Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文(簡体字中国語)
繁體中文(繁体字中国語)
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština(チェコ語)
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia(インドネシア語)
Magyar(ハンガリー語)
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português(ポルトガル語-ポルトガル)
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română(ルーマニア語)
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
thank god. You wouldn't see any sort of fbi irl run down a hall or shoot while leaning to the left and right rapidly. this isnt the matrix.
Given how CS works as a whole crouch spamming was a lot less of an issue. You don't have leaning and you have movement penalties on accuracy so the game as such is a lot more stationary in firefights. Crouch or standing are the only two stances you have to worry about. In R6 the issue is with the many possible combinations changing in rapid succession.
the reason? your hitbox wasnt up to sync with your playermodel, so even though on your screen you hit their head the head hitbox was somewhere else, that is a really big issue
cs 1.6 had that problem too
if were counting in cs 1.6, that means it took valve even longer to fix that problem
in siege the hitboxes dont become out of sync, you become harder to hit and thats it
its still a problem, and ubisoft is it done
yes there are one of many solutions to fix crouch spamming, but what is harder to find out is which one is the best for siege
its another case of just because its in this game, doesnt mean it will work in this game, that means they cant just slap on a piece of code and expect it to work, they need actual communication and testing
the reason? they say a lot of people cant run above 128 fps, and csgo is really easy to run
same will apply to siege, there are plenty of people who run below 128 fps, so they will be at disadvantage
it sucks but thats basically pay to win
except your not paying ubisoft, your paying hardware companies
Basically it will be better on the long run.
For example on BF4 the 128hz servers got a far smooth hit reg, than the 60hz ones on my experience.
position
running at 60fps will mean you are pretty much seeing half of what the server sees
people with above 60hz monitors is already at slight advantage, but having 128 tick servers will give them even more of an advantage, meaning they will see more "ticks" than you do just because they coughed up the money
so if you have a 60hz monitor and the other guy has a 144hz, you are seeing about half of what the other guy is seeing
higher tickrate doesnt mean you will still be able to do that
having a higher tickrate just means the server is updating faster, and that will eat a lot of hardware usage up, but i see what you mean
ubisoft has to weigh their options, adding 128 tick servers to make hitreg more smooth and make positioning better, at the cost of giving higher refresh-rate players even more of an advantage
or not to add 128 tick servers, maintaining a more balanced game at the cost of having hitreg being more choppy and have positioning be worse
ubisoft could probably fix the one side broken barricades now without 128hz tick servers, but i dont know whats stopping them
Probably due a problem with their spaghetti code, they couldn't put them server sided without broking multiple stuff at the same time.
Anyways I still believe 128hz servers will be good on the long run,for the game longevity & will make hit reg more smooth.
Also by 2025 when Ubi will reach their 100 operators, in-game goal. Hardware to get 128 fps or more in this game should be cheaper, unless they give us for "free" a whole game engine update, like Valve is planning to do with the Source 2 engine & CSGO.