The idea of the horizontal only turn was that the center of the screen wouldn't be over the clot's head. Don't even have it fully turn them horizontally on the clot, whatever.
Upvote
0
The Clot Grabbing Auto-Aim Megathread II: The Grabbening
- Thread starter Veerdin
- Start date
The idea of the horizontal only turn was that the center of the screen wouldn't be over the clot's head. Don't even have it fully turn them horizontally on the clot, whatever.
It would be enough, if a clot would just keep me in place without automatic camera turning. Actually, it would make that grab even more dangerous since now, when I'm aiming down my sight and letting bullets fly and a clot auto-turns me, I end up shooting that poor clot in the head before I even fully understand what just happened.
If you were just held in place, then you would have to actively turn to see where that pesky little thing is before you could kill it. IMO, this current mechanic is more of a crutch than a hindrance.
If you were just held in place, then you would have to actively turn to see where that pesky little thing is before you could kill it. IMO, this current mechanic is more of a crutch than a hindrance.
Upvote
0
well actually the argument as stands is this:
we shouldn't be able to toggle off the camera movement because people will start feeling entitled to be able to turn off bloat bile and siren effects. Which is just ridiculous.
Your current argument is just a reiteration of the player handicap. I know that isn't what you have addressed directly, but that is what it eventually falls into; making a significant change upon gameplay, which it simply does not, it's not like you're turning off the actual mechanic. once you become proficient at killing floor, the auto aim has quite an insignificant effect on gameplay outside of preference. It's not like a player is going to underperform if they have the option on as compared to off. Now you're probably wondering, oh if its so insignificant, why do you care so much to have it turned off?(which i have covered) So let me ask you, why are you so adamantly against having it be an option?
You all seem so convinced that making this optional is going to affect your gameplay. What i am trying to get you guys to see is that outside of your screen, you are not going to notice much of anything, and if you are gonna be toxic and blame a players poor performance on their game setting(or make a bad excuse as to why you're not performing well), then you are simply unreasonable.
Please give me an actual reason as to why it would have a NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE GAME, not it would be weird to do this or that, that isn't a valid argument.
Upvote
0
i just meant how the auto-aim works as it is in that scenario. Your suggestion would offset that somewhat, though turning still negates any delay in the player reacting, thus still making it a quicker kill, albeit you actually have to aim.
Upvote
0
I'm not making an argument, I'm not adamently against or in favor of anything. What I'm saying is that I think the argument (more of a concern really) is that, from a developer's standpoint, it's preferable not to have strange inconsistencies in user interface (and that's all my last post was saying, it's inconsistent.)
But I cannot stress this enough, I'm not making an argument, I'm attracting attention to a concern that I think has been overlooked due to the similarities of the several arguments involved.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Players getting to pick and choose which mechanic is easier for them is what causes a negative impact. And, again, we're not talking keybinds or whether they have an easier time with single shot or full auto. Those mechanics belong under player control.
If a player tries out both options and figures out that one is easier for him and one is more difficult, he then chooses the easier of the two mechanics. That reduces difficulty for that player. Once again, I reiterate that it doesn't make gameplay more comfortable or makes the player stronger; it legitimately reduces difficulty based on experimentation with the two mechanics. This is worse than the crosshair debate, because you're then literally choosing the path of least resistance & sticking with it.
The negative impact is that it creates a distinct advantage for everyone. It affects gameplay, not gameplay comfort or strict visuals. It. Affects. Gameplay.
Everyone should be playing by the same rules. Period. Everyone is affected by Bloat bile the same way, by Siren screams the same way, buy Husk fire the same way, by Scrake & FP rage the same way. They should be affected by Clot grabs the same way.
Find a mechanic that works for everyone and stick with it. Don't make it an option you can fool around with to make the game easier for yourself. I'm not sure how you're not getting this.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
i didnt mean you specifically, i was trying to address those who are arguing to keep this in the game, and giving no option of turning it off. I was simply elaborating on your post a bit. I can understand developers not wanting inconsistencies, but when you have a cross platform title you are going to experience that anyways, so what does it hurt to keep it an option for the PC version, hell even the PS4 version if players are feeling masochistic.
Upvote
0
but any change made to the gameplay is INSIGNIFICANT. The difficulty factors that people have been bringing up are all moot when you play the game in a cohesive and teamwork oriented manner. the argument you have laid out i would actually say is untrue, clearly it doesn't create an advantage for everyone as peoples opinion on the matter is different. If the consensus on the issue was fairly unanimous, i would agree and probably take a stance on one side or another, but its clear that there are quite a bit of varied opinions, hence why i am not simply saying remove this from the game, but rather keep it for those who really enjoy it.
from what i have gathered talking to many longtime KF players, is that those who have a lot of experience in the game (>800 hours) find the auto-aim to be a dumbed down and ez cheesy addition. However, i also see a lot of people here saying that it makes the game significantly harder, so clearly it isn't as black and white as some of you make it out to be.
I'd actually say it fits exactly into the crosshair argument, its practically synonymous actually. That is how insignificant the impact auto-aim has on the game difficulty wise. When have you heard people cursing the auto-aim because they wiped? because i have yet to experience that. I'd actually say the auto aim would be something good to turn on for a novice player or someone with a slower reaction speed, until he/she learns to consistently watch his flank.
Upvote
0
Again, you're contradicting yourself. If the gameplay difference is insignificant, then you wouldn't be this adamant about not keeping it. Either it has a significant impact or it doesn't. Make up your mind.
I'm adamant in my belief that it shouldn't be a gameplay option because I think it's inconsistent, it's not an area of the game that should be optionalized, and both mechanics (turn or no turn) are too far apart on the spectrum to be reconciled. We're talking a fundamental gameplay mechanic that is altered by the individual. Whether you can tell that another player has it on or off is a trivial point, as well. I can't tell if a Support player has Ammo or Supplier unless I'm right next to 'em, but that still makes a significant gameplay change for me.
You should also bear in mind that I'm not arguing to keep it, and I'm not arguing to do it your way and allow for free camera movement when a Clot's got a hold of you. I'm arguing for a middle ground. Have the different Clot varieties affect you differently when grabbed (one turns, one doesn't, one does something different) or come with a whole new mechanic. 'Cause the middle ground of turning it into a gameplay option just makes it that much more of an issue. People are already complaining about how this, that, and the other thing makes the game too easy. Having the power to affect even a single enemy behavior would certainly fall under that category.
I'm adamant in my belief that it shouldn't be a gameplay option because I think it's inconsistent, it's not an area of the game that should be optionalized, and both mechanics (turn or no turn) are too far apart on the spectrum to be reconciled. We're talking a fundamental gameplay mechanic that is altered by the individual. Whether you can tell that another player has it on or off is a trivial point, as well. I can't tell if a Support player has Ammo or Supplier unless I'm right next to 'em, but that still makes a significant gameplay change for me.
You should also bear in mind that I'm not arguing to keep it, and I'm not arguing to do it your way and allow for free camera movement when a Clot's got a hold of you. I'm arguing for a middle ground. Have the different Clot varieties affect you differently when grabbed (one turns, one doesn't, one does something different) or come with a whole new mechanic. 'Cause the middle ground of turning it into a gameplay option just makes it that much more of an issue. People are already complaining about how this, that, and the other thing makes the game too easy. Having the power to affect even a single enemy behavior would certainly fall under that category.
Upvote
0
I'm not a fan of the mechanic.
As a rule-of-thumb, things that take control of the camera away from the player are not very good. As a player I prefer to win (or lose) based on my decisions, not the ones made for me. For example, if I die while I was trying to parry the scrake, that's fine because I made the CHOICE to do so. However, if I die because while trying to parry the scrake because a clot decides he wants a face to face conversation, that's frustrating as my choice of what to engage was taken away.
Also, for the reasoning that it makes clots more dangerous, there are other and better ways to do that. A few off the top of my head would include:
tl;dr: Get rid of the clot grab auto-aim and implement a better method to make them more dangerous.
As a rule-of-thumb, things that take control of the camera away from the player are not very good. As a player I prefer to win (or lose) based on my decisions, not the ones made for me. For example, if I die while I was trying to parry the scrake, that's fine because I made the CHOICE to do so. However, if I die because while trying to parry the scrake because a clot decides he wants a face to face conversation, that's frustrating as my choice of what to engage was taken away.
Also, for the reasoning that it makes clots more dangerous, there are other and better ways to do that. A few off the top of my head would include:
- The damage a clot deals ramp up quickly while grabbing
- The clot has a chance to do a 'critical' (aka high damage) hit while grabbing
- The clot slowing down the players firing speed, reload speed, or both while grabbing
tl;dr: Get rid of the clot grab auto-aim and implement a better method to make them more dangerous.
Upvote
0
it doesn't have a significant impact on gameplay. that however is not the reason i do not want this feature forced upon us. The reasons i have mentioned previously is because it does not fit into the theme of KF, i feel it dumbs down the game by forcing one's aim and field of view to a specific target, and because its just downright annoying. Does it impact how i play? no not really, but i would much rather have the option to turn it off.
well actually no, this would be the easiest way for TWI to reconcile the two as they have very little to change as far as creating something new to appease both parties. The fact that you cannot tell whether it is on or not perfectly displays the insignificant effect it has on gameplay. im unsure what you are getting at with your support example, the player actually has the option to choose between more ammo for themselves or their teammates, and it is something that would have a noticeable effect on gameplay, seems like a strange analogy to make.
my mentality is that is appeases both parties without the need for tripwire to further develop something new. It is a good thing that people are complaining about certain aspects that need changing, this is an EARLY ACCESS game, we need to be on the lookout for things that either don't mesh well or are outright unbalanced or game breaking. If TWI didn't want our input, they would have waited for a full release. And even then, TWI is one of those developers that actually cares about continuing game support long after release, and they actually take their communities input into consideration.
Upvote
0
I want a group of clots to be able to start dragging low health players off into the subways of the paris map while he's kicking and screaming while trying to get a headshot on them and when they get far enough away from team mates they start tearing him apart, thanks.
"Where's Fost-" "AAAAAAAAAAAAAUGHHHH!!!"
Upvote
0
I think it should be kept. I think it's an actual gameplay mechanic. By forcing you to focus on it, the Clot leaves you wide open to more powerful speciments, thus punishing you for ignoring it too much.
Though I think it shouldn't work like that on Cysts, to differentiate them a bit more from the other Clot types. The idea being that Cysts can barely even grab you, much less hold you in place.
Though I think it shouldn't work like that on Cysts, to differentiate them a bit more from the other Clot types. The idea being that Cysts can barely even grab you, much less hold you in place.
Upvote
0
ok it's new, ok it's adding intensity.
but for me, this feature is definitively not in the KF spirit.
ok again, TWI is the creator of KF.
but this feature go against the freedom given to the player in KF1, freedom in movement & in choices.
but for me, this feature is definitively not in the KF spirit.
ok again, TWI is the creator of KF.
but this feature go against the freedom given to the player in KF1, freedom in movement & in choices.
Upvote
0
Rereading my own post gave me a thought. Let's step away from such terms as "unrealistic", "annoying", "cheap" etc. Let's talk purely about game balance. Clots are "trash zeds". Who they should bother more? Heavy hitters who are specializing on taking down big targets? Or trash killers who are supposed to be good at small zed killing? I think the first. That will help maintain game balance. Otherwise we'll end up with the same situation as in KF1, where Sharpshooter was vital and ultimate perk who was capable of killing with ease absolute every zed in the game.
Commandos can easily kill Clots even without that "auto-aim" feature. Even without scoring a headshot they can take down trash by several body shots. And they have plenty of ammo to avoid thinking of ammo conservation (unless constantly holding M1, of course). Same will work for Firebugs and probably for Gunslingers, when they'll be brought to the game.
Trash killers must make sure that nobody distracts heavy hitters while they are aiming at big zeds. That's called teamwork. Allowing Shapshooter to finish a Scrake or Demolition to take down FP despite being grabbed by Clot is a bad way to go.
That's why Clots rotating player and distracting from initial target is a good thing and must stay.
However, I wouldn't mind a few minor changes:
- When rotated by a Clot, change only horizontal view angle (yaw) while preserving initial vertical angle (pitch). That will still require aiming to the head and could please some PC players for not being completely "console-thing".
- Add 3s cooldown between consequent grabs. This will prevent insane camera rotation from one side to another while surrounded by multiple Clots.
Upvote
0
Honestly without it clots will feel very weak. At the moment they feel dangerous since trying to pass one not only stops you, but also prevents you from dealing with the much more dangerous targets.
Honestly I almost never get grabbed since a quick head shot prevents the grab entirely and often if I do get grabbed, the shot I was about to fire blows their head off and they let go.
Honestly I almost never get grabbed since a quick head shot prevents the grab entirely and often if I do get grabbed, the shot I was about to fire blows their head off and they let go.
Upvote
0
Why not just, you know the harder alternative which prevents player from shooting guns accurately (or shooting at all) while not messing with the camera.
There is no real difference between putting the clot in the middle of screen or putting its head in dead center. Likewise cooldown on grabs would make clot grabs completely irrevelant since any cooldown will be enough to get away, especially combined with sprinting.
Upvote
0
Shaking camera would feel more natural and make clot more of a threat than it's current behavior of "look at me, I'm beauuutiful!" Only time I find that camera turning to be a problem is when I m2 swing my hammer aiming to cave a siren's head in and in the mid-swing a clot shows his clown face for a split second before it disappears with a bang. Annoying and hilarious at the same time.
Last edited:
Upvote
0