Re: "hitbox glitching"

**Zhohar** · 09-28-2009, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

Unless you've gone and done it yourself you have no moral high ground

I don't claim it. I'm saying that we shouldn't be agreeing with popular opinion without investigating it. That's what the OP was about, too.

If we're banning people on the basis of this: shouldn't there be some simple truth to it?

I understand simulation rules, and I'm grateful for them. But if we're going to call it a glitch, it's right that we show when, how, where, and why.
Objectively looking at this: it's like everyone just agreed that it definitely is a game engine exploit, and everyone else went along.

Let's stop going along. If we'll ban it outright for our simulation rules alone, then let's say that outright too.

But if we'll call it a glitch, let's put at least something behind it.

**LordKelvin** · 09-28-2009, 12:33 AM

Ok, I suppose that's a bit more clear now that you explained it, however I think you are mistaken that the vast majority agreed with flopping being glitching. Reading through the other thread, most of the dissents were on the grounds of simulation and realism, just like bunnyhopping.

That is my opinion as well. Even if it does or doesn't mess with the hitboxes, if we can crack down on it for another offense, the glitching aspect is for practical purposes irrelevant.

**Zhohar** · 09-28-2009, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

I think you are mistaken that the vast majority agreed with flopping being glitching

if it does or doesn't mess with the hitboxes, if we can crack down on it for another offense, the glitching aspect is for practical purposes irrelevant.

I'm not talking about a specific instance: I'm addressing the entire set of actions. If we say that some action is an exploit of the game engine, then we should have something to back that up.

**JumpBackJack** · 09-28-2009, 02:56 AM

Originally Posted by Zhohar

I'm not talking about a specific instance: I'm addressing the entire set of actions. If we say that some action is an exploit of the game engine, then we should have something to back that up.

Then why dont we arrange some experiments?

Lets get on a sever and try to glitch. Methodically go through the weapons and figure this out. It would be great to have somebody sniffing packets that knew what was up.

Get somebody to shoot at the same spot and have a another person bunnyflop. A whole squad flopping in front of another one....

Do it with same team, and opposites.

You could probably get several squads to do this to test if its related to the number of people on the server.

Do it with an orbital, emp, walker shooting etc...... It would probably make great Battle footage......

**HellHarry** · 09-28-2009, 10:51 AM

Zho I've played enough shooter in my life to know that the hit box normally go insane if you make fast movement (jumping, going prone, zig-zagging, crouch spamming,...). The hit box doesn't move as the model you see in game so if you see the model doesn't mean the hit box is there. I don't see it as a glitch but more as a way the game is. For me the bunny flopping is more of a simulation issue on the same level of bunny hopping. If it was ban on a glitch level, then zig-zagging and crouch spam should get it too.

For the lag reason, you should know that the way 2142 is programmed is that if I shoot at you and my comp registered a hit then it's a hit. There is no communication with the main server on that level so lag is not part of it as a big monster as it can be on other game where the server needs to decide if it hit's or not.

For the built in failure of the gun, it's more ticket lost then anything. that's the reason shotgun get's really messy. If you lose your shotgun shot packet then it's a big 0 but if you lose one of the ten packet of your 10 voss shot then you will most likely kill the guy anyway. Their is some gun like the Herzog that have a crappy programming where they take a bit of cocaine and then do 0

**Lorax74** · 09-28-2009, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Zhohar

If we're banning people on the basis of this: shouldn't there be some simple truth to it?

Banning people for what? Bunny hopping? Or bunny flopping? Or something else?

Originally Posted by Zhohar

I'm not talking about a specific instance: I'm addressing the entire set of actions. If we say that some action is an exploit of the game engine, then we should have something to back that up.

What are you really discussing here, if hit boxes can be manipulated in such a way as to cause a glitch and/or exploit a game engine flaw or are you trying to establish a defense for bunny flopping?

**Zoraster** · 09-28-2009, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Lorax74

Banning people for what? Bunny hopping? Or bunny flopping? Or something else?

What are you really discussing here, if hit boxes can be manipulated in such a way as to cause a glitch and/or exploit a game engine flaw or are you trying to establish a defense for bunny flopping?

I would think his point is pretty obvious. The discussion of bunny flopping was that a major reason to ban it is because it messes with hit boxes (that was the discussion, not necessarily the reason for admins to do so).

Therefore, Zhohar is asking, "does it ACTUALLY mess with hit boxes, or are you guessing?" If you're just guessing, then it seems a weak reason to ban bunny flopping. If you can prove it, THEN you can assert it's a good reason to ban bunny flopping.

I don't see why this would be a particularly difficult concept. I'm ambivalent (NOT indifferent, ambivalent) about banning it for other reasons, possibly coming out on the side of being in favor of a ban. But when we discuss rules and so forth, it's good to have our premises correct or our conclusions will be all messed up.

**Crux** · 09-28-2009, 12:57 PM

I think it is irrelevant. It needs to be banned because it is no different from bunnyhopping.

And that goes as well for snipers who go stand-crouch-prone-crouch-stand-prone etc etc and pop off shots in the middle. It's stupidity.

**Reminshi** · 09-28-2009, 01:12 PM

There is no actions in this game that can cause a hitbox glitch, the hitbox as it is is a glitch. So in reality it is happening all the time.

If you shoot at a guy who prones 0.50 second after you shoot, there is still a chance that you will hit him. Same thing goes if he manage to escape and crush a corner, perhaps you will still hit him.

If you are making a rule that has something to do with the hitbox, than you should litteraly kick all players from the server, because it is the whole game engines fault; it is rubish.

How can you exploit a game engine that exploits you?

**SilentSunshine** · 09-28-2009, 01:19 PM

I think it is of utmost relevance. If there is no real glitching involved you are not exploiting the game. For starters, it's unlike bunny-hopping in that hopping is so clear-cut in comparison. Is one instance of going prone/getting up going to get you called out for it? Or, who is going to watch and make sure someone does not do it *gasp* twice in a few moments?

I don't bunny-flop as a practice, but I often find that as I go down the situation or my objective has changed, so I do get right back up. Forcing me to stay down for a certain length of time after I go prone, unless it was for some such reason as giving my hitboxes a moment to catch up, would be overly restrictive, in my opinion.

**BigMcLarge** · 09-28-2009, 01:47 PM

For those that have seen instances of what we're referring to as 'Bunny Flopping', there is no question of the difference between someone going prone, standing back up and running, and maybe going prone again after a small period of time..........and bunny flopping. Just like bunnyhopping, where if I see someone jump one time as a reaction to getting fired upon, I will typically not worry about it. Sometimes it just happens. If I see someone go prone, then get back up and move, fine.

It's when it becomes an obvious and intentional tactic to continuously move your player both vertically and horizontally at the same time as rapidly as possible to avoid fire. You can do this by either jumping, or going prone, and the end result it basically the same.

There are not a lot of players that I have seen that are fluid at it, so so far there are not a lot of instances of it. My concern is that if we don't nip it right now, lots of other players will see the few that are really good at it doing it, will practice it, and then it will be running rampant on our server.

As to whether it's actually glitching or not doesn't matter to me one way or the other. It's a cheap, unrealistic tactic.....period.

**Crux** · 09-28-2009, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by SilentSunshine

I think it is of utmost relevance. If there is no real glitching involved you are not exploiting the game. For starters, it's unlike bunny-hopping in that hopping is so clear-cut in comparison. Is one instance of going prone/getting up going to get you called out for it? Or, who is going to watch and make sure someone does not do it *gasp* twice in a few moments?

Uh. We would look at it the same way we do bunnyhopping. If you're flopping around ont he ground over and over again you're bunnyflopping. If you go prone once, then get up and run you're not. It is pretty clear cut.

I don't bunny-flop as a practice, but I often find that as I go down the situation or my objective has changed, so I do get right back up. Forcing me to stay down for a certain length of time after I go prone, unless it was for some such reason as giving my hitboxes a moment to catch up, would be overly restrictive, in my opinion.

To my knowledge nobody is going to force you to do anything. If you go prone, then jump up and run that's one thing. We're talking about people going prone repeatedly basically as quickly as they can spam it.

**SilentSunshine** · 09-28-2009, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Crux

If you go prone, then jump up and run that's one thing. We're talking about people going prone repeatedly basically as quickly as they can spam it.

Ok, I'm glad to hear you say that. I suppose I'm just a tad freaked out because of one person a few nights ago trying to "report" a player for prone spamming when I had just been engaged with them and they were certainly not spamming.

Originally Posted by BigMcLarge

For those that have seen instances of what we're referring to as 'Bunny Flopping', there is no question of the difference between someone going prone, standing back up and running, and maybe going prone again after a small period of time..........and bunny flopping.

Yes-ok. Annoying it is. Again, my fear is mostly that (especially in CQC) zealous people will be reporting players who use, without abusing, the prone position. It could be an objective rule at best. Unless there is a real hitbox factor, in which case it must become -at the minimum- a gentleman's agreement point. I feel that if the big proners are those under attack today... the smaller ones may be next.

**Fruvous** · 09-28-2009, 03:10 PM

I agree that bunny-flopping should be a little more lax.. however I do think it should be enforced. Like with any other report, the intention for bunny-flopping should be clear. Problem prone-spammers? Go ahead. A single bunny-flop? Wait until it's obvious that the player's strategy clearly includes bunny-flopping.

Why is bunny-flopping bad though? While it is ugly, my true disagreement with it is that it skews game balance. Bunny flopping gives a soldier extra time that they wouldn't have. It causes soldiers to miss under completely normal circumstances. If it's allowed, then the game is skewed.

Crackshooting in one such mechanic that skews balance to new levels. There is absolutely no reason a half-decent assault kit should have trouble engaging a sniper in open ground when the sniper is clearly in the assault's optimal engagement range. Game designers obviously didn't design snipers to run like a bunny-flopping 90damage-per-shot mid-ranged assault class. It's also so ugly that it would make Mr.Game-and-Watch sick (sorry Mr.Game and Watch, you're awesome).

Hey, if crackjumping isn't banned, then why not get 48 people to go recon and we'll have a day of crack-jumping snipers? Boy, that will be a fun day.

Obviously, there's a problem, otherwise there wouldn't be threads. Also the community seems to disagree with excessive bunnyflopping.
I don't know, the choice seems pretty clear - evidence or no evidence on the glitchy-factor.
If it does turn out that bunny-flopping isn't glitchy and no ban is placed, then why not unban bunny-hopping?
If bunny-flopping isn't banned because there is no glitch, then bunny-hopping shouldn't because there is no glitch.

**Zoraster** · 09-28-2009, 03:43 PM

The reason I'm ambivalent about bunnyflopping is that I have yet to see a clear, concise definition of bunnyflopping that would get a w/k/b.

I've seen people say, "well, we wouldn't want to ban you if you did X in this instance" and "we'd like to ban you if you did Y in this instance," but that 's pretty crappy rule making. You can't make a rule by giving examples of things. It just asks for there to be more questions, "well, what about in THIS situation? and THIS situation?" Examples should be elaboration on a rule, they should not be the rule themselves.

Until I see a rule articulated in a way that is easy for everyone to know what exactly we DO want to ban, I think I have to be against banning it.

So try to write a one or two sentence concise definition of the type of bunny flopping we'd want to ban, and I think that might be more fruitful for discussion.

Thread Tools

Display