What exactly are hit scan weapons and why do people think they are bad?

[Treblaine]

Ultimately there is so much misinformation that circulates in these discussions that people tend to ignore that games seek different methods to satisfy different needs.

For instance, most games do take place in ranges where travel time is largely negligible. A modern military rifle like the M-16 has a muzzle velocity of 984 m/s, and few games will represent even half that distance in a single stretch.

People also misunderstand how bullets actually fly. Many firearms, like the aforementioned M-16, are designed to fire in an arc to increase range, not a sloping decline. These means that if you're sighted for center mass at say 300m, you're actually aiming in the dirt to hit the same spot at a 150m target.

Speaking of sighting, that's a whole discussion in and of itself.

Basically the point I am laboriously reaching towards is that there is no right and wrong answer. Implementing a truly realistic systems does not instantly equate to better. Some games want to be fast passed and tightly spaced, and others want to be more methodical and open.

But not every weapon in such games is an M16 firing 5.56x45mm cartridges. There are many short barrel .45ACP weapons that fire a projectile that STARTS at 260m/sec which is only 4.3 metres per frame in 60-fps games like COD. That is definitely enough to make a difference. The arc of such weapons is also significant, the bullet path with rise sharply and fall quickly, it's rainbow like trajectory turns plunging within 25 metres whi

This is a problem in COD where people are sniping with the UMP-45, that is a low-recoil weapon that 25m away still always hits EXACTLY where the front sight is laid over. Even against people sprinting laterally where they have to only move at 100th the speed to be missed at 25m (bullet travels 25m, they move 25cm and it misses their side profile torso) which for .45ACP is only 10 kilometres per hour. That's nothing, I am not in very god shape but I can jog at 8 kilometers per hour for 30 minutes.

It's a similar story with the plethora of 9mm weapons and especially the shotguns.

Maybe with rifles it is easier to make them hitscan than trace projectiles, but not all the pistols, submachine guns and shotguns.

 

[PH3NOmenon]

Another bit is that 3rd party cheats are more prevalent for hitscan weapons. Stuff like Aimbot and the like.

Basically all that's the required for a headshot with a hitscan weapon is a simple "Is head in crosshair when trigger is pulled?" check, whereas a projectile weapon has a travel-time in which your target can (and most likely will) move, meaning that you have to lead your target. And if your target changes their trajectory while the projectile is in-flight, you'll still miss.

 

[Darkmantle]

Title says it all really.I've heard the term used (mostly to complain about COD) but I don't know what they are at all.
Also, if they are bad, why are they used and what alternatives are available?

For a good example look at SC2. Specifically how stalkers fire(projectile) and how marines fire (hit scan).

 

[MammothBlade]

Hit-scan is lazy, it encourages twitch gaming and not careful tactics. It's best to have something with simulated ballistics, if the processor can handle it. I don't enjoy games with hitscan too good, especially multiplayer. It discourages me from playing as I can't keep up with gamers who have faster trigger fingers - hence why I suck so much at Counter-Strike. There is a slight delay between pulling the trigger and the bullet firing. The moment they have you in their crosshairs and click the trigger, you are hit even if you saw the barrel of their gun and dodged it before the bullet actually fired. That makes no sense.
With projectile ballistics, you have a slight chance of avoiding being hit, and bullet accuracy will drop off at range. It feels so much more natural and I'm kinda surprised it isn't the norm.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

Counter Strike uses hit-scan and I don't mind it at all. It's still a skill based game. Recoil is what's really important.

Counter-strike is brutal though. CoD however, super easy. most weapons have very little recoil when compared to CS. In CoD you can spray all day, in CS if you don't burst you'll be in for a world of pain.

 

[projectX42]

I wouldn't say hit-scan is bad in anyway, its just a different approach that requires lees computation and is normally implemented in games where it relay doesn't have an effect on overall gameplay.

 

[Irridium]

It's the reason sniping in CoD is easy.

No bullet arc, the shot doesn't travel. You basically 'click' on a person to hurt them, rather than shoot a round that has to travel to its target.

Not really. Sniping in CoD is easy because when you zoom in, it locks to the target. It also slows down the camera when you move the reticle over someone, making it easier to hit them.

CoD isn't easy because of hitscan weapons. If that were the case, sniping in Counter-Strike would be as easy as sniping in CoD, since Counter-Strike also uses hitscan weapons. Or, shooting in general really.

It's not.

The auto-aim and aim-assist make it easier, not hitscan weapons. Besides, most CoD matches take place in small, enclosed areas. Even if they replaced hitscan weapons with a realistic system, it wouldn't make much of a difference since most levels would be well within the guns' effective range. Rendering bullet-drop moot. It's the same with most FPS games.

Hitscan weapons don't really take away from skill. At least you still have to put and keep the reticle over a target, which is easier said then done. Well, without auto-aim/aim-assist at least. That's I have an issue with. Aim-assist/auto-aim. That really takes away from atualy skill. With aim-assist it helps you put and keep your reticle on the target, or in the case of auto-aim it does it for you. CoD has this. When you bring up the scope it automatically locks onto the target. Some people do it up close for easy kills. Quick-scoping, it's called. It's why sniping in Call of Duty is so easy. Every other gun when you aim and pass over a target, the camera slows down which helps you get a better shot. This is aim-assist.

 

[The Great JT]

Hitscan is why I don't do Gas Jockey Pyro in TF2 more often.

 

[GoaThief]

Stuff

Yes.

I find it fascinating that some people here consider games like Quake to have a low skill ceiling because a fair chunk of their weapons are hitscan. I fundamentally disagree but that's the beauty of opinions.

What about latency-compensation? I think this could be the cause of certain players' misplaced ire regarding hitscan. Back in the days of yore you'd be expected to lead a target for this reason, now much of it is calculated server-side - such as in the Source engine - and you are supposed to aim directly at the enemy model sometimes resulting in funky situations where you become riddled by bullets despite being tucked behind an impenetrable object. Removing the numerical representation of ping and replacing it with a few bars in many modern titles doesn't help the situation, neither does giving players too much freedom with rate settings and the like.

 

[gigastrike]

What about latency-compensation? I think this could be the cause of certain players' misplaced ire regarding hitscan. Back in the days of yore you'd be expected to lead a target for this reason, now much of it is calculated server-side - such as in the Source engine - and you are supposed to aim directly at the enemy model sometimes resulting in funky situations where you become riddled by bullets despite being tucked behind an impenetrable object. Removing the numerical representation of ping and replacing it with a few bars in many modern titles doesn't help the situation, neither does giving players too much freedom with rate settings and the like.

Thank you. The problem with projectiles is that if your ping is high, your target is probably not going to be where you think he is. The shot would say it hit only if it actually hits the player model. This may sound like a good thing, but when you consider that the player model is always slightly ahead of where you see it (depending on lag), you would understand why a lot of developers came up with this system where you just have to be aiming at what you see.

And just to clear one thing up: if you think there is any amount of skill that would allow you to dodge a bullet that was fired directly at you, you're delusional.

 

[Rottweiler]

Part of the problem here is that, honestly...there's a limit to how 'realistic' you can get and still have mass-market appeal.

Some of us would prefer an FPS to have enough mechanics to be used as a crime scene simulator, but let's be honest (with ourselves if no one else):

In order to appeal to a wide cross-section of customers, there is a reasonable limit to the skill requirement involved to play.

Speaking for myself, I actually appreciate the intricacies of a more 'realistic' approach to a shooter- having to take into account bullet drop, wind speed, atmospheric conditions etc. does add a lot of challenge to a game.

The problem, though, is that there's a limit of common sense in 'realism', and while I know there will be some who say 'that's different', it's all part of the same thing.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

It's interesting how a lot of the backlash you see on forums like this is against the "realism" in modern shooters, and yet as soon as an unrealistic mechanic exists in a "realistic" shooter, it gets associated with lack of skill and casual gaming.

Odd because you are the only one here that made that association, lower skill requirement and realism are not connected here.

Actually, several people have said that hitscan makes various elements of the game easier. And there was even a "Damn casuals"-esque remark in there too.

So no, other people have made those associations, and he's not the only one.

 

[Norrdicus]

STALKER; Shadow of Chernobyl.

Aah STALKER. My favorite weapon is the Vintar BC sniper rifle that fires sub-sonic rounds, so it has massive bullet drop and the bullet's so slow that it's visible.

Never knew that firing a weapon with such a devastating "flaw" could feel so good. You would quickly learn to adjust your aiming so you get those headshots almost instinctively

 

[Something Amyss]

It's interesting how a lot of the backlash you see on forums like this is against the "realism" in modern shooters, and yet as soon as an unrealistic mechanic exists in a "realistic" shooter, it gets associated with lack of skill and casual gaming.

That'd be a valid argument if other unrealistic elements didn't exist in "realistic" shooters.

 

[godofallu]

So the FPS with the best hit detection in the world uses hitscan.

Well I guess i'm for it.

 

[Bad Jim]

Stuff

Yes.

I find it fascinating that some people here consider games like Quake to have a low skill ceiling because a fair chunk of their weapons are hitscan. I fundamentally disagree but that's the beauty of opinions.

Quake 3 only has one true hitscan weapon - the dinky machine gun you start with. All the rest have some sort of projectile. Even the lightning gun has a certain amount of latency on the lightning effect, so it too can be dodged. So if the logic is correctly followed, Quake 3 has a high skill ceiling.

The main advantage of projectiles is that they can be dodged, which adds an extra dimension to the game. That style of gamepley is never realistic of course, but it is fun, and takes the emphasis away from cover-based shooting.

 

[GoaThief]

Quake 3 only has one true hitscan weapon - the dinky machine gun you start with. All the rest have some sort of projectile. Even the lightning gun has a certain amount of latency on the lightning effect, so it too can be dodged.

No, you're wrong [http://quakelive.wikia.com/wiki/Lightning_Gun] unless you have a high ping which incidentally coincides with what I said above. Machine gun, shotgun, railgun, chaingun, lightning gun and gauntlet are all hitscan weapons in Quake.

So if the logic is correctly followed, Quake 3 has a high skill ceiling.

If you're following actual logic, of course Quake 3 has a high-skill ceiling but not really if we follow the extremely flaky projectile simulation argument. Counter Strike uses hitscan, low-skill too?

The main advantage of projectiles is that they can be dodged, which adds an extra dimension to the game. That style of gamepley is never realistic of course, but it is fun, and takes the emphasis away from cover-based shooting.

Using the example of Quake with it's myriad of hitscan weapons, shouldn't it also be a very cover-based shooter? Of course it isn't though, and hitscan weapons are not the cause. How health is managed, movement speed, size of maps and many other things dictate the pace and style of shooter far, far moreso than hitscan.

 

[Kargathia]

Hitscan is used to replace actual projectiles.

So, in CoD for instance, you may be able to see a shot being fired and be able to track that shot (tracer rounds), but that isn't what actually hits a target.

The thing with hitscan, is that it doesn't simulate real gunfire very well, since damage is nearly instantanous with little to no delay between trigger presses.

Bullets don't travel in a straight line for very long, they start to fall to the ground very quickly, while hitscan 'bullets' will travel in a straight line over a huge distance.

It's the reason sniping in CoD is easy.

No bullet arc, the shot doesn't travel. You basically 'click' on a person to hurt them, rather than shoot a round that has to travel to its target.

I'd like to note here that when taking into account the average size of CoD maps bullet drop would be a non-existent factor even with realistic projectiles. Target leading would be somewhat present, but in 90% of the encounters there literally would be no difference between hitscan or projectile.