| > I don't think cloud-gaming prevents you from writing an aimbot. This isn't true for a number of reasons: 1. Good players are exceptionally good. In pro gaming you'll hear the term "pixel shot" because someone fired at essentially one pixel. The shooter is holding an angle where they know that a change of one pixel is someone running by. That sort of thing; and 2. If you watch any streams you'll see aimbots from cheaters (eg when the streamer gets killed and spectates who killed them) and it's pretty funny to see just how blatant aimbots are, like shooting through bushes that don't block bullets but have no visible indication of an enemy. But I agree with other comments: I think cloud gaming is 100% never going to be relevant for competitive esports (of this kind) because of latency. That's not a technology problem. It's a physics problem. > I think games have to move away from the mechanical aim aspect and focus more on ability management, It's interesting that you bring that up. That's actually a criticism a lot of people have of games like Overwatch (that you mention) in that it's not about gun play but ability management. That's actually seen as a negative by many. Riot Games apparently has made a deliberate design decision to focus more on gun play than ability management in Valorant, as just one example. > This is how the combo was balanced; not by a hard limit on resources, but by timers on the client. This is surprisingly common actually. Timers on many games are really just approximated with frame rates. Good players will do better at a game if they can get 200fps over those that get 100fps. An example of this is the much-beleaguered Fallout 76. Bethesda games use this pervasively and, at least for awhile, Fallout 76 had a cap put in place of 63fps to avoid some of the benefits high frame rates gave players (eg faster movement), such that I took to calling it Fallout 63. |