The Hit Detection Toggle

[ffcmike]

There's been alot of arguing over the Hit Detection,
and not just over the last few months, but over the last few years.
My own personal preference is probably well documented, and i am aware that some people vigorously oppose it.

Now is probably not the best time to attempt to tackle this issue directly,
understandably not everyone is happy with the PWA decision and so another arguement is the last thing i want, but one thing i hope we can all civilly agree on is whether or not there should be a HD toggle for events between Clientside and Serverside.

Ignoring personal preference, my opinion towards this is that the toggle only adds to confusion, if adjusting to a Hit Detection isn't hard enough as it is surely switching between the 2 constantly makes it more frustrating, and can only have a damaging effect on events regardless on which version the toggle is set to.

My opinion may be in the minority here, and for once i'm setting up a simple yes/no poll.
If the answer is "yes, remove it", then there's a good chance a change will occur as a result.
On the other hand if the answer is "no, keep it" then obviously there's not much chance of any imediate change occuring as a result.

This might seem like a no loss poll from my point of view,
but it should be noted that over the last few days the Clientside HD itself has been switched to a supposedly more hit sensative version, this was one of the major issues people had with the former, and while maybe not perfect and even without some of the formers advantages it should be an improvement as far as the main complaint goes.

[Rufus]

Voted to keep it, even though having two hit detections is pretty ridiculous. While the constant argument is going on about hit detections, especially in a lot of the events, the players should be able to actually play like they're used to. Players shouldn't really have to worry about hit detections when trying to have fun either, if at all.

[MysticX2X]

Voted to remove it. There is no need to have 2 different HD's in events causing much confusion. I thought it was stupid of Night to have the monthly spar with serverside HD on a clientside HD outside of events (As regulars may know, outside of event levels is strictly clientside, and the monthly requires some spars outside gc levels), so yes, it does create confusion. But I'm not down to have serverside back in all honesty, but I'm interested in the more sensitive clientside.

[BlackSolider]

I voted to remove it b/c if (major if) eight people wanted to join an event, around three of them might not join b/c they dont like the HD the gc was using.

Find one HD that works the best (probably opinionated) and stick with it. People will eventually adapt if it is acceptable enough.

[Cetellic]

I don't care which HD it is, just pick one and stick with it. Other then that I'm hosting all my events in Clientside since it's the main HD in use right now.

[Unpredlctable]

i can't be the only one that thinks that the idea of having two different ****ing hit detection systems in use is the most retarded idea ever

[TESTRETIS]

Remove it.

Serverside is the least exploitable and leave it at that.

[Luda]

Keep it, but you should just erase everything and start fresh with default hd and movement. \

[-Ramirez-]

I'm curious about how serverside hit detection that actually uses the same CONCEPT that the default hit detection uses would be. I'd imagine it wouldn't be THAT different from the default, but with the security that's desirable. I'm assuming that all of the prior serverside systems didn't do it this way.

The concept I'm referring to is the use of the gani of nearby players to determine who's swinging, rather than using a trigger of any kind. Well, being serverside, you could produce an identical hit check without the use of the gani, but there's not really any reason I can think of not to. Regardless, using IDENTICAL coordinates and dimensions as the default system is the most important thing.

[Kill]

Thor, it's obvious the majority will vote to remove it because it's very stupid to have to toggle between 2 HDs, but you didn't mention that when it is removed, which HD will be dominantly used?

If you made the poll more specific, you could see which one should be used for events.
I think you're just being a bit selfish in the sense that just because you created it, you want your HD to be used, which is why you put this poll up and worded it in the light that it's very idiotic to use 2 HD's without mentioning WHY it was put up there in the first place - Clientside HD with events is unplayable and not enjoyabale at all.

I voted to keep it because I know you're trying to get it removed so that your HD is the only one we should be using.

[ffcmike]

The issue on which HD should be used is entirely different,
and there are many reasons for and against either way which need to be gone over before it can be once and for all resolved.
The point i'm trying to make here is that the HD constantly switching within and between events might be having a negative effect regardless of personal preference.

As far as Clientside HD goes,
it's been changed, and it could do with a fair chance across the entire server unaffected by the toggle business, but if it fails then ofcourse we may have to try something different whether it be the serverside HD or something else entirely new, either way it is important that we stick with one HD across the entire server.

[xnervNATx]

Originally Posted by ffcmike

The issue on which HD should be used is entirely different,
and there are many reasons for and against either way which need to be gone over before it can be once and for all resolved.
The point i'm trying to make here is that the HD constantly switching within and between events might be having a negative effect regardless of personal preference.

As far as Clientside HD goes,
it's been changed, and it could do with a fair chance across the entire server unaffected by the toggle business, but if it fails then ofcourse we may have to try something different whether it be the serverside HD or something else entirely new, either way it is important that we stick with one HD across the entire server.

and that hd is clientside

[Shadow87]

Sorry I didn't read anyones post, i just voted to remove it. One HD, thats how it was, thats how it should be, why do we have 2? Fix one, make it right, make it work, make it so everyone will like it. Is this possible? I think so , with 2 managers now stepping onto the scene, it better damn well be possible now. Actually with 2 managers now, classic better start seeing some changes TWICE AS FAST LOL

[xnervNATx]

Originally Posted by Shadow87

Sorry I didn't read anyones post, i just voted to remove it. One HD, thats how it was, thats how it should be, why do we have 2? Fix one, make it right, make it work, make it so everyone will like it. Is this possible? I think so , with 2 managers now stepping onto the scene, it better damn well be possible now. Actually with 2 managers now, classic better start seeing some changes TWICE AS FAST LOL

i voted to remove because i feel like having 2 hds is the same as having 2 managers..

[Shadow87]

*sizzle*

[BlackSolider]

Originally Posted by xnervNATx

i voted to remove because i feel like having 2 hds is the same as having 2 managers..

I'd really rather not start a stupid argument....but seriously they are nothing alike.

Having two HDs means people are divided on which one they like, divided on which one they want in events, and divided on how they react when the other is hosted.

Two managers doesn't require people to pick one or the other. Two managers doesn't require having to switch back and forth.

Even simpler, two managers can work at the same time to get something done. Two HDs cannot work at the same time.

Thus "having 2 hds is the same as having 2 managers" is a pretty dumb statement. I assume it stems from you not liking the decision to have 2 managers in the first place, which is perfectly acceptable, but isn't necessarily a good reason to not like having 2 hds.

[Ares]

Originally Posted by Luda

Keep it, but you should just erase everything and start fresh with default hd and movement. \

i like the way you think, sir.

[xnervNATx]

Originally Posted by BlackSolider

I'd really rather not start a stupid argument....but seriously they are nothing alike.

Having two HDs means people are divided on which one they like, divided on which one they want in events, and divided on how they react when the other is hosted.

Two managers doesn't require people to pick one or the other. Two managers doesn't require having to switch back and forth.

Even simpler, two managers can work at the same time to get something done. Two HDs cannot work at the same time.

Thus "having 2 hds is the same as having 2 managers" is a pretty dumb statement. I assume it stems from you not liking the decision to have 2 managers in the first place, which is perfectly acceptable, but isn't necessarily a good reason to not like having 2 hds.

wow ok sorry mister "i take graal seriously" . that was in MY opinon , i never asked for your opinion .

[Shadow87]

Yea well we'll see how well Thor and Storm work together, WE'LL SEE.

[BlackSolider]

Graal is serious buisness!!!

[maximus_asinus]

I voted to remove it, for all the reasons Thor posted.

All these systems that allow for multiple versions of X are getting to be pretty ridiculous. We need one standard hit detection, one standard tileset, etc.

[TESTRETIS]

Originally Posted by maximus_asinus

I voted to remove it, for all the reasons Thor posted.

All these systems that allow for multiple versions of X are getting to be pretty ridiculous. We need one standard hit detection, one standard tileset, etc.

One standard manager.

[maximus_asinus]

Originally Posted by TESTRETIS

One standard manager.

one standard fatty. You are giving Nighty a run for his money!

[Crono]

Fix the HD/movement then remove the toggle. Can't fix these? Then keep the toggle.

[Rufus]

To the GC's - When you've hosted events that were effected by the hit detection toggling, which seemed to be the overall preferred option?

[BlackSolider]

Neither. I can't say which was "overall preferred" since it varied from event to event. Honestly most events were somewhat hindered by the HD, no matter which it was. Though if I recall, clientside literally killed some ctfs because people were neigh un-hittable.

[MysticX2X]

Well, clientside is definately better for more 1 on 1 events, and serverside might be better for more larger events such as CTF.


Either way, I don't want to have to see next months monthly ended up being triggered between 2 HD's, so no toggability for things like that..... I can't express how dumb that was, but no complaints, right?

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by BlackSolider

Neither. I can't say which was "overall preferred" since it varied from event to event. Honestly most events were somewhat hindered by the HD, no matter which it was. Though if I recall, clientside literally killed some ctfs because people were neigh un-hittable.

Originally Posted by MysticX2X

Well, clientside is definately better for more 1 on 1 events, and serverside might be better for more larger events such as CTF.


Either way, I don't want to have to see next months monthly ended up being triggered between 2 HD's, so no toggability for things like that..... I can't express how dumb that was, but no complaints, right?

Nearly every single event I entered since the GC choice came out has used the serverside hit detection. That isn't through avoiding clientside events or anything, they just have been. I've played like two clientside CTFs, one clientside survivor, one clientside spar tournament, and that was it.

[BlackSolider]

Personally I've felt that serverside presents less problems, especially with larger events. With clientside, everyone is effected by the "no-hit" bug. With serverside, only a few ppl have the ability to reach, and it only occurs occasionally.

At least thats what I've seen. Tis why I host on serverside, though sometimes I'll throw down a vote. Results have been about 60-40 in favor of server, I think, though I'm not sure.

[Kill]

It was Glad, it was more favourable towards Serverside.
I can't believe no one other than me has noticed how Thor cheekily worded it in the light that it's stupid to have 2 HD's yet not WHY it was put in place.

Thor is obviously trying to get his own HD put back, ruining peoples' fun in the process (as Clientside is not enjoyable since it does not detect hits 80% of the time).

[MysticX2X]

Serverside was put back because certain people kept complaining to Night about "not being able to hit". It was put back and the horrors of that HD arose again. DC made it toggable so that both parties could be satisfied, not to mention the fact the server IS IN CLIENTSIDE. There is no reason why every spar tournament/spar defense should not be in clientside when the HD players have to spar in is clientside.

Though I kind of would want to be a better clientside (Which is being worked towards and has been updated on the server so I'm told), I'm not too worried about larger events rather than the spar events. The server really should follow 1 HD for everything.

[BlackSolider]

Originally Posted by ffcmike

This might seem like a no loss poll from my point of view, but it should be noted that over the last few days the Clientside HD itself has been switched to a supposedly more hit sensative version, this was one of the major issues people had with the former, and while maybe not perfect and even without some of the formers advantages it should be an improvement as far as the main complaint goes.

Thor says clientside has changed, apparently. Can we get some feedback from players? I haven't used it much so I don't know yet.

[Kill]

Whoever voted to remove it:
I hope you realise that by getting it removed - Clientside HD will be the one they'll use in events. No more choice now.

Congrats, watch how events (the only thing this server has atm) will be ruined again as a result.

[DutchGuy]

Originally Posted by Kill

Whoever voted to remove it:
I hope you realise that by getting it removed - Clientside HD will be the one they'll use in events. No more choice now.

Congrats, watch how events (the only thing this server has atm) will be ruined again as a result.

why did you use "atm" in your message? it has been the only thing for many years.

[Mark Sir Link]

Originally Posted by DutchGuy

why did you use "atm" in your message? it has been the only thing for many years.

because "atm" it is the only thing to do?

[Polo]

As I said to both Night and Dark Cloud when the system went up, toggle-able hit detection would only ever be a temporary solution and that it would not exist once an all-round enjoyable hit detection was up and running. Players should not be exposed to the inner-workings of a game onless they choose to be; exposing the HD differences like this goes against that. All the player really cares about is that when they try to fight an opponent, the combat seems fair and is enjoyable.

The major problem is that both clientside and serverside approaches will have their own unique characteristics and these will favour certain events more than others.

• Serverside hit detection gives you a very low delay between slashing your sword and the hit connecting, but there is also a delay between getting hit y an attack and starting to recoil away from it. The low attacking delay makes it easier to attack a player who is trying to run away from you, but the delay when defending means you often have to dodge early. In theory, players with a high ping should be disadvantaged as they will experience a higher delay in both their attacks and their defending. I find that the lower attack delay makes serverside HD suitable for more frantic or high paced types of fights, such as guild wars or CTF.
  
  
• Clientside hit detection on the other hand has a long delay between swinging your sword and the attack being registered on the opponents screen (literally, it's the delay until the animation of you swinging the sword appears for them), but it has no delay when being attacked. If you appear to be attacked on your own screen, then you were. The high attacking delay means you have to slash a long time in advance for the hit to register. The greater the combined ping of the fighters, the further in advance you have to attack, but this delay works both ways (so a laggy fight is harder, but neither player should have a distinct advantage). Because you have to plan your attacks in advance and you can dodge with zero delay, you have to fight tactically and try to trick the opponent into making mistakes. I find that this tactical style of fighting is well suited to one on one fights such as sparring.

And that's the problem. There will never be a method of hit detection that is perfect for everone until we all have super fast internet connections with zero latency. You can do tricks to try and hide the negative points of each approach, but ultimtely you cant completely obscure them. The key is to try and be 'fun enough' on as much as possible, rather than being excellent at a few things and unplayable on all the rest.

If and when the toggle is removed, the HD will be whatever is the 'overall' most enjoyable for the server. I don't particularly care if it's serverside, clientiside or a hybrid approach; providing a setup that players enjoy is the main concern for me.

[BlackSolider]

Well said.

[Shadow87]

I mean, all im sayin is, is that UN players rarely have any complaints on their HD. Do they all have super fast internets?

[ffcmike]

One possible solution Ben Rain has suggested on RC is to use a combination of the 2.
This would involve a normal Clientside HD running, aswell as additional serverside hitboxes to hit those who are lagging so significantly that they remain lagspiked on the same coordinate for a certain amount of time, for example when the hitbox is first dropped, and something like 0.5 - 1 second(s) afterwards.

I wasn't too fond of the idea at first,
but it just might work.
It would mean that it becomes possible to be hit from what would appear to be long distances again,
but only if and when you hit a spike which would normally mean you are impossible to hit with entirely Clientside detection, anybody with either a fast or slow/delayed but reliable connection would not be affected by this.

[-Ramirez-]

Wow, the problem really isn't as big of a deal as people are making of it. Lag exists. Deal with it.

Classic, for the longest time, used the default hit detection before the NPC server existed. You NEVER heard demands for it to be rescripted in any way whatsoever. It obviously had its flaws as well, mostly the result of... *GASP* LAG! People learned to play with it, myself included.

The solution is as simple as coding something that's identical to the default in terms of operation and let the lag play out as it's GOING TO ANYWAY. The only thing wrong here is that nobody has SCRIPTED IT LIKE THE DEFAULT. Why? Don't ask me. Clearly they're superior and can "make it better", I guess.