康托展开式在排列组合的英勇_英勇的射击有一个根本缺陷-CSDN博客

康托展开式在排列组合的英勇

When Valorant was first announced, I was initially put off; it came across to me as highly derivative mostly due to the art design (it looked vaguely Dreamworks/Pixar-esque). I was underwhelmed. My immediate reaction might simply be due to the exponential increase in games that look like this — maybe it’s some kind of aesthetic fatigue. Remember when pixel art was (or arguably still is) all the rage?

当Valorant首次宣布时，我最初被推迟了。 在我看来，它是高度派生的，主要归功于艺术设计(它看起来像DreamFactory/皮克斯风格)。 我不知所措。我的直接React可能只是由于像这样的游戏呈指数级增长-也许是某种审美疲劳。还记得当像素艺术风靡一时(或可以说仍然如此)的时候吗？

Chronologically, this was how the style was popularised over time: Team Fortress 2, Overwatch, Fortnite, & everything else. — Chronologically, this was how the style was popularised over time: Team Fortress 2 > Overwatch > Fortnite > Everything else.

But constant chattering from my friend about the game convinced me to check it out and see what it really offered. Sure enough, it got me pumped! I mean, just consider the following:

但是我的朋友不断地谈论这款游戏，这使我确信可以检查一下这款游戏，然后看看它真正提供了什么。果然，它让我兴奋不已！我的意思是，请考虑以下几点：

A free-to-play title from Riot Games themselves?
免费游戏 防暴游戏本身的头衔？
Runs well across almost all kinds of potato computers?
在几乎所有类型的马铃薯计算机上都能很好地运行？
Server establishment across many regions, including India?
在包括印度在内的许多地区建立服务器？
‘Lagless’ online gameplay experience?
“无懈可击”的在线游戏体验？

The last point especially caught my attention.

最后一点特别引起了我的注意。

Even so, I remained silent — I didn’t want my skepticism to destroy my friend’s excitement for the game. In the end though, I still purchased it based on its promise.

即便如此，我仍然保持沉默-我不想让我的怀疑破坏我朋友对游戏的兴奋。最后，我仍然根据诺言购买了它。

The first week of June arrived slowly. We were getting bored out of our minds playing Rainbow Six: Siege. When Valorant was finally released, we didn’t hesitate to install it. And already, I began to like what I saw:

6月的第一周到来很慢。我们在玩《彩虹六号：围攻》时感到无聊。当Valorant最终发布时，我们毫不犹豫地安装了它。而且，我已经开始喜欢我所看到的：

The user interface was slick, comprehensive, and navigable.
用户界面光滑，全面且可导航。
The training grounds allowed me to explore all the characters’ powers instead of forcing me to wait until I unlock them. This allowed me to identify which characters I felt comfortable playing as before I unlocked them.
训练场使我能够探索所有角色的力量，而不必强迫我等到解锁它们。这样一来，我就可以识别出像解锁那些角色之前感到舒服的角色。
The graphic art presented throughout was impressive.
整个展览中的图形艺术令人印象深刻。
The gameplay itself is basically Counter-Strike with superpowers. It wasn’t special as such, but it’s a good blend of ideas. It was as I expected, but playing with certain guns felt nice for the first few matches.
游戏本身基本上是具有超能力的反恐精英。这样并不是很特别，但它是思想的很好融合。这是我所期望的，但是在前几场比赛中使用某些枪支感觉很好。
The game allowed me to customize my crosshairs! It was a bundle of laughs for a while.
游戏允许我自定义十字准线！有一阵子的笑声。

Although all of these factors should make it sound like the game is great, I ran into two issues that justified uninstalling it. Bear in mind that neither of these are related to the past controversies surrounding the game (if you’re curious about those, check out the references I’ve included at the end of this article).

尽管所有这些因素都听起来像游戏很棒，但是我遇到了两个问题，有理由将其卸载。请记住，这些都与过去围绕游戏的争议无关(如果您对此感到好奇，请查看我在本文结尾处提供的参考文献)。

有什么缺陷？ (What is the flaw?)

As an aside, the subsequent removal of the reference to the “lagless” experience is curious, given the developers proudly marketed it at first. My very different experience could certainly not be described as lagless. This was actually my first reason to uninstall it.

顺便说一句，鉴于开发人员起初很自豪地将其营销，因此随后删除对“无聊”体验的引用是很好奇的。我截然不同的经历当然不能描述为无懈可击。这实际上是我卸载它的第一个理由。

But the nail in the coffin was a key — and fatal — design flaw:

但是棺材上的钉子是关键的(也是致命的)设计缺陷：

Valorant isn’t a great first-person shooter to begin with.

首先，Valorant并不是出色的第一人称射击游戏。

It’s not that I never enjoyed the experience. But even when I did enjoy it, I actively wondered if I was simply bad at the game. I spent some time adjusting numerous values in the settings menu in an attempt to make the experience feel workable.

不是我从来没有享受过这种经历。但是即使我确实喜欢它，我仍然积极地想知道我是否只是在游戏中表现不好。我花了一些时间在设置菜单中调整许多值，以使体验变得可行。

Also, I never faced issues with certain mechanics — like using powers. I am pretty good with them in general. For instance, Phoenix, who can control fire, has a defensive attack called Curveball, which blinds any enemy players looking at it when it explodes. It’s a pretty complex attack to execute — half of players end up blinding everyone when using it — but I’ve never had any trouble with it.

另外，我从未遇到过某些机制上的问题-例如使用力量。总的来说，我对他们很好。例如，可以控制火力的菲尼克斯有一个名为Curveball的防御性攻击，当其爆炸时，它会掩盖任何看着它的敌方玩家。这是一种非常复杂的攻击-使用过程中有一半的玩家最终会蒙蔽所有人-但我从来没有遇到任何麻烦。

The conclusion I drew from this was that the only issue I was having was around the shooting.

我从中得出的结论是，我唯一遇到的问题就是枪击事件。

It’s surprising to see that nobody I knew ran into issues around shooting. Only me. It couldn’t be that they didn’t identify it because the overarching experience of the game — which contains more than just shooting mechanics — tends to blur the problem, or make it more opaque.

令人惊讶的是，我认识的人都没有遇到拍摄方面的问题。只有我。可能不是因为他们没有识别出它，因为游戏的总体体验(不仅包含射击技巧)还趋于模糊问题，或使其变得更加不透明。

So, going back to my earlier comment: Valorant isn’t a good first-person shooter to begin with. I know, it’s a bold statement. But after a month of playing the game, I’ve concluded that the developers just didn’t get the shooting mechanics right.

因此，请回到我之前的评论：首先，Valorant并不是一个好的第一人称射击游戏。我知道，这是一个大胆的声明。但是在玩了一个月的游戏之后，我得出结论，开发人员只是没有正确地掌握射击技巧。

Of course, it’s reasonable to point out that every FPS game implements its own flavor of shooting mechanics — it can be tricky to compare the feel of one FPS to another and judge them on the same standards.

当然，有理由指出，每个FPS游戏都具有自己的射击机制风格-将一个FPS的感觉与另一个FPS的感觉进行比较并以相同的标准进行判断可能会很棘手。

That may be true, but Valorant’s shooting mechanics take heavy influence from Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. I have a least 600 hours of experience in the latter, so I should have a pretty good idea of how the shooting works, right? Well, sadly, carrying over my CS:GO experience did not completely help. That’s a little strange. So I decided to do some digging.

确实如此，但是勇敢者的射击技法受到《反恐精英：全球攻势》的重大影响。我在后者方面至少有600个小时的经验，所以我应该对射击的工作原理有一个很好的认识，对吗？好吧，可悲的是，延续我的CS：GO经验并没有完全帮助。有点奇怪。因此，我决定进行一些挖掘。

挖掘证据 (Digging for evidence)

After uninstalling the game, I tried to explain the shooting mechanics to another friend of mine (who happens to be pretty observant about how shooters work in general — him being quite skilled with the genre).

卸载游戏后，我试图向我的另一个朋友(他对射击者的工作方式非常了解，他对这种类型相当熟练)的射击技巧进行了解释。

The confusion I felt about the shooting was related to my expectation about how the shots should fire especially while moving. That is to say, the bullet’s trajectory should be influenced by the character’s movement. It’s a common occurrence in 3D games, though not so much in 2D games.

我对射击的困惑与我对射击应该如何射击(尤其是在移动时)的期望有关。也就是说，子弹的轨迹应该受到角色运动的影响。这在3D游戏中很常见，但在2D游戏中却很少。

That said, it’s easier to visualize it in 3D! So to simplify things I’ve used an image to explain the concept:

也就是说，以3D形式进行可视化更容易！因此，为了简化起见，我使用图像来解释这个概念：

The image here illustrates a moving gun shooting a bullet. Its trajectory is drawn in a 30° straight line.

Let’s assume your gun is aiming to the right. If you fire it while standing still, the bullet should travel in a straight line. But if the gun is fired while you’re physically moving to the right, we should expect the bullet to travel upwards or downwards by at least 30 degrees.

假设您的枪对准右边。如果您在静止不动的情况下开火，子弹应成一直线。但是，如果您实际上向右移动时开枪，我们应该期望子弹向上或向下移动至少30度。

This is why crosshairs exist in 3D games — they give you a visual indication of how much influence your current movement speed would have on the bullet’s trajectory (you can only make these estimations if you set the crosshairs to dynamic). It’s an important point; designers spend a lot of time trying to come up with different cues to ensure the player subconsciously understands what’s going on. Typically crosshairs aren’t the only element that provides these cues or feedback: the sound of the shot also plays a role.

这就是为什么十字准线存在于3D游戏中的原因-它们可以直观地表明您当前的移动速度会对子弹的轨迹产生多大的影响(只有将十字准线设置为动态时，您才能进行这些估算)。这很重要；设计师花费大量时间试图提出不同的提示，以确保玩家下意识地了解正在发生的事情。通常，十字准线并不是提供这些提示或反馈的唯一元素：镜头的声音也很重要。

In this case, though the sound isn’t the problem. It’s actually the recoil.

在这种情况下，虽然声音不是问题。实际上是后坐力。

后坐力，弹道和根本原因 (Recoil, ballistics, and root causes)

If you do a search on spray patterns and recoil control, you’ll find a ton of guides on them for any first-person shooter with multiplayer. Why? Well, recoil communicates a lot about a game’s “personality” so to speak. That’s crucial to understanding the gameplay approach to take in your matches.

如果您在喷雾模式和后坐力控制上进行搜索，就会发现大量关于多人游戏的第一人称射击游戏的指南。为什么？好吧，可以这么说，后坐力传达了很多关于游戏“个性”的信息。这对于理解比赛的玩法至关重要。

Here’s a great guide on spray pattern and recoil control for the guns in Valorant.

这是有关Valorant的喷枪喷雾模式和后坐控制的重要指南。

So, that’s all? That’s what’s getting my knickers in a twist? That I simply sucked when it came to recoil control?

所以，仅此而已？那是什么让我的内裤发生扭曲？当我后坐力控制时，我只是吮吸而已吗？

Sadly…

可悲的是...

Remember, I already said that I come to this game with a CS:GO background. You’d think that adapting to this game’s recoil management should actually be a piece of cake. And it was, actually. So what’s the actual issue then? Let’s dig a little deeper still.

记住，我已经说过我是在CS：GO背景下参加这个游戏的。您可能认为适应该游戏的后坐力管理实际上应该是小菜一碟。实际上是这样。那么实际的问题是什么？让我们再深入一点。

In the context of an FPS game, what is recoil? Fundamentally, it’s animation.

在FPS游戏中，什么是后坐力？从根本上讲，它是动画。

And what are the relevant principles of animation?

动画的相关原则是什么？

Anticipation, action, and reaction.

预期，行动和React。

The image here illustrates another line drawn from the gunpoint to infinity; its angle is 20°, higher than the last line.

Although recoil seems to be the issue, it’s not the root cause of the problem.

尽管后坐力似乎是问题所在，但这不是问题的根本原因。

Let’s take my earlier diagram and apply it specifically to Valorant.

让我们采用我之前的图表并将其专门应用于Valorant 。

Imagine the gun is moving to the right. As it moves, it fires a bullet. Our assumption here is that the bullet should travel at a 30 degree angle up or down due to the gun’s movement. Aim is then offset due to recoil.

想象一下，枪向右移动。当它移动时，它会发射子弹。我们在这里的假设是，由于枪的运动，子弹应以30度角上下移动。由于后坐力，目标会被抵消。

On the first shot, that’s fine. But in Valorant, something strange happens: subsequent shots follow a path well outside the expected angle. The bullet isn’t confined to a 30 degree window, it instead travels within a 50 degree window. That’s almost 1.7 times the variance I had estimated as being within the normal range.

第一次拍摄就可以了。但是在《勇敢传说》中，发生了一些奇怪的事情：随后的镜头沿着远远超出预期角度的路径前进。子弹不限于30度窗口，而是在50度窗口内移动。这几乎是我估计在正常范围内的方差的1.7倍。

That might sound like a small number in and of itself. But when you consider it from a gameplay point of view, it means the bullet either nails a headshot or zooms right past the enemy — even though in both cases, I’m aiming exactly the same way.

它本身听起来似乎很少。但是，从游戏性的角度来看，它意味着子弹要么爆头，要么就在敌人的正上方放大-即使在两种情况下，我的目标也是如此。

In this image, the blue and green dots are within the ‘face’ borders, which means you get the points and you kill your rival.

Now, I’m no Srinivasa Ramanujan when it comes to math. But I hope this above illustration is also helpful. It demonstrates how the angles work and how much difference the variances can make for the average FPS gamer.

现在，关于数学我不是Srinivasa Ramanujan 。但我希望上面的插图也有帮助。它演示了角度如何工作以及方差对普通FPS游戏玩家的影响。

Your vision — your resting angle — acts as the baseline. It is represented by the blue dot set at 0 degrees. Since we are looking at the center of the dashboard, we know what the resting angle is and what angle we can estimate our shots to be. In this case, any shots that land within the curvy black borders will count as a headshot. Both the blue and green dots will be registered as confirmed hits. But the red dot — the 50 degree angle shot — is outside this zone, meaning the shot effectively misses your rival (or at least the rival player’s collision box).

您的视野-您的静止角度-充当基线。它由设置为0度的蓝点表示。因为我们正在看仪表板的中心，所以我们知道静止角是多少，以及我们可以估计射击的角度。在这种情况下，落在弯曲的黑色边框内的任何镜头都将算作大头照。蓝点和绿点都将注册为已确认的匹配项。但是，红点-50度角射门-不在该区域内，这意味着射门实际上错过了您的对手(或至少是对手玩家的防撞箱)。

As you might imagine, in a game that aspires to be a competitive experience — whether we’re talking about simple ranked matches, or even eSports — this kind of variance is everything.

您可能会想，在一个渴望成为竞争体验的游戏中，无论我们是在谈论简单的排名比赛，甚至是电子竞技，这种差异都是一切。

结论 (Conclusion)

The in-game visual feedback doesn’t adequately align with the actual gun physics. That’s the point.

游戏中的视觉反馈与实际的枪支物理特性并不一致。这才是重点。

This matters, because our ability to navigate and interact with a digital environment is entirely dependent on the visual and auditory cues we get from it. It is reasonable to expect that the gun’s animation effectively communicates what it is doing .

这很重要，因为我们导航和与数字环境互动的能力完全取决于我们从数字环境中获得的视觉和听觉提示。可以合理预期枪支的动画可以有效地传达枪支在做什么。

So, in other words:

因此，换句话说：

If the crosshair “told” me that my movement is good enough for me to shoot straight shots (which is the first animation we rely on);
如果十字准线“告诉我”我的动作足以让我拍摄直拍(这是我们所依赖的第一个动画)；
And if my gun has completed its recoil cycle triggered from its last shot (which is the second animation we rely on), which further confirms that the offset aim is “fixed”;
并且，如果我的枪已完成从上次射击(这是我们依赖的第二个动画)触发的后坐力循环，则进一步确认偏移目标是“固定的” ；

… then that’s an ample opportunity to shoot again, yes?

……那这是一个足够的机会再次射击，是吗？

Apparently not when it comes to Valorant.

当涉及到勇气时，显然不是。

This scenario makes me wonder if there’s actually a core problem with the synchronization between the recoil time and the recoil animation. I’m getting the visual feedback that says the gun is aimed at the “normal resting angle” but maybe the ballistic offset hasn’t actually caught up with the gun’s visual position on the screen.

这种情况使我想知道后坐时间和后坐动画之间的同步是否确实存在核心问题。我得到的视觉反馈是，枪支瞄准的是“正常静止角”，但也许弹道偏移量实际上并未赶上枪支在屏幕上的可视位置。

Cue X-Files theme music.

提示X-Files主题音乐。

This article started with the sense that something just isn’t right with the game’s mechanics. From there, I confined the issue to recoil, and from there, to the underlying difference between visual feedback from the weapon and the actual ballistics calculation. It’s difficult for me to dive even deeper to uncover the precise issue — dear readers, I’ll need to leave the investigation there and hope that developers or game designers (or even other fans who are able to dig down further) can figure it out.

本文从某种意义上说，就是游戏的机制不正确。从那里，我将问题限制在后坐力上，从那里，问题仅限于武器的视觉反馈与实际弹道计算之间的潜在差异。我很难深入研究才能发现确切的问题-亲爱的读者，我需要将调查留在那儿，并希望开发人员或游戏设计师(甚至其他能够进一步深入研究的粉丝)能够弄清楚。

What I will say, though, is that I’m not the only one to have drawn these conclusions.

不过，我要说的是，我并不是唯一得出这些结论的人。

What’s the overall lesson here, anyway? Given that we’re talking about a shooter, I’d say it’s vital for the developer to nail the core gunplay mechanics. Absolutely everything else is peripheral. This small flaw actually has outsized impacts for players, and could significantly limit Valorant’s ability to become a more widely-played, serious competitive experience.

无论如何，这里的总体课程是什么？鉴于我们正在谈论射手，我想说对于开发人员来说，至关重要的是确定枪械的核心机制。绝对其他一切都是外围的。这个小缺陷实际上对玩家造成了巨大的影响，并且可能会严重限制Valorant成为更广泛，认真的比赛经验的能力。