Interesting weapon spray analysis

[lumi]

A few days ago, Got Frag looked at the Counter-Strike: Source BETA. Got Frag is one of the largest esports websites out there, and most of us know that competitive players do two things: 1) play well, 2) notice tiny changes (when, sometimes, they're not even there!). Although the article had an upbeat tone and gave CS: Source a fair shot, Valve has gone out of its way to counter some of the misinformation contained in the article as to make sure the competitive community is calm and even-headed when they start playing the BETA of CS: Source in just a few short hours.

Since Counter-Strike: Source (info section) is such a large leap from CS 1.6, you can't blame anyone for trying to spot changes. Two changes mentioned in Got Frag's article were quickly debunked by Jess Cliffe.

• » The running speed in Counter-Strike: Source is the exact same as it was in 1.6. "The code is the same and we have physically timed it to be sure," said Jess Cliffe in a CS-Nation comments thread.
  
  » While the article said the PARA was better due to "[recoil] changes," Jess has said that only the rate of fire has increased on the PARA.

However, mentioned in passing on the article's second page is another change in recoil. Although the author seemed to have more issue with the crosshair than the actual weapon performance, Valve decided that it would be prudent to conduct their own tests to determine if the recoil system has changed sigificantly. Martin Otten, one of Valve's network programmers and the original developer of HLTV, conducted internal tests with a focus on the recoil.

From: Martin Otten

To: Mike Booth; Jess Cliffe; Robin Walker; Adrian Finol; Gabe Newell;

Subject: RE: CS:S impressions on Gotfrag

I collected some data. I wrote some bullet stats code and added the same code to Source & GoldSrc CS (rizzuh: GoldSrc is 1.6). The code takes the first shot of a weapon as reference and measures for each following shot the distance and time delta. I tested the M4A1, AK47 & MP5, fired 4 [magazines] each in 15 shot bursts (standing, not moving).

Click here to see some of the raw data sent to CS-Nation.

If you look at the graphs, it's pretty amazing how close they are, except that the AK has a different start value, it's more accurate in Source. One thing is that the weapons have different firing rates in full auto mode. Sometimes Source is faster ( M4A1, MP5), sometimes GoldSrc(AK47), the error is about 7%. I assume that's because of our fixed time tick system.

So, the conclusion of this test is, that if behavior of these weapons is different in Source, it's probably not their recoil or accuracy. ...

MP5
Standing Still

GoldSrc is Counter-Strike 1.6, while Source (pink) is naturally Counter-Strike: Source.

The MP5, if anything, seems to have less recoil this time around.

Running

It seems as if the MP5 has improved just a tad over the CS 1.6 version of the weapon.

M4A1
Standing Still

GoldSrc is Counter-Strike 1.6, while Source (pink) is naturally Counter-Strike: Source.

The maximum difference in deviation is 10.9% at shot six, but almost all of the other shots deviate with an insignificant difference.

Running

Here we see that running while firing weapons is not a good idea!

AK47
Standing Still

GoldSrc is Counter-Strike 1.6, while Source (pink) is naturally Counter-Strike: Source.

Finally, a real change. The AK-47 starts off more accurate, with its second and third bullets matching the recoil of the M4A1. We'll see how this balance change plays out, in-game. The recoil pattern, however, is almost the same.

Running

Once again, today's lesson is to not run around while firing guns!

Conclusion
Valve has released all of their data in an Excel spreadsheet (which requires Excel or the free Excel viewer), so everyone can make up their own minds regarding CS: Source.

We love our friends in the competitive community — and I personally think matches and scrims are very exciting games of CS — but sometimes they tend to notice change where there isn't any. Based on the numbers I see in the spreadsheet , I personally believe that any "change" in the CS recoil from 1.6 to Source is so minute that it would be almost impossible to notice it in-game. However, the same numbers point to the AK47 and M4A1 being made more equals in the initial burst of fire.

For good reason, Got Frag talks more about the crosshair than the actual recoil. As Valve has shown above, the recoil is basically unchanged. However, the crosshair's dynamics seemed to have changed a bit since CS 1.6, and these changes are likely the cause of any major perceived recoil changes made to the game.

When firing a weapon in Counter-Strike 1.6, your crosshair will expand to represent the loss of control and recoil. The longer you continue firing, the further it expands until it reaches a maximum point of expansion. When you cease firing, your crosshair will shrink back to its normal size, allowing you to easily line up another target in your crosshair and begin firing again. This is also true to Counter-Strike: Source, but with a slight difference. In CS: Source, your crosshair does not smoothly transition back to its original size, instead it seems to shrink back in phases, one size at a time. This process takes a couple seconds longer than CS 1.6, making recoil harder to control.

A popular tactic for firing automatic weapons in Counter-Strike is to burst-fire several shots, let your recoil settle down, and then burst-fire several more. Since the crosshair in CS: Source settles down slower, it is harder to accurately line up your target for a another burst. Perhaps this is a change not intended by Valve that will be looked into as the BETA progresses.

article: cs:s weapon tests

• author: rizzuh
• posted: august 17th, 2004

It's a pretty old article I found, but I found it interesting to read.

http://www.csnation.net/articles.php/article_201/

I personally didn't realize 1.6 vs source recoil was that similar...

[trick]

pfft who sprays >_>

[patersoN]

In CS: Source, your crosshair does not smoothly transition back to its original size, instead it seems to shrink back in phases, one size at a time. This process takes a couple seconds longer than CS 1.6, making recoil harder to control

giggle.

[Velicoma]

Snap for 1.6 fanboi's.


It's like those girl's first relationship, where they get dumped but just keep trying to hold on. Making phone calls crying to their ex at 2am, begging them to come back. But it's over.

IT'S OVER STOP CALLING ME!! I NEVER LOVED YOU! GO HOME!

but in relation to 1.6

[wasabi]

umm right... by right i mean wrong.. IMO 1.6 is harder screw their analysis

[retaliation]

pew pew

[DeSiRE]

booom headshot

[grudge]

lol does anyone here actually play 1.6 ?
i find the source spam so much easier

[MunGas]

thats because it is easier.

[scaR]

its probably because the source heads are 72% LARGER would be why u find it easyer

[bokCHOI]

Mmm.. I find spraying = getting large crosshair and placing the enemy inside it and 2nd or 3rd bullet will hit some head. mmm.

[killrawR]

thats because it is easier.

qft.

[lumi]

Personally in 1.6 I find it easier to spray down a group of people but I think it's largely to do with the fact that shooting someone in 1.6 slows them down yet the recoil isn't all that different, but it follows a different pattern.

agreed scar and velicoma.

[mango]

umm right... by right i mean wrong.. IMO 1.6 is harder screw their analysis

disagree

[killrawR]

Personally in 1.6 I find it easier to spray down a group of people but I think it's largely to do with the fact that shooting someone in 1.6 slows them down yet the recoil isn't all that different, but it follows a different pattern.

agreed scar and velicoma.

no, its really not.

[lumi]

no, its really not.

Personally

better?

[dippa]

this was the same article blindside and hybrid were arguing about just recently, go read the thread on it

[doDGy]

1.6 actually has spray patterns and its consistent 95% of the time where source is just random.

[maco]

source spam is much easier than 1.6 (unless you know the 1.6 spray patterns)

[lumi]

source spam is much easier than 1.6 (unless you know the 1.6 spray patterns)

IMO they're the same difficulty just in different ways.

[Snow]

spraying in 1.6 is like trying to shoot a needle 100 meters away

spraying in source is like professional aim in 1.6 hence why duds who play the game 1 week can out bullshit the best of players YES BULLSHIT its not aim its bullshit.

[lumi]

Snow did you actually read the article, you would probably learn a thing or 2.

[fiSHtITS]

Lol all you have to remember is a backwards 7 for AK and a T for m4. Then your set.

[cM^]

^^ Yup

[Liam]

recoil is alot easier to control in source @_@

[deeenkaY]

HOLY THREAD REVIVAL LIAM
now i can legitimately -rep you for your homo-ness in the other thread!

[corona]

In CS: Source, your crosshair does not smoothly transition back to its original size, instead it seems to shrink back in phases, one size at a time. This process takes a couple seconds longer than CS 1.6, making recoil harder to control.

ROFL. So full of ****.

2 points;

1) WTF does the crosshair shrinking back to it's former state have to do with controlling recoil? When you spray, the crosshair expands - and that's when you control your recoil. When you let go, and you watch your xhair shrink, you aren't controlling recoil anymore - you are simply just waiting to fire another round. I can agree with him that it's harder to burst fire with a crosshair that shrinks slower - read my 2nd point.

A popular tactic for firing automatic weapons in Counter-Strike is to burst-fire several shots, let your recoil settle down, and then burst-fire several more. Since the crosshair in CS: Source settles down slower, it is harder to accurately line up your target for a another burst. Perhaps this is a change not intended by Valve that will be looked into as the BETA progresses. [end of feature]

2) The reason it takes longer to shrink back to it's original state is because maybe the fps on your computer isn't at least 100? Same **** happens with 1.6 - if you have 60 fps or below for any counter strike version, the crosshair shrinks significantly slower after a spray in comparison if you were running 100. I pull 200-300 fps for source, and if I jump in a server with zero ppl, you can see that the crosshair snaps back almost immediately to it's original state (much like how 1.6 does). If I go on my older computer (with under 60 fps), the crosshair, in the exact same situation will snap back slower. Anyone with a high end computer would be able to realise this - just create a server with no bots.

And to back this statement up please note;

# author: rizzuh
# posted: august 17th, 2004
Perhaps this is a change not intended by Valve that will be looked into as the BETA progresses.

This post was made during the beta stages - doubt he had a high end computer at that time.

I don't even think this guy knows the recoil patterns of 1.6 - so how is he supposed to compare the two versions with credibility.

[11411181]

....

[James]

I think the recoil comparisons from 1.6 - Source are completely different go create your own server on Source and spam the usp, deagle almost any gun as fast as you can against a wall then try that on cs and tell me its PRETTY much exactly the same.

Its not! Sources recoil is not consistent at all it often changes randomly.

[shirasE_]

1) WTF does the crosshair shrinking back to it's former state have to do with controlling recoil? When you spray, the crosshair expands - and that's when you control your recoil. When you let go, and you watch your xhair shrink, you aren't controlling recoil anymore - you are simply just waiting to fire another round. I can agree with him that it's harder to burst fire with a crosshair that shrinks slower - read my 2nd point.

So would you say, someone pausing for a moment in a marathon would not be controlling his composure (for lack of a better word). Or if you were trying to maintain a constant speed in a car, and slowed down. Would that not be regulating your speed?

If you stop for a moment to allow your crosshair to regain composure, that is still controlling (regulating) your recoil in my opinion. I guess it just gets fuzzy with the English.

[Splinter]

its like they say - 1.6 guns have way more kick than css guns. that makes it harder to control the recoil in 1.6

[shakes76]

I had a shot at analysing spray patterns for my guide but only finished the Glock, USP, Deagle, FAMAS

Dont laugh but someone might find it useful.

[Whisper]

I had a shot at analysing spray patterns for my guide but only finished the Glock, USP, Deagle, FAMAS

Dont laugh but someone might find it useful.

Keep going dude!!

[lumi]

I had a shot at analysing spray patterns for my guide but only finished the Glock, USP, Deagle, FAMAS

Dont laugh but someone might find it useful.

Thats top stuff man +1 for it!

I'm with Whisper on this, KEEP GOING!

[Fanatic]

Awesomeness, +1 Rep if
a) I could do it
b) I knew how to do it :P

[AKS]

One thing I noticed is.. There's something like 7 patterns for the colt and AK. I particularly noticed with the colt that most of the patterns travel back and forth in the shape of a number 7 as well.. Whether it moves up or down first is put down to chance and you just control it when you notice it teeter to the separate side.


BTW TRICK WTF IS THAT AVATAR................. :O

[shakes76]

Cheers Guys, I shall continue I am thinking of making a pdf guide for weapons thats easily distributable, seems theres scope for it too. I know how to make pdfs and that'll be the easy part :P Will post up (eta probably in a month or too)

[bnzai]

1.6 Spray is alot more accurate imo,
first impressions of sauce was that it's alot more random, especially in spraying.
1.6 Spray is alot easier for me, but that's probably because i've been playing 1.6 alot longer than source.

[LthL]

Fair post however check the dates on the threads before posting.

[Havoc1]

Lol all you have to remember is a backwards 7 for AK and a T for m4. Then your set.

Then why are you still so horrid?