Spiral Knights - How much range do you really gain with AT?

How much range do you really gain with AT?

41 replies [Last post]

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 12:53

Deleted-Knight

I'm here to provide evidence for how AT impacts LD swords.
screenshot
Obviously, anyone can edit a screenshot. There's no way I can prove to you this wasn't doctored. If you don't believe me, that is your choice.

I drew in some lines to help visualize things.
The orange arrow is the direction the attacker is aiming. The blue arrow is the direction he would be aiming if he was using AT. The orange circle is the sword arc (I did 360 arc because I'm lazy) of his Gran Faust. The blue circle is the sword arc if he was using AT.

Things to notice:
1. The enemy in this scenario would have been hit regardless if AT was on or off. (because clearly he is hit, and AT is off in the screen shot)
2. AT gives an increased range of about 20%-25% at the maximum angle.
3. In order for an AT swing to hit what a non-AT swing cannot, the target must be standing more than two diagonal squares away.
4.The target is hit the instant the swing begins. The sword is nowhere near the point in the arc where contact with the target will occur.

NOTE: Please understand the "AT nub" quote by Feyi was made in a prior incident. He did not complain when he died in the hit shown in the screenshot.
(Some time later Feyi did say "wAArior", but Wariore may have turned on AT by then)

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 13:23

Feyi-Feyi

Yes, the reason I didn't

Yes, the reason I didn't complain about this because it was a case of me being in the wrong place.
I can handle it when I die because of my own doing.

Things it doesn't change:

-Why should there be extra range at all? It's not even a case of how much.
-That's still a lot of extra range.

Also, your graphic is off. The middle point of your circle is not in the correct spot.
It's off to the extent that I still believe this might have been AT. Middle point of your circle should be around where the right hand of your knight is.
The max range of your sword is not straight ahead of you, which makes your directional arrows faulty.

And finally yes, swords work as a temporary AoE, not a swing, because SK is weird like that.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 14:39

Krakob

Can't say I can comprehend much of this. On the other hand, I don't see why this one scenario makes any difference in the big picture. So, instead of discussing this one picture, I shall instead question Feyi's claims!

The max range of your sword is not straight ahead of you
Then where? I was under the impression that it was.

And finally yes, swords work as a temporary AoE, not a swing, because SK is weird like that.
That's not weird, that's how most games would do it because it's easier to program and it's lighter on the CPU (especially relevant when you have thousands of people swinging their swords on your servers).

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 15:01

Deleted-Knight

@Feyi
This thread was not made for debate. If you want to continue the debate, make a new thread and clearly state your position. I'm not convincing OOO to add an AT feature, I'm saying there's no real need for OOO to modify the already present AT feature.

The circles are centered just below the hilt-end of the sword. This is because the sword rotates in the arm while the arm is rotating.
If you really want to be technical, the arc traced by the sword cannot be fit to any circle since the plane of view is tilted. Horizontal distances look longer than vertical distances, so it'll look more like an ellipse (with max range direction in front of him). If he was aiming directly upwards, the range would look maximized at the edges, not at the point where he is aiming.

This does not affect how I drew the AT arrows. The AT arrows are based on the direction the player is facing. If you look at the videos demonstrating AT, it shows the character physically turning to adjust the aim. The vog helmet is clearly not pointing directly at you, so AT is certainly not active for this particular swing.

======================================================================================
@Krakob
This helps people decide if AT "breaks" aiming or not. ie. "how much does it help you hit what you couldn't have otherwise hit?"

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 15:21

Krakob

Imo, there's little point in trying to prove anything like this when there's extremely little knowledge about sword hitboxes. Besides, this is done in a very sloppy manner. It's not an actual test, it's just a screenshot from a regular battle which you have placed some arrows on and have tried to derive proof from.

If you want people to have an easier time deciding, do some extensive testing with several swords. Drawing circles on a heavy sword is probably the worst thing you can do due to AT's minimal effect on them.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 16:26

Deleted-Knight

I'm not trying to provide anything specific, and there's no need for anything specific.
People aren't going to say "this much increased range needs nerfing, but just a little less is okay"

Look at the where the orange arrow ends relative to the position of Feyi. This is without AT (virtually indisputable, supported by your own video tests of how AT works).
If you want, I can take screenshots of your video and show you the error tolerance of AT aiming.

The point is to show how much AT impacts a player's ability to aim. The point is not to show how someone with AT can aim better than someone without. That's given by definition.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 16:54

Dutch-Oven

Brandish with and without

Brandish with and without AT

First is AT off aiming 45° away at brandishes max range.
Second is with AT on.
Third is how close you need to get to hit aiming at the same 45° with AT off.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 17:26

Skeptics

+1 Dutch-Oven for pointing this out

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 18:18

Retequizzle

visual representation of what dutchy just did

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 19:27

Floerail

@dutch

you might hit left upper in your screen with AT... but on server itself you actually hit middle left, but your character should be face at middle left when trying to hit but not shown because it just screenshot~

AT doesn't give extra range but fix it, the range increase can be due to natural range from weapon itself or the server.
i see just a small difference between AT and non AT user, the ability from AT can't make someone become overpowered but it's another story when being used by someone with good gear and good connection (i see most of old player and strong player use it to enjoy their own fun, some not use it but then use it after get killed by someone alot.. these old and strong player already scare lot of people in RLD, the reason why new face rarely come to lockdown and just gone without giving any footprints)

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 22:21

#10

Feyi-Feyi

Jesus effin' Christ Floerail,

Jesus effin' Christ Floerail, do you even English?

@thread: I'll respond later. The tl;dr would be:

@Krakob: depends on which sword, for the GF in question: not right in front of you, but right in front of your right hand/right side of your body.

@Auto, what exactly is your point? You've stated a lot of things it isn't, but not what it is.
I kind of sort of want to know before I decide if it's worth the effort writing for.

Sun, 04/20/2014 - 23:08

#11

Deleted-Knight

Judging from Dutch's post, I'll say AT does breaks brandish aiming. It's not surprising, I guess, since brandish has a long rectangular hit box instead of an arc.

@Feyi
This thread is not the debate. You can cite it in the debate, but it is not a statement of my position.

This is my position:
It is not worth OOO's time to modify the current AT system (and leave everything else untouched). The benefits will be insignificant relative to the overall Lockdown experience.

This is a defensive position. I am arguing against change. If you choose to argue for change, you must provide a reason (or reasons) for why change is necessary. I'll even tell you how you can convince me:
1. Show that optional AT is causing an issue to Lockdown that cannot be resolved by individual players.
2. Show that this issue has a significant impact on Lockdown gameplay for a large portion of the community.

Showing #1 means it is a OOO problem. Showing #2 means it is a big problem*. Show both, and I'll concede.

*Because LD has a lot of problems, and if so many people are gunho about this particular problem, it had better be a big one.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 00:06

#12

Floerail

@Feyi

at least not alien language

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 01:58

#13

Krakob

I don't even

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 07:31

#14

Ill-Fate-Ill

....

I'm pretty sure the auto-target option only affects the programming, not as much the visible swing. When the option is checked it tells the client to "lock-on" to the enemy closest to your cursor judging on which way you are facing. This has the highest efficiency if your connection is good because the stuff in the programming sends commands to the server faster. Guys like me (1 bar or I practically have 0) with bad connection (South West Australia) only get laggy and bugged swings which bend off the to the side which is the target's last position detected by the server (Screenshot as soon as I get one) which takes hella long time to reach my client.

EDIT:
Now that I think about it, what has it got to do with the coliseum?

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 07:09

#15

Feyi-Feyi

I don't think anyone ever stated this is the sole thing wrong with LD.
We could also talk about how:

the pulsar line should be a 2 shot weapon
the brandish line as a whole should be nerfed
we desperately need a better matchmaking solution
the leader boards are useless
invinciframes don't work properly half the time
…

But by now I think it has been shown multiple times the AT function is also one of the things that is broken in its current state.

Mon, 04/21/2014 - 14:18

#16

Deleted-Knight

If you put it that way, I agree with you Feyi. AT can ruin parts of the game.
However, I don't see why it is such a common complaint considering it is the easiest thing to fix. Uncheck that box, and all the problems go away. You reacquire the ability to hone your aiming.
Other people using AT does not prevent you from becoming skilled. It only makes it harder for them to improve.

With the exception of inviciframes, the other issues you listed are kind of subjective.
Some may argue pulsar is not overpowered since valiance can beat them. If brandishes need to be nerfed, why not flourish? Flourish is more commonly used, after all. Maybe the leaderboard is supposed to show who plays the most Lockdown, since skill is hard to measure with random matchmaking. Maybe OOO wanted random matchmaking so people get to play with enemies of varying difficulty.

Inviciframe is the only real complaint since, by design, they should be applied consistently. The other ones are just stuff you personally want to see happen.

As I mentioned before, there's a difference between something that needs "fixing" or "banning" and something that you would like to see happen. If very few people have UVs, I bet you would've listed those as "broken" too.

Something "broken" must be objectively detrimental.

Tue, 04/22/2014 - 00:30

#17

Krakob

@Auto Target

Trust me, we've already complained about Flourishes.

Tue, 04/22/2014 - 05:28

#18

Skepticraven

↓

"I'm not trying to provide anything specific, and there's no need for anything specific." In post #5

"2. AT gives an increased range of about 20%-25% at the maximum angle." In the 0th post.

I sense a flaw in logic here.

What is the problem with AT? Players use it because it helps them get to a similar skill level (in terms of aiming) of better players. Are you suggesting that AT should be removed so that the better players have more of a skill gap to roflstomp anyone they go up against?

Tue, 04/22/2014 - 06:23

#19

Bleyken-Forums

@Skepticraven

If players have skill, it's because they don't use AT. No one can have or get skill if they never aim

Tue, 04/22/2014 - 06:52

#20

Seiran

...extension?

Someone clarify for me:

Are you guys talking about extension of "sideways range" or maximum range (the 'true center' range)?

...Because "sideways range" extension is just a byproduct of AT turning your character to face its true center towards the nearest enemy, and I thought we had come to a conclusion via video that maximum range itself isn't affected by AT.

ex: Dutch's pic
Floerail kind of mentioned it, but basically, his client is showing that he's facing up/left past the bag, but according to the server (due to AT), he was really facing directly towards the bag. In that case, his range isn't bizarre at all - it's completely in range of his sword (had his client shown him turn towards it).

And I was probably under the false assumption that people played with opponents' maximum range in mind - because that's like, the cornerstone of spacing.

-----

The other 'range extension' ("WOW YOUR GF HAS SO MUCH RANGE!") complaint I've seen just comes from people not realizing that their clients don't always reflect what the server sees: so what they saw in their screen ("I was 5 tiles away!") isn't what the server saw ("is 1.5 tiles away").

Tue, 04/22/2014 - 07:07

#21

Ill-Fate-Ill

....

I'm not sure if you misunderstood my post or just tl;dr. I said, auto-target happens in the programming and does not show up as much visually. Your client may appear to gain greater range but really, the commands sent to the server are the same as it would be if you didn't AT, so you could say your knight is doing something that doesn't show up. In the first screenshot example, your are spectating, so it appears the range has veered off to the side, but in reality, you are just turning to the side (ref. to Dutch's pic). You can see this on your own client.

Tue, 04/22/2014 - 08:11

#22

Theirillusion

"What is the problem with AT? Players use it because it helps them get to a similar skill level (in terms of aiming) of better players. Are you suggesting that AT should be removed so that the better players have more of a skill gap to roflstomp anyone they go up against?"

AT is one thing that makes the gap bigger. You think only 1-2 bar unexperienced players use AT.

Tue, 04/22/2014 - 12:12

#23

Feyi-Feyi

That is exactly the problem with AT. It should not be a way to close the skill gap.
It's a PvE feature to overcome latency, that made it into Lockdown because the designers didn't think it trough.

Tue, 04/22/2014 - 13:25

#24

Drdrj

Such ego, much auto target, no skills

How exactly is AT a tool to close the gap when many players using it have perfect 4 bars connection and asi very high weapons?

Tue, 04/22/2014 - 19:57

#25

Skepticraven

↑

"How exactly is AT a tool to close the gap when many players using it have perfect 4 bars connection and asi very high weapons?"

By having no skill required to be good or bad, obviously.

Tue, 04/22/2014 - 22:46

#26

Deleted-Knight

As far as I can tell, both

As far as I can tell, both sides seem to agree on how AT affects Lockdown. The difference is the conclusion that is drawn.
One side believes AT doesn't ruin Lockdown any more than other stuff (like flourishes, pulsar, UVs, etc.). Another side believe it is overpowered and breaks the game in ways other factors can't.

I don't like it when people complain about AT as if it is the single most horrible thing in Lockdown. To me, that is just people being whiny because they are frustrated with themselves and can't admit it. If you objectively don't like AT, you should not like the other "unfair" stuff just as much.

I am a strong advocate of making skill more relevant to Lockdown. In the past I have made a suggestion for (optional) standardized lockdown. IIRC, it was something like this:
Players would receive a fixed loadout (with one gun, one bomb, one sword) that are normal damage only. The shields work the same way. To add strategy, a fixed number of bonus points (like pet skill points) are allotted to ASI, CTR, and Damage Increase. A player can edit how these bonuses are distributed in the locker room. In this standardized Lockdown, it would make sense for AT to be automatically disabled.

Guess what happened? Virtually everyone shot it down. They didn't say it outright, but nobody wanted to give up their special gear and bonuses that help them get an edge over others.
So if anyone is really interested in making Lockdown more skill-based, how about making a suggestion like the one above instead of "BAN AT, it's OP".

Tue, 04/22/2014 - 23:52

#27

Ill-Fate-Ill

....

Dude, you're going off topic. It's about RANGE.

Wed, 04/23/2014 - 06:42

#28

Krakob

@Auto Target

One side believes AT doesn't ruin Lockdown any more than other stuff (like flourishes, pulsar, UVs, etc.). Another side believe it is overpowered and breaks the game in ways other factors can't.

And then there are those who believe AT is for worse but other things are even worse i.e. most sane people.

If you objectively don't like AT, you should not like the other "unfair" stuff just as much.
And people do. Remember that one guy Feller? I'd like to remember that he ranted quite a bit about AT but he was also an opponent of many other things that break LD, such as UVs.

Guess what happened? Virtually everyone shot it down. They didn't say it outright, but nobody wanted to give up their special gear and bonuses that help them get an edge over others.
I think it might've been more about the lack of choice in your suggested idea. I don't like LD's imbalances but I'd rather have 20 swords of which 5 are viable for use instead of just one that's balanced but also the only option. I'm willing to bet a lot of people agree with me on this.

Wed, 04/23/2014 - 07:29

#29

Ill-Fate-Ill

....

If variety creates imbalance, which would you prefer then?

Wed, 04/23/2014 - 07:48

#30

Krakob

I'd pick a game which allows me to be a bit creative over one that does not any day of the week except during caturdays.

Wed, 04/23/2014 - 08:38

#31

Feyi-Feyi

@AT

I think you've been living under a rock for the last few years.
Do you think the coliseum is made up of people who only hate AT? We hate lots of things!
We hate them so much that there have been threads to balance LD in every facet of the game.
Literally. Every. Aspect.

You know what happened? They died a lonely death in the suggestions forum.
You're dealing with a lot of people who are disappointed, and have no belief OOO has any intention to ever fix PvP.
Their complete silence surrounding it says enough. There has been not one word from them concerning us since they made this sub forum.
And to be fair, that was only made because General Discussion was sick of the LD threads.

So you end up with two things:
-a lot of people who have nothing left to do then reiterate the same common complaints over and over, because the finer details are on page 75 of suggestions
-rage, a bad atmosphere in lockdown, etc..

I've known about how broken most mechanics are for a long time, I usually just don't bother explaining them until someone comes along claiming they're not. That's sort of where you came along.

Welcome to the coliseum.

Wed, 04/23/2014 - 09:28

#32

Deleted-Knight

I came along when you said people who think banning AT is unproductive have no real argument. You threw your support behind Achys who was clearly raging about AT only. You made no attempt to point out there were other issues that are just as bad.

I am aware there are suggestions regarding other aspects of lockdown. However AT banning seems to have the most passionate supporters. Where were you in the recent striker class balance thread? You weren't nearly as involved. In fact you took the other side.
Can you provide a link to a thread advocating for UV ban in lockdown that you eagerly supported?
I am not convinced Most AT ban people have objective motives.

Wed, 04/23/2014 - 09:45

#33

Auto-Target-Begone

coward! show your real ign.

Wed, 04/23/2014 - 11:55

#34

Feyi-Feyi

Because:

a) This was in a thread detailing AT. I like to stay on topic whenever possible.
b) These discussions have been had. I see very little point in having them again.

I wasn't in the striker thread because there was no need to. Seiran did a pretty good job of explaining what was needed.
I won't link to a UV thread because I don't support it. Would you remove UVs from PvE?

This is also not a you and me thing. I don't have to be there to make it a valid discussion.
Want to hear my opinion on balance? Ask me.

Thu, 04/24/2014 - 04:58

#35

Tempas

AT has a 45(from what I know,

AT has a 45(from what I know, 22.5 degrees to each side of the cursor) degree arc within which it will align you on the server to strike in such a way as to use the maximum natural range of the weapon... The arc is 45 degree's of your cursor so that's the angular range and the tile range(as in how far you can hit, depends on weapons). #stayingontopic

Also, @feyi
UV's are sort of broken really. Uv's are completely useless(or rather, not needed) in PvE so yes, I would like them banned.(stick on swiftstrike, damage bonus set and right trinkets + pet bonus and you can maximize everything that you need maximized therefore there is no need for them)

Also, Feller fought against usage of UV's ?! Holy crap, wonder why he got his triple max armours and ASI vh weapons then.

Wed, 04/23/2014 - 17:29

#36

Deleted-Knight

Ugh, I've been derailed again. Feyi, we're never going to get anywhere. I want to reach some sort of closure.
I will make a forum post with a little survey. Please reply to that.

I will not be commenting on any of the survey responses.

Thu, 04/24/2014 - 07:02

#37

Krakob

@Surge Ribbon
AT has a 45(from what I know, 22.5 degrees to each side of the cursor)
90 degrees for swords, 45 degrees for guns.

Also, Feller fought against usage of UV's ?! Holy crap, wonder why he got his triple max armours and ASI vh weapons then.
You can oppose something you use. In competitive gaming, you'll often have to simply go with whatever is the best if you want to be the best. I mean, you don't see any top tier Smash Bros. players not using wavedashing because it's "dumb" or anything.

@Auto Target
Of course you won't get anywhere if you claim to have evidence for stuff in one post and claim you're not trying to prove anything in the other.

Sun, 06/29/2014 - 18:02

#38

Autofire

You are experiencing a PICNIC ERROR!

EDIT woops: wrong post. I didn't mean to make it...

Crap did I necro?

EDIT2: Carp...2 month necro. I apologize. To clarify, I typed this into the wrong tab on my browser.

Mon, 06/30/2014 - 08:51

#39

Retequizzle

realistically speaking, running through the same arguments over and over won't change things regardless of when the thread's made - this thread from a few months ago is the exact same argument we're seeing now and is essentially the same argument we've seen a year or so ago, so if there's ever a thread to mistakenly bump up, may as well pick one that doesn't look like it's been bumped at all

that being said, you can divide up players into one of four groups:

-those who are against AT and don't use AT
-those who are against AT and use AT
-those who are not against AT and use AT
-those who are not against AT and don't use AT

and it's probably the last two groups who end up just playing LD for what it is - a minigame. attempting to build it up into something beyond that is what prompts the first two groups to show up, and their reaction to LD is essentially this.

people drift from group to group but the arguments ultimately stay the same.

Mon, 06/30/2014 - 16:42

#40

Oroseira

oh my

visual representation of what retequizzle just did

Tue, 07/01/2014 - 04:45

#41

Valtiros

people drift from group to

people drift from group to group but the arguments ultimately stay the same

These are the same arguments and this obviously shows that these are pointless.

True enough.

Search

How much range do you really gain with AT?