PC Is there an RPG "factor" when shooting zombies?

theFlu said:
Because even with knowing the frame to hit, my success rate was around 15-30% for the general case; only shooting several in a row from the same setup was markedly easier. Without video it's going to be "can't repro" in no time. With a video the tester can at least see it happened (or see I'm just tripping), and know exactly what was done. There's plenty I won't be able to describe, and plenty I don't even know, some good evidence gathers a lot of that.
Click to expand...


So you think a tester would only try this 2 times after you told him the success rate was about 10-30%? You have a low opinion of testers. On the other hand your repro steps were excellent work and it will be really hard for the testers to miss that now.

theFlu said:
It's not mandatory, sure, but in this kind of case it's a lot more useful than the template they want you to fill... :)
Click to expand...


When you see the average quality of bug reports you know why they want people to fill out that template. The template is not really to get information about the bug but about the poster.

 
Jost Amman said:
I've always wondered if, when shooting zombies with a bow/gun, there is also a "Hit Chance" check like in traditional RPGs.

I ask this question because many times I've heard people complaining about shooting a zombie right in the head, also from afar, and missing it, even if they were sure they were spot on targeting the hit-box.

Some say it's just the wonky hit-boxes not working as they should.

Others say even if you hit the hit-box you still have the game check the hit against your "skill" in (e.g.) bows or the gun.

Others think it's a "lag" issue (but this also sometimes happens in SP, so...).

Can anyone confirm this from an official source or know the answer?

Thanks

@faatal @Kinyajuu @Roland @schwanz9000
Click to expand...
People are always looking for excuses for their mistakes. In any shooter, people cry about bad hitboxes and bad game engines, supposedly because of this they cannot hit the target. But we know why this happens.

 
meganoth said:
So you think a tester would only try this 2 times after you told him the success rate was about 10-30%? You have a low opinion of testers.
Click to expand...
Nope, I expect myself to describe it in a confusing way, have the tester misread my miswriting, and end up rigorously testing on a wrong thing. There's plenty of frames to choose from, the idle animation is probably what, 15 seconds, 30 frames a sec (or something).. having my 15% lowball as the actual chance, you'll need 7 shots on the Right frame. With those numbers, taking shots randomly would be 3150 shots. Do I expect a tester to take 3k shots on my honest "I didn't miss, I swear"? ... actually yes, but if I can reduce it down to a 30, I should.

For this specific case though; I mostly expect the animations getting a for-gold quality sweep with some proper tooling later - figuring out that frame right now is likely wasted effort.

meganoth said:
On the other hand your repro steps were excellent work and it will be really hard for the testers to miss that now.
Click to expand...
Thanks! - I used to work with bug reports, filling some myself, reproing plenty, sending a whole lot back to the sender for more info. It's not easy on any side.

meganoth said:
When you see the average quality of bug reports you know why they want people to fill out that template. The template is not really to get information about the bug but about the poster.
Click to expand...
Yeh, I know.. but I kinda disagree on the template, it's not a psych test on the reporter, all of those can be deciding factors on a lot of different bugs. It's a tricky thing to balance, ask too many seemingly irrelevant things and the reporter fills nothing, ask too few and you start playing message-ping-pong.

 
bachgaman said:
People are always looking for excuses for their mistakes. In any shooter, people cry about bad hitboxes and bad game engines, supposedly because of this they cannot hit the target. But we know why this happens.
Click to expand...
So you're saying there's no bug, and all the people complaining, and even video proof is all baloney?

Thanks for officially clarifying this, we were all waiting for your expert opinion! :)  

 
theFlu said:
Yeh, I know.. but I kinda disagree on the template, it's not a psych test on the reporter, all of those can be deciding factors on a lot of different bugs. It's a tricky thing to balance, ask too many seemingly irrelevant things and the reporter fills nothing, ask too few and you start playing message-ping-pong.
Click to expand...


It is partly information, psycho-test and a way to get posters go through a routine and not forget basic things to do when to test for vanilla (like clearing settings for each new alpha and turning off mods for bug reporting). Especially the four questions are more or less a reminder how to do it correctly. The question about mods or "have you validated your files" have only one correct answer and the complementary answer gets an immediate "Please do ... and test again"-

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You could look at it as a script to follow, and it is - but I wouldn't still call that "information about the poster". All the non-bug-related items are relevant to roughly two questions: "Is your hardware up to par?" and "Are you testing a version we care about?". Sure they could be reduced down to exactly those, but I don't see the details being superfluous either. But anyway, weird semantic issues I suppose ... :)

 
Jost Amman said:
Multiple people on Steam claimed they shot a video of that happening.

Didn't check it out myself, but I remember watching at least one some time ago.
Click to expand...
that is, there is no proof video. only numerous complaints remain. but like I said, people really like it. in any shooter there is a lot of whining about bad shooting mechanics

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top