Bronze Fox wrote:Counter-Strike has always been like this. It rewards accuracy, aka, headshots.
I agree that it rewards headshots, but disagree that it rewards accuracy. This is mainly because accuracy, in my mind, needs to be controllable or skill based. I can shoot at peoples' feet and headshot them, or I can shoot them point blank in the face with a shotgun and have it miss or count as body shots. The crosshair does not in any way reflect actual bullet spread, and I've watched plenty of people simply spray and pray kill entire groups of crouched/scoped/aiming enemies who are firing back at them, inflicting a combined total of less than 50% damage. While a person certainly gains some advantage by pointing in the general direcetion of a foe before pulling the trigger, I don't think we can call it "accuracy" yet - more like gambling with bullets.
That link is interesting, but I think it makes a negative point about accuracy in the game. That many "standing single shots" aimed, presumably, at the big red square in the middle of the target, yielded not one single hit on said red square. Despite having the gun pointed at the exact same pixel for every shot (again, presumably... the test would have no value if they didn't do this), which is far more precise than any but the most extreme human shooter could possibly do, there is a spread of multiple feet in both directions - horizontally and vertically. This is on a target less than 100 yards away, under firing range conditions. Infantrymen in the Australian army (US has so many standards it makes my head spin) are expected to place groupings smaller than 6 inches at that range.