Talk:Circle strafing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Trackball

Despite the advantages it may have, is the trackball really the "preferred pointing device" of "many gamers"? To my knowledge, the mouse is far more common.

I said many, not most. But I think I will change it to "some" to make you happy. —RadRafe 30 June 2005 15:25 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "she"

I guess they were trying to be "politically correct."

[edit] She? Her? What!?

Uh, sorry if this is some sort of thing from the english language, but why this article suddenly starts to call the target as "she"? — Kieff | Talk 07:54, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Diagram suggestions

Would it be possible to replace the X in the diagram's centre with a figure of an opponent? This would make it clearer that the maneuver is intended to keep shooting that opponent while making it difficult to be shot in return. If the opponent figure were facing roughly right, it would make them look particularly unfortunate by the end of their attacker's arc. I don't know how it would look, but perhaps the addition of bullets from both guns would also clarify matters, again showing the strafee's disadvantage. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:27, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Like this, or this maybe? I'm not sure about bullets, though. Fredrik 19:40, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, both are much clearer (I think I marginally prefer the one with more fading, but they're both great). I botched a nasty version with bullets, which it think is a bit clearer [1]. It would be better if the bullets were arrows (my photoshop skills are too poor for that). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:09, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Another try. Fredrik 20:42, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
That's perfect. Now it really captures how victimised the poor guy in the middle is. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:56, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Is it really useful?

> Circlestrafing is most useful in close-quarters combat
I think circlestrafing is only useful against newbies or monsters in singleplayer game. you can't harass using it even a keyboarder if he had tweaked config.sys or somewhat experienced, at least in Quake series.

[edit] Real life?

Is it video-game only ? Can't be used in real combat ? Ericd 12:14, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

You'd have to be insanely fast to circle around someone so fast that they can't follow you. Fredrik 12:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Running on your feet it seems pretty difficult but in mechanised warfare ?
Ericd 12:42, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
I suppose tanks could end up circling one another, blasting away with their guns. But doing so would expose the tracked side of the tank, its most vulnerable facet, to the enemy. Anyway, I think tanks rarely close to such close quarters that the circling action would be significant. I doubt it happens now, with computer-aimed guns that can kill at a range of thousands of feet, but perhaps it happened in WW2 when tank guns were entirely manual and you had to be fairly close to hit anything smaller than the proverbial barn door. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:56, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, you'd need to have much less inertia. I suppose one could characterise combat between small (and thus high power-to-inertia ratio) animals as melee circlestrafing; I'm pretty sure scorpions dance around one another, each trying to flank his opponent and sting him in an unprotected hindpart. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:50, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Inhuman?

"Many bots are programmed to employ circlestrafing, and inhumanly rapid and fluid circlestrafing is one telltale sign that a player is in fact either a bot or an aimbot-assisted human."

Doesn't the usage of the word "inhumanly" denote that the player is not acting by mere human agency? Then how can that be "one telltale sign"? --sol 17:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

This article survived the AfD, despite Wikipedia's policies against original research and unverified material. The article has only a single reference, and does not provide any verifiability for any of the claims in the article. The material should be deleted if it is not referenced -- and soon, as it has had more than eighteen months to collect references. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

With no improvement to the provided references, I've removed the unreferenced material from this article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do we really need two diagrams?

The animation is just an animated version of the first diagram; do we really need both? I suggest adding the first image's description to the animation and just having that. Machine758 (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)