Re: "hitbox glitching"

**MrJengles** · 09-28-2009, 03:43 PM

I agree with Reminshi: the hitboxes already go spaz the moment you do anything sudden. You can be shot around a corner, or survive grenades in entirely unrealistic ways. The game engine is no where near perfect, and no one wants to ban every sudden movement -so no proning or sprinting around corners at all- because they cause some unrealistic things to happen. The game engine is just messed up, ok?

Also, no one's proved that bunny flopping specifically causes a glitch, so how can we ban it for that? If anything, it really will be the unrealistic side, so as Zho stated, let's call that the reason to ban it, until there is evidence to suggest another reason.

Besides, as SilentSunshine pointed out, these things arn't as clear cut as bunny hopping. People will just end up saying something vague like "he got up twice in succession" or they'll say "he got up twice within 5 seconds" and then the other person will say, "no it was 6"... how on earth could this be EASY to admin? I feel it'd just be over admining the game and trying to turn something that clearly isn't perfect, into some simulation that it really isn't designed to be.

Sure, the primer makes the games better, but it is within the limitations of the game engine. If you want something that has very, very rare unrealistic moments, then really, a game designed to be a simulation makes more sense! If this can't be articulated and enforced in an easy manor like Zoraster said, then it really just doesn't work well with BF2142. You can't turn a game into something entirely different, and that's a good reason why.

**Aumen1** · 09-28-2009, 03:59 PM

The way I see it (my 2cents, IMO), snipers are at a disadvantage to begin with; for one the game mechanics do not allow them to lean or peer view etc, etc. Most importantly however, they are Snipers and are very defenseless to rocket spam, huh rocket spam, maybe we should ban that too. Furthermore and in-respect to flopping, hopping etc, just shoot for their head, that "hitbox" does not seem to change in shape/morph/move etc, and you get the added bonus of it being simply good practice and fun. Finally remember we can only make this so real therefore if people want to pee into the on-coming blast wind let them, they are getting the worst of it.

**Fruvous** · 09-28-2009, 04:02 PM

There are easy ways to enforce this. As it is, TG admins rely heavily on the honour code for bunny hopping, excessive teamkilling, etc. It shouldn't be any different for bunnyflopping.

There is a problem that needs to be addressed, which is bunny-flopping. In actuallity, it is only a problem if bunny-flopping is recurring. We can use this quantifier to ensure that a bunny-flopper doesn't do much damage. By no means does the report have to be immediate, as long as it is addressed.

Unacceptable: "Hey, this guy prone-dived in combat! REPORTING Mr.Floppy McFlopflop for bunnyflopping mcflopflop".

Acceptable: "Hey, I've fought this guy several times. Every time, he's bunny flopped, and I find it disruptive to my game experience and the TG primer. REPORTING Mr.Floppy McFlopFlop for bunny flopping."

The only question that needs to be asked is, what is the acceptable quantifier? Three engagements? Two rounds? One day? Zero tollerance? Personally, I am happiest with reporting after three engagements.

edit response to above post:
Well, there is a reason why snipers aren't used much. Because they are at a disadvantage, and the only way they can really stand up to assault in midrange is if they crackjump.
Snipers see little action because of map design.. most battles occur in midrange to CQB. We should not cater to snipers simply because there is a lack of long-ranged combat infantry maps.

**LordKelvin** · 09-28-2009, 04:04 PM

I really don't see how the definition or identification of bunny flopping is unclear. Just like bunnyhopping is repeatedly jumping on open ground to avoid fire without trying to get to cover, bunnyflopping is proning multiple times in a row in the same manner. And based on that, if bunnyhopping is not allowed, neither should bunnyflopping. I fail to see any way that this isn't clear.

**BigMcLarge** · 09-28-2009, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

I fail to see any way that this isn't clear.

Neither do I. Clear as crystal in my opinion.

**MrJengles** · 09-28-2009, 04:28 PM

Bunny hopping = didn't jump over anything but still jumped.

Bunny flopping = went prone, got up, went prone...
1-"except that is allowed"
2-"except it isn't in rapid succession"
1-"but I did it within an allowed period of time"

either
2-"but we havn't got a time on it"
or
2-"damn I didn't use a stopwatch..."

**Fruvous** · 09-28-2009, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by MrJengles

Bunny flopping = went prone, got up, went prone...
1-"except that is allowed"
2-"except it isn't in rapid succession"
1-"but I did it within an allowed period of time"

The conversation would be more like this
2-"You've been bunny flopping for half an hour, and it needs to stop"
That's what the warnings are for: Telling people that they've done something wrong. The soldier stops bunnyhopping/flopping/lonewolfing, everyone gets to play some fun TG.
There are ways to work with players, instead of working against them.

There are ways to quantify it.

I mean, seriously, a few bunny flop isn't bad. It's not a problem. It's not going to raise any eyebrows. Most importantly, it's likely to be an isolated incident. No admining is necessary if it won't happen again.

Half an hour of bunny hopping is bad. It's going to happen again. It's a problem. The very least is, the soldier should be told that he's doing smoething wrong.

Like I said earlier.
Like with any other report, the intention for bunny-flopping should be clear
People don't really report "fighting commanders" if they werent sure he was fighting.

edit:
Disagree with the below post..
It's ignorant, premature, and immature to call someone a bunnyflopper for doing it once.

I think it's important to treat pubbies like they are TG.
Hypothetically....
Would you report |TG| Zhohar for a single instance of bunny hopping? Of course not. He didn't give us adequate reason to believe he's a problem.
Would you report |TG| Zhohar for bunny hopping if he kept it up? Sure.

The same respect should be given to everyone who comes to our server.

Zero tolerance requires too much micromanagement and energy. And really? It will make TG look more like a corrupt fascist police-force than a friendly community. It already has an elitist connotation, what with the IHS, locked squads, reserved slots for supporting members, etc. Being so overbearing is hardly a solution and would generate problems.

It's a game. People play to have fun.

**LordKelvin** · 09-28-2009, 04:39 PM

Anyone who tries to justify their breaking of the rules in such a manner should be kicked for backsass.

Honestly, just use common sense. The visual difference between bunnyflopping and anything else is significant. When a guy is strafe diving around to avoid your fire in the open, even once, it warrants a report. Anyone calling up technicalities to defend themselves declares themselves guilty.

**Zoraster** · 09-28-2009, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

Anyone who tries to justify their breaking of the rules in such a manner should be kicked for backsass.

Honestly, just use common sense. The visual difference between bunnyflopping and anything else is significant. When a guy is strafe diving around to avoid your fire in the open, even once, it warrants a report. Anyone calling up technicalities to defend themselves declares themselves guilty.

And yet this contradicts your own definition you've offered:

"... bunnyflopping is proning multiple times in a row in the same manner [as bunny hopping]"

So I don't think this is exactly a clear articulation of the rule we want. If you want that rule, fine although I'm not sure it even is a full articulation.* But you can't also make it say, "he hits the ground once to avoid your fire in the open and he should be reported." Your definition says multiple. Once isn't multiple times. Therefore, there's some disconnect.

Do you see why things aren't nearly as clear as you make them out to be?

Let's further distinguish bunny hopping from bunny flopping. If someone jumps even once to avoid fire in a way that isn't to get over an obstacle or get behind cover, they're bunny hopping. In contrast, most people seem to feel that hitting the ground once when fired at to avoid fire seems perfectly reasonable. So again, things aren't nearly as clear as you've made them out to be.

*For example, say someone tried to rush an area by going prone, sprinting until his sprint is up, prone to recharge a second, sprint until charged, etc. Even if he's not under cover, that seems perfectly reasonable, although it's probably not the wisest course of action.

EDIT: I'm not sure we're all even on the same page. For example, I think there's a variety of opinions on whether, in close quarters if you have a shotgun, run through someone, prone, and then shoot whether you're bunny flopping. To be honest, other than the annoying sniper thing, this is the most effective use of using prone that I've seen.

EDIT 2: Let's be clear here. This isn't yet a rule. So there should be no one claiming others are "just trying to defend their actions" or whatever. They haven't done anything against the rules yet, so there should be no one who acts like they've been breaking the rules all along.

**SharinganTH1422** · 09-28-2009, 05:40 PM

Well since this is closest to the bunny hopping rule, let's look at how it's worded:

3) No Bunny hopping / Crack Jumping

Bunny hopping and crack jumping are terms we use to describe ANY jump or series of jumps that you wouldn't see in real-world combat.

Things that DO NOT break any rules

1. Jumping to navigate terrain. A good example of this would be jumping over the railroad tracks on Camp Gibraltar.
2. Jumping to get behind cover.
3. Jumping to increase the range of a toss (grenade, RDX, mines, PDS, etc)
4. Jumping to get on a ladder.

Things that DO break the rules

1. jumping to avoid incoming fire
2. jumping to make yourself a more difficult to hit target
3. jumping around corners in anticipation of hostile fire

So let's see if we can find the right wording for a possible "no bunny-flopping" rule:

3) No Bunny flopping

Bunny flopping is a term used to describe a maneuver where a player continually dives/prones, then rises to a standing/crouched position in quick succession, in a way that wouldn't be seen in real-world combat.

Things that DO NOT break any rules

1. Proning once in the hope of breaking the line of sight of an enemy firing upon you.
2. Proning to get behind cover.
3. Proning to make yourself a small target before you fire your weapon, OR while figuring out where to go next.

Things that DO break the rules

1. Proning, then rising quickly, and repeating this a number of times within a short space of time to avoid incoming fire without attempting to break the line of sight.

Will obviously need to be changed, but I think it's on the right lines, no?

**Lorax74** · 09-28-2009, 05:49 PM

My post was to raise awareness with a personal issue that I have which is seriously hurting the game for me and it also served as a gauge to see how the community feels. However, it was not meant to have people discuss changes to the rules, our policy remains the same: any discussions you want to have regarding changes to the rules should happen in the contact an admin forum (unless an admin says otherwise).

**Zoraster** · 09-28-2009, 05:50 PM

That's certainly not a bad start.

It's a hard line to walk, Lorax. Once you get people started by implying there may be a rule change in the future in a post, it's hard to contain it so that there's not much discussion on a rule change.

Admins make the rules, that's obvious. But I would think that this would be potentially fairly helpful.

**SharinganTH1422** · 09-28-2009, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by Lorax74

My post was to raise awareness with a personal issue that I have which is seriously hurting the game for me and it also served as a gauge to see how the community feels. However, it was not meant to have people discuss changes to the rules, our policy remains the same: any discussions you want to have regarding changes to the rules should happen in the contact an admin forum (unless an admin says otherwise).

Just that the discussion seemed to be moving towards "how would a possible rule be worded", and I think that's the only way for it to move forward since we can't really come to a decision on the matter till we're pretty much sure of what the wording of the rule might be if implemented.

**BigMcLarge** · 09-28-2009, 06:31 PM

Honestly Lorax, I kind of assumed that this thread was started as a gauge of community opinion in response to posts in the Contact an Admin forum. I for one posted there awhile back on this very issue, and thought maybe this was the next step in a potential rule change/modification.

**LordKelvin** · 09-28-2009, 06:36 PM

To at least clear up the discrepancy in my suggestion that Zoraster pointed out:

My 'definition' of bunnyflopping, and the suggested wording of a rule, stands as I first posted it. If that was to become a rule like the one against bunnyhopping, I wanted to clarify my position that reporting of it should be proactive... better to report and be wrong than not report. Hence the 'even once' remark.

Also, I am posting as if it were a rule, however, I am fully aware it is not, I was merely speaking in the active present to indicate what I feel should be said and done in the case the admin team does implement a rule against it.

Thread Tools

Display