- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
That made me laugh. :)
Which is harder - sniping a moving target from across the map or sniping a moving target from across the map without using the scope? Obviously the latter.
1. If you would read my post that's a few posts above that one, you would realize that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make.
2. I never said anything about across the map.
3. My point was, at mid-range, a lot of the time it is easier to no-scope than to use 2x scope, because as you zoom out more, the hitbox on your target gets bigger. Don't believe me? Test it.
The technical term is auto-aim, not reticle magnetism.
People use the term "auto-aim" to describe both reticle magnetism and hitboxes. I think we should distinguish between the two, because calling them both auto-aim can get confusing, like it already has in this topic.
if your zoomed in there is auto aim with the sniper, try zooming and aiming just above someone, it hits.
same with the pistol
whatever you want to call it, bullets from the sniper and pistol go towards enemies when slightly off them in halo pc.
That's one way to describe what I would call hitboxes. This is exactly why I think we should distinguish between reticle magnetism and hitboxes. In Halo PC, there is no reticle magnetism, but there are hitboxes. I think the best way to describe hitboxes would be that the game gives you a certain margin of error (it's different for each weapon, and it's measured in degrees). Take the hitbox for the head, for example. If you're using the sniper (let's say you have 0 ping), you can hit within a certain distance from the center of the head, and it will still count as a headshot.
When you scope in with the sniper, the hitbox stays the same in relation to your screen, and thus the hitbox of however many degrees is covering a smaller area (seriously, try to picture this one in your head). Zooming out actually does make the hitbox bigger in relation to your target. Get it?
[Edited on 10/21/2006]