you get killed even though you've gotten behind an object. EDIT: just did some 2 minute google research and it turns out basically every game ever uses clientside hit detection, mostly because a visual delay between clicking the fire button and actually firing is a way bigger problem than the occasional unjust kill. Battlefield has the same issue, since it also uses client projectile physics. Games like COD and CS do not suffer from this problem due to hitscan.
Hitscan will work better, the server can check for any hacks or changes, and it will keep the server running well. Also, note that the devs have already stated how the system works and that they are keeping it because it works, I dont think people should start threads about things that have been discussed before.
But doesn't hitscan take aiming skill out of the equation? Just point at their general direction and click to instantly deal damage. Artificial cone of fire which you can't compensate at all only to simulate recoil. It sounds bad.
The way EC is doing it will make it seem like there are individual shots, but it will use hitscan, its about the time, distance and ticks of damage, they are doing it to keep the server working fine and to stop any hacking or modding.
I, for one, would much rather have projectiles, as well. Hitscan can work fine in close-quarters-centric games like Warframe and Space Marine, but in an open-world game like Planetside or, y'know, Eternal crusade, it becomes jarring and reduces the skill level of gunplay. Projectile-based gunplay would make longer-ranged gunplay take more skill than close-quarters gunplay, as well as make the game feel more immersive. I really shouldn't have to tell you what I voted for by now.
