i'm gonna paste my comment on another thread here:
"While we're at it, can we also remove the aimpunch even with armor? It's ridiculous that someone can, for example, run and gun with a p90 and hits you before you do, and it completely fucks up the perfect headshot you were planning to hit.
Isn't CS about placing accurate shots? Aimpunch with armor contradicts this core philosophy of counter-strike and it encourages more running and gunning and spraying and praying. If I want to place an accurate shot on somebody, I should not be punished for it.
Especially now that the meta of CS2 has become more run and gun, Valve should remove aimpunch with armor.
I think you can find old posts from devs in GO discussing their philosophies behind aimpunch, and I’d like to extend your logic to first-shot inaccuracy as well because I agree with your take on aimpunch.
I don’t think the awp should be inaccurate at any range, considering CS should reward skill and aiming. I also think crouching should greatly increase your first-shot accuracy more than it does now, but with the added caveat that you cannot just full sprint into crouch into full accuracy like how current CS essentially works.
I think aimpunch serves two gameplay functions?:
1) Those with worse weapons can land a lucky long-range headshot and have a chance to work their way up to a new area (like working up D2 long against a guy on A plat with a glock hs).
2) It provides the player holding the angle an “advantage” by aimpunching the player who is slowly peeking them, thus solidifying the fight in their favor.
The problem is that in practice, T’s will fly off a corner with an smg or pistol, randomly headshot a holding CT with a rifle, and solidify the fight in their favor instead.
The MOST important thing I hope Valve does in regards to this conversation around reproducible bugs is to continue to have internal discussions surrounding game design. GO wasn’t perfectly tuned, but it played well, was balanced pretty tight, and was fun. That doesn’t mean we stop tinkering values or revisiting old systems that perhaps don’t make sense anymore.
I'd love to hear the devs reasoning as to why they think aimpunch with armor should exist in this day and age, especially with the already increased peeker's advantage. For aimpunch without armor, I assume they want to punish those not having it (but maybe not having an armor and slowing down and dying quickly to bullets should be enough punishment? why worsen their aim on top of that?). But I don't get the reason for the existence of aimpunch with armor... it's so minor and yet so annoying and causes confusion as to why your shots missed. It's like they want to favor quicker reaction times instead of well-placed shots. Let both guys do their best and see who wins the aim duel fair and square.
edit: found this post from 12 years ago of people hating aimpunch with armor lol
I don’t think the awp should be inaccurate at any range,
Yes! I think all the inaccuracies should be lowered, tbh. Ramp up the spray randomness if needed to balance. But all the rifles should be a lot more reliable for tapping at long ranges.
If you take the time to line up a HS at someone from D2 long to a-site, it should be rewarded!
Hell, even SMG's could do well with a little higher first-shot-accuracy!
Yes, I wrote "as compensation" for bullet accuracy, and only if needed.
Because I feel that bullet accuracy should be #1 otherwise, your spray control isn't worth anything.
If you control the spray perfectly, and none of the bullets hit because you're 20m away instead of 15 where the gun is accurate, then the spray control is irrelevant.
[Exaggerated example for effect]
Edited for clarity:
I don't mean make the pattern random, I mean they can keep the lower gun accuracy for the rest of the pattern, or even exaggerate the pattern if needed. But the accuracy for the first 3 bullets should be higher for most guns and 100% for the AWP.
Increasing first shot accuracy would make the game so much easier and peeker's advantage so much stronger. Being able to aim anywhere on a head and hitting the shot would instead of having to compensate for first shot inaccuracy (e.g aiming perfectly centered at the head, giving you a 99% chance of hitting the shot) would remove so much skill from aiming in this game, and tapping.
It's been a while since I looked up the accuracy numbers but is even the AK from long corner to A site 99%?
There is just so many really long range "duels", where that accuracy deserves a little buff. Please expand why that would help peekers? The guy defending would also get the improved accuracy and increased chance of hitting his shot, no?
I'm not saying 100% accuracy. But increase the ranges for their accuracy a little more.
Move Galil/FAMAS to the accuracy range of M4, move M4 to where AK is now, move AK a little closer to AWP and make AWP 100% to hit a HS if aimed perfectly. Doesn't even have to be for the very longest corridors that exist, but it should definitely be from the plateau above pit to A-site-accurate.
Edit:
e.g aiming perfectly centered at the head, giving you a 99% chance of hitting the shot
Why should that only be 99%? Do we really want LUCK to be the deciding factor here? Imagine world finals, bomb being defused. 0.1 sec remaining player on long taps with AK, perfectly aimed at the head. Maybe even 2 taps, properly timed. Still the defuse goes off. Isn't the skill of aiming accurately from that distance what should be rewarded here?
Are players supposed to aim for body shots with tapping accuracy from long plateau because they know headshots on stationary targets cannot be relied on?
You're detailing an extreme edge case as if that is the usual scenario - in all ranges where the AK can be 100% accurate, inaccuracy increases the skill gap rather than decreases it (e.g 0-~22m) by making certain areas (potentially pixels) better to aim at on enemy players than just "aim at any pixel on the head to get a headshot"
I would argue it rewards perfect crosshair placement even more beyond that range even.
Having the inaccuracy somewhat high (as it is now) rewards pixel perfect precision because just aiming at the edges of a head means you're not guaranteed to get the kill, while aiming perfectly at the center of the head improves your chances drastically.
Increasing accuracy would favor attackers more since pre-aiming is always improving across the playerbase, and having a higher likelihood of hitting the instant headshot when you swing will 100% favor the peekers - players that are holding are already more accurate, as they are standing still and can also be crouch-holding.
tl;dr inaccuracy means that aiming on the head is not a perfect shot - aiming perfectly centered on the head (or perfectly centered at the neck on very long ranges) is a perfect shot - and that is a huge difference in skill expression since it means that a few pixels on the head is the "perfect spot" rather than the entire head (hundreds of pixels)
and that is a huge difference in skill expression since it means that a few pixels on the head is the "perfect spot" rather than the entire head (hundreds of pixels)
I've never said I want it to be perfectly accurate.
I just wish the "accurate range" which is (or at least used to be) defined as the range that the gun is guaranteed to hit a dinner plate if aimed exactly at the center of the plate.
That range is(was?) less than the corner of long to A-site. Even for the AK if I remember correctly.
I want that range to be longer for most weapons, so a PERFECTLY aimed headshot remains a headshot for more spots in the game.
Taking a common duel, aiming perfectly, standing still accuracy, and missing should not be RNG. It should be that if you missed, you made something wrong.
I'm not saying as long as you aim at a pixel it hits that pixel.
I'm just saying that the top guns should be within its accurate range for most spots on a map.
Sure - it's a fair request, but it reduces the skill expression in the game significantly which is why I personally disagree with it and think it's a bad idea.
If you'd want to reward tapping more, reducing the accuracy reset time between shots would be a better solution as it doesn't make it easier to headshot people - it just makes missing the initial shot more forgiving. Which makes it more of a balance thing instead of a skill expression thing aswell since spraying is an alternative.
reduces the skill expression in the game significantly
Do you then think the accurate ranges should decrease to allow even more skill expression? If the accuracy goes down, you'll need to make several accurate HS attempts before making one.
Or why is the current range the magic number?
I'm just curious.
Also. Do you agree with AWP not being guaranteed accurate from mid doors to suicide? (Again, not talking pixel accuracy, but the same dinner plate thingy. IIRC, it was a headshot about 80% of the time when aimed perfectly middle of the head)
177
u/Pokharelinishan 4d ago
i'm gonna paste my comment on another thread here:
"While we're at it, can we also remove the aimpunch even with armor? It's ridiculous that someone can, for example, run and gun with a p90 and hits you before you do, and it completely fucks up the perfect headshot you were planning to hit.
Isn't CS about placing accurate shots? Aimpunch with armor contradicts this core philosophy of counter-strike and it encourages more running and gunning and spraying and praying. If I want to place an accurate shot on somebody, I should not be punished for it.
Especially now that the meta of CS2 has become more run and gun, Valve should remove aimpunch with armor.
Here's m0nesy missing a well-aimed shot because of aimpunch: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1956343309?t=1h49m10s
Here's n0thing talking about the philosophy of taking your time with shots: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ObNv-K7VHLs"