• Welcome to SquidBoards, the largest forum dedicated to Splatoon! Over 25,000 Splatoon fans from around the world have come to discuss this fantastic game with over 250,000 posts!

    Start on your journey in the Splatoon community!

  • Hey Guest, the Side Order expansion is now available!

    If you're playing the new DLC, please remember to keep your thread titles spoiler free, and use [spoiler] tags for any relevant spoilers in your posts.

Ranked mode too punishing?

Award

Squid Savior From the Future
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
1,661
Yeah, I guess that wouldn't be so bad. Making it harder to derank would be nice. I do disagree about random modes in the rotation.The weapon and load out I bring to splat zones is not what I use for Tc.
Well, that has to do with not being able to switch your weapon in the lobby, which is ALSO a different problem :p

I do think a method to facilitate deranking would have to be added to keep the ladder able to adjust, but it should be much much harder to derank than it is now. If you proved you have the skill to advance, and have done it three times in different modes, odds are you belong in the skill bracket and the level of competition there unless either the bracket gets much better, or you get much worse. Semi-regular ladder resets (like most games) might address that as well.

It would make more "work" (playtime) needed to earn and re-earn a rank. But at least the rank would then be a group with similar accomplishment instead of now where it's so fluid as to mean very little about the competitors in said bracket. There would be a sense of progression each time rather than trying to hold a position against an RNG forever.
 

jsilva

Inkling Cadet
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
262
Thanks everyone for putting so much thought into the matchmaking! It's very interesting.

In some ways what is being said makes sense, although for no apparent reason I'd like to give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt and believe that they would put more effort into the matchmaking than what is being suggested :) Also, some things about it just seem too deliberate. It's still hard for me to resolve everything I've seen with what's being discussed.

OT, but what made you choose octoshot before, and what made you choose tentatek now? It's the same gun, and it seems like such a privilege to have access to octoshot....but honestly ttk just looks more fun all around!
I used the Octoshot on my former main account (which has since been deleted). I know it's basically the same gun as the Tentatek but I like it better :) I used the Tentatek the other day, and I use it on my 'new' main account, because neither of my accounts now are at level 40 and I can't get the Octoshot!
 

BlackZero

Inkling Commander
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
350
The ideal ranked system, IMO there's not just one ideal system, there's numerous ways of achieving the same end result. But I think there are some ideal attributes it must consider that it currently does not. The big one is the 3 disciplines. We have 3 ranked modes, each unique that play differently that may require different skills, individually and as a team. We have a letter rank that supposedly tells us what skill bracket we're playing with. But right now that letter represents not the combined effort of all 3 disciplines determining the actual player skill in overall play, but potentially a cherry picked skill set of just one mode of play. We don't have individual ranks for each game mode, we have overall ranks for all of them. But we don't take all of them into account. Is an S ranked player that seldom played RM and isn't very good at it REALLY an S ranked player compared to someone who can? There's a gap in their skills compared to their opponents. The current system is a better rank for deathmatch.

So the ideal system, above all, would enforce rank-level skill for all play modes before giving you an overall rank. The only simple to implement, simple to understand system would be to have sub-ranks for each game mode. The sub-ranks could be scored the same way the main rank is scored, within that skill (hopefully with the promotional ladder!) you play RM as a C+. You play, you win, you lose, etc. You get your 100 point system you do now. Congratulations, you're now still a C+ rank, but you've achieved B- in RM (or just a C+ with 100 RM points.) Now you need to do the same for SZ & TC. Once you do, you rank up to B-. in letter.
I'm not sure about that. I personally hate Rain Maker. If I had to play it until I ranked up in that mode to rank up in general, I'd be hella pissed. If I don't enjoy Rainmaker and don't want to play it, why should I have to just to improve my overall score? Give each game mode its own rank system, or implement a more sophisticated algorithm that mainly focuses on universal skill metrics like accuracy, K/D, Coverage, and include stats that are specific to each gamemode as marginal variables to create a dynamic K factor that fluctuates based on relative skill in each gamemode.

My record in RM shouldn't have an impact on my ability to rank up precisely because I avoid playing it. Ymmv, but I don't think a fair ranking system should leave people the ultimatum of "play all modes, even ones you don't like or stay C rank forever."
 

Award

Squid Savior From the Future
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
1,661
Thanks everyone for putting so much thought into the matchmaking! It's very interesting.

In some ways what is being said makes sense, although for no apparent reason I'd like to give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt and believe that they would put more effort into the matchmaking than what is being suggested :) Also, some things about it just seem too deliberate. It's still hard for me to resolve everything I've seen with what's being discussed.



I used the Octoshot on my former main account (which has since been deleted). I know it's basically the same gun as the Tentatek but I like it better :) I used the Tentatek the other day, and I use it on my 'new' main account, because neither of my accounts now are at level 40 and I can't get the Octoshot!
Well my theory about the deliberate part being a rigged game for load balancing still applies as a weighted factor. I do believe it's also rigged for one reason or another, and distribution seems the most likely.

LOL, yeah, honestly TTK looks more fun in every way. Octoshot looks too generic-weapony and yet there's that pride of having earned it that makes me like it more.... :)



I'm not sure about that. I personally hate Rain Maker. If I had to play it until I ranked up in that mode to rank up in general, I'd be hella pissed. If I don't enjoy Rainmaker and don't want to play it, why should I have to just to improve my overall score? Give each game mode its own rank system, or implement a more sophisticated algorithm that mainly focuses on universal skill metrics like accuracy, K/D, Coverage, and include stats that are specific to each gamemode as marginal variables to create a dynamic K factor that fluctuates based on relative skill in each gamemode.

My record in RM shouldn't have an impact on my ability to rank up precisely because I avoid playing it. Ymmv, but I don't think a fair ranking system should leave people the ultimatum of "play all modes, even ones you don't like or stay C rank forever."
I like Turf War mode the best of all. They should build my rank around that, but they don't! I'll give you your "average of generic skills" if you let them make TW raked! :D

Seriously, though, I don't have any issue with just keeping separate ranks for each mode. It's better than now where you get a rank that effectively says you're X rank for all competitive modes, and pairs you against X rank for all competitive modes, even if you don't play or aren't as good in all competitive modes. I haven't played much RM myself though I don't dislike it, I just worry about RM having a deeper effect on my rank (and I got tired of CTF back when it was called 3Wave in 1998 and I played competitively. This doesn't even have grappling hooks! :p) Still do I deserve my rank that shows me to be of a given skill when I have't demonstrated it in all modes? I don't think it does. Not with how it's laid out.


@Holidaze , I can't remember what thread we talked about TW matchmaking in so I'll just put it here - I had a weird TW matchmaking setup tonight while testing out the new sloshing machine. For a while I was getting lv10-35 players mostly. I was stomping them. They were mostly C+ through B rank. I was going 15/0 top ink with a weapon I know I suck with and just started with, but I was giving the weapon benefit of the doubt. This was a few lobbies. Then later I changd lobbies and it started. Lv46-50s. I got stomped. Over and over and over I went 0/8, 2/6, 1/5. Bottom ink. It was nasty. So I checked the plaza. There was me, one lone A+, 5 S's and an S+. No wonder it was brutal! It stuck me in the middle of a series of full-on S rank TW matches with a weapon I'd barely touched. I can't believe I did as well as I did! We even won several times (no thanks to me!) I switched lobbies a few times and continued getting S rank battles. TW is truly the new hardcore! And the system seems to think I'm one of the best :(

Edit: I forgot about the few rounds before that with an "A- rank" bamboozler which I'm guessing is an alt for an S or S+ player. I've never seen a bamboozler with moves or accuracy anywhere close to that. Based on the distinct sound of a bamboozler firing, I'd say he virtually never missed. Maybe 5% of shots or so didn't seem to hit with me or a teammate. He went 18/0 and the other players weren't all that scruby. The moment you were anywhere in range you were dead, and no matter where you went in warehouse, there he was. Yep, this is TW for me now ;)
 
Last edited:

squidsauce

Inkling
Joined
Jan 9, 2016
Messages
2
NNID
SWchimchar
Does anyone think ranked mode is too punishing? Like suppose you gain ten points by winning a match and lose ten points when you lose the next match, you basically lost a match worth of progress. Shouldn't it be that when you lose a match you only lose half the points that you would have got if you won the match? That way you still have a chance to gain back points plus a little more even if you won a match only to lose the next. What do you guys think?
I actually think Splatoon's ranked system is pretty good compared to others I've seen, but it's not perfect. Since you have to gain 100 points to get to the next rank, it makes sense that you gain somewhere around 10 points for winning or lose somewhere around 10 points for losing. This way, the percentage of games you have to win would have to be somewhere around 50%. This excludes some of the point modifiers based on the conditions of the match, such as losing with someone who DCed towards the beginning, resulting in a loss of 1 point. That's one of my favorite parts of the rank system, since DCed players can be an issue in team based games. I also gain less points while winning against a team with someone who DCed. From patterns I've noticed, games I've done well in have resulted in more points, while games I haven't done too well in have resulted in me gaining less points. Though, as I keep winning games, I get matched up with players in lower ranks. As I keep losing, I get matched up with players in higher ranks, which I don't understand. It hasn't affected me too much, but it's still a bit weird in my opinion.
 

Award

Squid Savior From the Future
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
1,661
Ye but for me it's just too fun to stop playing

View attachment 2577
So much this^.

"I can quit any time I want to, I just don't want to!"

It's amazing how it can keep our raging, furious, yelling at the screen ready to punch the first squid you see in the face. But you still it "yeah!" every time it asks if you want to play another round :D I guess this is what the roulette table is like.... "C'mon red! C'mon money!"
 

Award

Squid Savior From the Future
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
1,661
I actually think Splatoon's ranked system is pretty good compared to others I've seen, but it's not perfect. Since you have to gain 100 points to get to the next rank, it makes sense that you gain somewhere around 10 points for winning or lose somewhere around 10 points for losing. This way, the percentage of games you have to win would have to be somewhere around 50%. This excludes some of the point modifiers based on the conditions of the match, such as losing with someone who DCed towards the beginning, resulting in a loss of 1 point. That's one of my favorite parts of the rank system, since DCed players can be an issue in team based games. I also gain less points while winning against a team with someone who DCed. From patterns I've noticed, games I've done well in have resulted in more points, while games I haven't done too well in have resulted in me gaining less points. Though, as I keep winning games, I get matched up with players in lower ranks. As I keep losing, I get matched up with players in higher ranks, which I don't understand. It hasn't affected me too much, but it's still a bit weird in my opinion.

Nah, if someone DC's on your team and you lose because of it (and unless your opponent is a terrible team, you WILL lose because of it), you lose if not full, nearly full points. Also, in the higher ranks, it's not 10/10 win/lose, you start gaining less when you win than you lose when you lose meaning you have to win more games than you lose to tread water. Which would be fine if it didn't mean getting penalized if the machine pairs you with an imbalanced team. The current scoring probably works for real pre-made teams that practice together etc. But when you're relying on the machine to make a team getting punished so severely for a team that had no hope to win from the start, or for a disconnect isn't a great scoring system

You don't win more points or less based on personal performance. It's a team score. I imagine if you're getting more points when you do well, it's because you're the one pushing the objective, therefore the objective is pushed further and the team gets more points on a non-knockout win. When you do not do well, no one else on your team is probably pushing the objective as much (or as well) and therefore it may move enough to get the win, but not quite as far. The resulting points for a non-knockout are based on how far the objective (tower, RM, clock on SZ went. If so, and you're the team leader that's needed to more the objective, welcome to the Complainer's Circle - you're one of us, and will complain relentlessly about it when it catches up to you. Yet for some odd reason, you won't be able to STOP playing either ;)
 

Splatoon❤️

Inkling Fleet Admiral
Joined
Oct 6, 2015
Messages
535
NNID
Lbggamer
So much this^.

"I can quit any time I want to, I just don't want to!"

It's amazing how it can keep our raging, furious, yelling at the screen ready to punch the first squid you see in the face. But your still it "yeah!" every time it asks if you want to play another round :D I guess this is what the roulette table is like.... "C'mon red! C'mon money!"
Omg, relatable xD yesterday I was S+ then tower control came onto the rotation which I suck at and never win on my two least favourite maps for tower museum dalfonsino and flounder I'm now S-32 xD
 

97Stephen

Pro Squid
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Messages
146
Location
Wisconsin
Nah, if someone DC's on your team and you lose because of it (and unless your opponent is a terrible team, you WILL lose because of it), you lose if not full, nearly full points. Also, in the higher ranks, it's not 10/10 win/lose, you start gaining less when you win than you lose when you lose meaning you have to win more games than you lose to tread water. Which would be fine if it didn't mean getting penalized if the machine pairs you with an imbalanced team. The current scoring probably works for real pre-made teams that practice together etc. But when you're relying on the machine to make a team getting punished so severely for a team that had no hope to win from the start, or for a disconnect isn't a great scoring system

You don't win more points or less based on personal performance. It's a team score. I imagine if you're getting more points when you do well, it's because you're the one pushing the objective, therefore the objective is pushed further and the team gets more points on a non-knockout win. When you do not do well, no one else on your team is probably pushing the objective as much (or as well) and therefore it may move enough to get the win, but not quite as far. The resulting points for a non-knockout are based on how far the objective (tower, RM, clock on SZ went. If so, and you're the team leader that's needed to more the objective, welcome to the Complainer's Circle - you're one of us, and will complain relentlessly about it when it catches up to you. Yet for some odd reason, you won't be able to STOP playing either ;)
That's not quite true. If they Dc at the very start when it shows the teams, you will only lose only one point. If they Dc in the middle of the match, then you will lose full points. I have had this happen to me before, we lost the match but only lost one point.
 

Award

Squid Savior From the Future
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
1,661
That's not quite true. If they Dc at the very start when it shows the teams, you will only lose only one point. If they Dc in the middle of the match, then you will lose full points. I have had this happen to me before, we lost the match but only lost one point.
That's interesting and pretty cool. I've never seen that. The only times I've had someone DC at spawn was in TW, and it's only been a handful of ties. Nearly always it's mid-match. The DC'd member usually has 0/2 or 1/3 before DC'ing (rage quitting?)
 

jsilva

Inkling Cadet
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
262
That's not quite true. If they Dc at the very start when it shows the teams, you will only lose only one point. If they Dc in the middle of the match, then you will lose full points. I have had this happen to me before, we lost the match but only lost one point.
That isn't always the case. Other times it doesn't affect the point award/loss. That just happened to me actually—the other team lost a player before showing the team at spawn and my team hammered the other team and I still won 4 points (normal in S rank games). Conversely, I can remember a game when I was an A where my team lost a player before showing the team and we still won but I only won 8 points—that was really annoying. And I've lost 1, 4, or 8 points being a player down.

It also seems ridiculous to lose full points if a player on your team disconnects after the game start. In every ranked mode you can lose at any given point in the game, so being a player down in the last 10 seconds could weaken your team enough to allow for the other team to get a winning push when they otherwise wouldn't have been able to.

The point system is nonsensical.
 

DekuKitty

Pro Squid
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
105
Location
Squid Hell
NNID
SkyeHunter
Can I please reinforce the utter crap that is loosing points for connection loss. Been trying to escape out of B- hell, finally get some good games and things are looking up, boom! A few connection losses and I'm back to square one. FML.
 

Award

Squid Savior From the Future
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
1,661
I've seen a lot of dc's in TW too today...I'm not sure if it's somehow something on Nintendo's end (not sure how it can be since it's p2p) or if the internet at large is just crazy today.

I've also noticed that TW is brutal today. Nonstop S rank mayhem no matter the weapon or lobby. I've been going 0/4 to 2/6 most matches. Sometimes that's the worst on my team. Sometimes it's the best! And when it's a lobby of B's and A's, the one S player is always on the other team, and always dominating because they're better than all 4 of us on the other team. It's almost sending me into ranked again....even ranked has to be easier than that!

Does anyone think there's a correlation to a Splatfest announcement the level of brutal competitiveness (and sheer volume of high rank players online in TW) a week before?) Or am I the only one seeing this because the system hates me?
 

97Stephen

Pro Squid
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Messages
146
Location
Wisconsin
That isn't always the case. Other times it doesn't affect the point award/loss. That just happened to me actually—the other team lost a player before showing the team at spawn and my team hammered the other team and I still won 4 points (normal in S rank games). Conversely, I can remember a game when I was an A where my team lost a player before showing the team and we still won but I only won 8 points—that was really annoying. And I've lost 1, 4, or 8 points being a player down.

It also seems ridiculous to lose full points if a player on your team disconnects after the game start. In every ranked mode you can lose at any given point in the game, so being a player down in the last 10 seconds could weaken your team enough to allow for the other team to get a winning push when they otherwise wouldn't have been able to.

The point system is nonsensical.
As far as I know, losing a teammate only affects point loss, it does not affect the points that are awarded. I dislike losing full points if a teammate dc's in the middle of the match, but I agree with another person on squidboards, its hard to calculate how much that player did while they were there. If they dc'ed at spawn, it's right to only subtract 1, but they dc'ed right at the end, they have been there for most of the battle, and you should definitly lose more than one point. A system that calculates how many points you should lose depending on how long before the end they dc'ed would probably be a lot fairer. For me dc's are pretty rare though, so it doesn't bother me as much.
 

jsilva

Inkling Cadet
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
262
As far as I know, losing a teammate only affects point loss, it does not affect the points that are awarded. I dislike losing full points if a teammate dc's in the middle of the match, but I agree with another person on squidboards, its hard to calculate how much that player did while they were there. If they dc'ed at spawn, it's right to only subtract 1, but they dc'ed right at the end, they have been there for most of the battle, and you should definitly lose more than one point. A system that calculates how many points you should lose depending on how long before the end they dc'ed would probably be a lot fairer. For me dc's are pretty rare though, so it doesn't bother me as much.
I'll buy that :) Although games are won and lost in 30 seconds, on 4vs4, so why is a teammate being present for 4:30 make that last 30 seconds they were missing irrelevant? That could decide the game, unfairly.

And as far as not receiving more points for winning a 3vs4, just another reason the point system is stupid...!
 
Last edited:

97Stephen

Pro Squid
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Messages
146
Location
Wisconsin
Can I please reinforce the utter crap that is loosing points for connection loss. Been trying to escape out of B- hell, finally get some good games and things are looking up, boom! A few connection losses and I'm back to square one. FML.
I agree that losing points is annoying, but there has to be some penalty for dc'ing and leaving your teammates in the lurch, otherwise people could rage quit all the time, and that would be worse than dc's.
 

DekuKitty

Pro Squid
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
105
Location
Squid Hell
NNID
SkyeHunter
Can I please reinforce the utter crap that is loosing points for connection loss. Been trying to escape out of B- hell, finally get some good games and things are looking up, boom! A few connection losses and I'm back to square one. FML.
This is the perfect gif to describe my face when this happens, btw
 

jsilva

Inkling Cadet
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
262
More food for matchmaking thought...

Today my youngest son wasn't happy because he kept on losing. He's an A-, and has been for a few months. I felt bad because he's young, and I said I'd play on his account to get him back up 30-40 points.

And ... when I played I was repeatedly put on the weaker team, massively weaker team, all the way down to B+ 48. The opposing teams were organised, mine were not. The opposing teams splatted really well, mine not so much. It was hard to get the better of them all by myself. I had to play harder than I do in average S/S+ games just for my teams to have a chance. What hope did my young son have at winning these games? That's just mean. Then suddenly it all shifted, like a switch was flipped, and I got him back up to A- 54. I wouldn't say it was an easy winning streak but my teams were good enough to win.

Just reinforcing in my mind that something is severely broken or there is an agenda...
 

Award

Squid Savior From the Future
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
1,661
More food for matchmaking thought...

Today my youngest son wasn't happy because he kept on losing. He's an A-, and has been for a few months. I felt bad because he's young, and I said I'd play on his account to get him back up 30-40 points.

And ... when I played I was repeatedly put on the weaker team, massively weaker team, all the way down to B+ 48. The opposing teams were organised, mine were not. The opposing teams splatted really well, mine not so much. It was hard to get the better of them all by myself. I had to play harder than I do in average S/S+ games just for my teams to have a chance. What hope did my young son have at winning these games? That's just mean. Then suddenly it all shifted, like a switch was flipped, and I got him back up to A- 54. I wouldn't say it was an easy winning streak but my teams were good enough to win.

Just reinforcing in my mind that something is severely broken or there is an agenda...

So much like my experiences I felt like hitting something while reading it.... :( It's possible you just got the alt accounts rising up the ranks, there seems to be a lot of them, IMO, I keep seeing in TW people that are "C+" or "B-" or "A-" That play like, or better than, the S players I frequently encounter. I keep thinking "how could I lose so much to this guy, he's lower rank than I am!!" But I can't hit him at all, and he hits me a lot. It's been more and more frequent. With "Proper" A's I can hold my own in a balanced match. Against a team of S's I can ALMOST but not quite hold my own if well supported by a good team. Against a single S+ I'm history. I kept getting these "B-" players that acted like S and S+ players (TW) today.

There's also the issue, at least in TW, but I've seen the same in Ranked, that when there's "that one player" that dominates, the system NEVER moves that player to a different lobby. That's probably part of it. I had a string of TW games with the same Octobrush that went 12/2 almost every game. The 2 splats against came from me, and I'd end up with a team that went 0/6, 0/3, 9/3 and myself 4/4. Why would the system endlessly leave a player that's clearly not matched for the room?

Here's an interesting, and scary, thought. What if there actually IS no rank system? I.E. what if it's just an RNG grind that favors rising up the ranks if you keep grinding it? It calcluates strings of losses, strings of wins, but favors moving upward if you just grind it out as long as you don't blow it yourself with bad playing? That could explain why a lot of S players complain about really bad S players making noob mistakes, and really good players in the lower ranks. The dedicated good players are the only ones that will likely spend as much time grinding as it takes to actually get to the top, so it would give the apearance of a real rank system? That's prpobably not it, but it was a thought that popped into my head. I imagine sick mind games with RNGs from Nintendo. @Holidaze imagines orange and black beaks on inklings. We all have our fettishes. ;)

The other thought that occurred to me. These excellent players with almost perfect, inhumanly perfect aim. Especially the ones with Japanese names. How do we know they're real players and not AI bots to fill in the empty lobbies? That would explain how they're super-human. Maybe they ARE. A lot of shooters have the option to add bots for team VS. games or to fill in empty slots. What if Nintendo does it server side, but the AI is a little TOO good? Again, I doubt it, but it's a thought that crossed my mind.

Was the sudden change a new lobby, or even the same lobby?

I've been noticing more and more the lag factor. And it's getting worse and worse (we're talking, you see the ink trail draw outward for no reason, then a second later you hear and see the seeker go by, then you see the inkling splat you.)

There used to be a lot of ruckus about "The Japanese abuse the lag!" and "The lag is rigged in favor of the Japanese." There might be accidental truth to this.
I doubt the Japanese are intentionally abusing the bad netcode (maybe some players are), but more skilled players are likely to make many inputs and move in very random directions very fast, like zigzaging rollers going in an almost purely random orbit. The problem is not only does this amplify the lag issue by having that much more data to move at that much faster intervals (with possibly multiple direction changes within the latency window of a single datagram) but the bad netcode is only ok at predicting straight line movement. Direction changes aren't within it's realm of prediction so it usually gets them wrong. That's how you end up with the same person jumpinig off the same ledge 3 times when in fact they never jumped off at all and are still shooting from atop. The algorithm predicted at their rate, velocity, and direction, they'd be jumping off the ledge. It never calculated they'd zig, then zag, then circle, then shoot off the ledge. So even when you see your zigzagging opponent, jumping like a bunny, yo're only seeing the PREDICTION of where they PROOBABLY are, not where they REALLY are. I was using eliter today. Doing GREAT in a lot of rooms. 6/0, 5/1, 9/0, 11/0, 10/2. Had a fun sniper rivalry with a Japanese sniping noob where we'd just 1v1 on underpass at the start of each mission ,missing most times, squidbagging when we'd hit, and booyeahing. It was a blast when we were on the same team. Then I'd get a room where I'd keep hitting the zigzggers and bunny hoppers.... Now, I'm getting kind of decent at sniping....flick shots....I don't even release the trigger, I flick and feather it and BOOM. I'm not a GREAT sniper, but the sniping tricks of the trade are starting to become more natural (except when I fail and miss.)

But I'd keep hitting them, but no "hit sound". Numerous times. Several shots I KNEW should have hit. It felt right for a hit. Yett missed. Almost every shot missed. Then I saw some teleportation later. And it all clicked. These super players that are masters of dodging and evasion and play superhuman....they're not playing superhuman at all. They're, intentionally or not ,abusing the lag and bad netcode in a way that makes them nearly invincible to any accurate weapon!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom