37 replies to this topic

[OriontheHunter]

I stand corrected the devs have already implemented some of what I was talking about in this thread.

Quote

Basically, your targeting systems are always trying to adjust the angle of your weapons so that they converge or focus at a distance of whatever your aiming reticles are pointing at. So, if you fire at a target very far away, your lasers (or whatever else) may fire nearly parallel to each other; firing at a target up close will angle the shots inwards. However, the adjustment of these angles is not instant.

The above quote is from the dev David Bradley. While it's not what I would call ideal, it does mean that this game is not an arcade shooter. This ends the edit to this this post.





Because it is and will remain so, unless the targeting mechanic is changed. Watching the videos, two things just keep bothering me. The first is that the crosshairs don't move, the entire mech is moving around them but they are nailed to the center of the screen, which is typical of an arcade shooter. Yes, I know that previous MW titles did the same thing, but just because they did it, doesn't mean it was a good thing. The second, is everytime the mech fires all the beam weapons converge exactly where the crosshairs are, also something that only happens in arcade shooters.

Why should the crosshairs move, because they are super imposed on the viser of the neurohelmet so if the pilot's head moves they move, and it doesn't matter if the pilot is moving his head or if his head is being translated by the mechs movement, in both cases the crosshairs will move.


The second one requires a bit more explination as to why it's not acceptable in anything but an arcade shooter. So lets start simple with a rifle and a scope. Well make it a laser rifle to remove ballistics from this. Scopes must be zeroed for a specific range otherwise the crosshairs will never indicate where the beam will strike, in this case we'll say it's zeroed for 300m. Now think of a flat line, that line is the laser, on that line mark a point 300m from the starting point. Now we'll say that the scope is mounted 2in. above the rifle, so mark a point 2in above the start of the laser line. Now draw a line, starting from the point 2in above the laser and draw it straight through the mark at 300m on the laser line and continue into infinity.

This is your sight line. You'll note that the sight line only meets the laser at one point, that means without adjustments the crosshairs will only show you where the laser will strike when the target is exactly 300m away. If the target is closer, the sight line rises above the laser, which means your shot will actually be below your aim point. If the target is farther away, the sight line is below the laser, which means your shot will be above your aim point. And no you can't just mount them parallel and shoot 2in high and call it good, as the distance that would represent 2in in the scope will get smaller as the target get farther away, so can't just use a mil-dot and figure out how many dots is 2in.

Now the situation gets even more complex in a mech, the 'scope', ie your crosshairs are not mounted a fixed distance above the weapon, it's offset and they move with the pilots head. So the first the T&T(Target & Tracking computer) in the mech has to do is figure out how the pilots head is oriented in 3D space (the above rifle and scope was only in 2D), once it knows this it can figure out what you have under the crosshairs and range it. It will need to range it more than once to deterimine if it's moveing and in what direction, it can then figure out at what angles in 3D space each weapon needs to be at in order to hit that target, where it is if it's not moving or where it thinks it will be if it's moving and finally it can move those weapons to that alignment.

What does all this mean? Simple, it takes time to get weapons aimed and if you don't allow for that time then your weapons will not hit what your aiming at. How much time? Well rather than figuring out what all this would take in realtime, I would suggest we give it a value that just 'feels right'. For simplicities sake we'll assume that each part of the process remains a constant and call that time X. So it takes X time units for the weapons achieve alignment with whatever the pilot is targeting. That means everytime you move to a new target, it takes X time units for the weapons to align. It also means that if the target is moving or you are moving the weapons will only be aligned exactly with the crosshairs if the computer guessed the location correctly, which means the other mech had to continue moving exactly as before or the weapons will be off. The same goes for the firing mech, and it even more difficult for the computer to be right if both are moving.

Now you'll note that I haven't talked about ballistics, or things like gear lash and barrel whip, which will all add to the inaccuracy of targeting, yet I have shown that the weapons even if perfectly aligned with mounts that have no play in them, can not under most battle conditions be perfectly aligned to the crosshair at all time, it just can't be done. No, saying that the mech just constantly aligns them does not change this, it just establishes that there will always be a 'rolling' delay of X time units when you change targets and it will put excessive wear on the mechanisms that align the guns causing them to wear more quickly increasing the 'slop' in the system and therefore making it more inaccurate as a whole. Plus mechs use their arms for balance, just like we do, if they are constantly trying to aim the arm weapons this will make the mech's side to side movement greater for the pilot when moving. Don't believe me, set up a mirror that you can walk at and mimic the arms of a warhammer by holding them bent and ridgedly at your sides, you will see your head goes side to side far more than if you just walk normally towards it with your arms swinging naturally.

This is why the fps mechanic used in arcade shooters, is not and will not ever be a realitic method of aiming. It's point and shoot not aim and shoot, there is a big difference. One requires that you actually hold over your target till the weapons are aimed the other can be used to great sucess by people who can time their button press with the crosshair passing over their intended target.

So how else to do it? Well, I'm open to suggestions as my preferred method is probably to sim for most people. I would prefer that all the weapons aim points be tracked all the time and represented in the HUD with simple geometric shapes, when the crosshair is over the target you want you tell the mech to aim and those shapes 'snap' towards the crosshair, how close they get would vary, but think ball park, then they would continue to move more slowly towards the cross hair until they get realively close. If anyone wants an explination of this, I will, but as I figure it's too much for most people, I won't add further to this post's length. A far simpler means of doing it would just be a reducing cone of fire, but as I said I'm open to sugestions, I do however believe that the 'point and shoot' mechanic has to go or this is not any kind of sim.

Edited by OriontheHunter, 02 August 2012 - 07:39 AM.

[Noth]

Your first two paragraphs completely show you have no clue about what is actually going in. There are two crosshairs in the game one for you arms that moves as your view moves and one for the torso that only moves when the torso moves. You HUD keeps that where it should be because your torso weapons cannot fire in as big of an arc as the arms.

Won't touch teh second point since you don't understand the differences in the crosshair.

Your 3rd point about head bob. The seats are stabilized to reduce that head bob (this is canon).

[Fahr]

while I appreciate your statements, there are some innacuracies as far as dealing with laser weapons.

you are suggesting that aiming the laser at a point in space dictated by the aim of the pilots eyes/head (that is what the crosshairs represent) will take some amount of time. I suggest that this is not the case, or at least the time required is so minimally small as to be negligable. why? Lasers may be aimed with both magnetic fields, and with optics, you don't have to swing the whole laser about to change the direction of the Beam, just the optics that guide it. that means that the aiming mechanism can be tiny and fast.

you are making the assumption also that the computer can't calculate or move quickly enough to compensate for the user. these machines ahve neuro-interfaces, they are not driven, more like worn. if the user is aiming at an enemy, the computer is aware through the neuro interface that it is his intended target. this also suggest that the crosshair is indicating what the user wants to shoot at, not some specific aiming mechanism that is tied to a real aiming point.

tracking time for ballistics, maybe I could see that, but for lasers, not needed.

[GB Krubarax]

Well, in the novels, characters most oftenly (have to) wait for a partial, or complete target-lock, whis is said to be indicated by a red, respectively golden pulsing dot, in the center of the crosshairs.
This could be simulated in game, so you have a point.

However, the real problems comes with weapons wich have a traveltime, and thus a "lead time"
If you have to lead your target, your crosshairs is basically pointing out in thin air/to infinity/at some object behind (sometimes even in front of) your target.
In this case, you would not be able to get a "lock", and weapon convergence would be impossible to achieve.

The current method is preferred by me, though I could agree wit a little "head bob" at higher speeds.
Great accuracy should force you to slow down.
Being accurate AND fast *should* be a great skill, marking veteran MechWarriors

Edit: this is both in the novels and in the TT rules, so it can not be discarded as fiction, or non-cannon.
In tt you get no penalty from being stationary (which does not mean the mech is not moving at all, but that it is not moving forwards at much speed.) you got moderate to-hit-penalty if your mech walked, and even mire penalty if you ran.

We need this to be in the game IMO

Edited by GB Krubarax, 01 August 2012 - 02:20 PM.

[MustanGrande]

I like to think that the mechs include some sort of ranging device incorporated into their targeting and tracking suites, that continuously adjusts the weapons. Essentially, as the reticule sweeps the ground and passes over targets, the weapons adjust in their mounts, tweaking their convergence distances and elevation so that they impact on the point of aim. At anything outside of an extremely close distance, the change in the weapons' orientation would be negligible, and would occur quickly enough and accurately enough to hit a mech-sized target. At least, that seems like the most likely answer in my mind,but i'm far from a battletech guru.

[Technoviking]

I didn't get past the first two paragraphs, and it is against the NDA to tell you have it all wrong, sorry!

[OriontheHunter]

Noth, on 01 August 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

Your first two paragraphs completely show you have no clue about what is actually going in. There are two crosshairs in the game one for you arms that moves as your view moves and one for the torso that only moves when the torso moves. You HUD keeps that where it should be because your torso weapons cannot fire in as big of an arc as the arms.

Won't touch teh second point since you don't understand the differences in the crosshair.

Be careful assuming what someone else knows. I am aware of the 2nd reticle, it doesn't change what I'm talking about, it means that they are saying that the arms track faster than the torso, which is better than past games, but it still means that you can point and shoot with the arms. It also does nothing to break up the groupings of the arm weapons, or the grouping of the torso weapons. They would not be so accurate as to alway hit the exact points of the crosshairs.

Quote

Your 3rd point about head bob. The seats are stabilized to reduce that head bob (this is canon).

Seat stabilization will stop head snap, but not the translation of the cockpit, and therefore the pilots head, as the mech walks/runs.

Fahr, on 01 August 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

while I appreciate your statements, there are some innacuracies as far as dealing with laser weapons.

you are suggesting that aiming the laser at a point in space dictated by the aim of the pilots eyes/head (that is what the crosshairs represent) will take some amount of time. I suggest that this is not the case, or at least the time required is so minimally small as to be negligable. why? Lasers may be aimed with both magnetic fields, and with optics, you don't have to swing the whole laser about to change the direction of the Beam, just the optics that guide it. that means that the aiming mechanism can be tiny and fast.

I disagree about the time, as it only reduces the time of the last event, all the rest still have to take place first, before that can happen. As for the different methods of aiming a laser, I will admit I am unfamiliar with using magnetic fields to do so but optics I understand. The art work shows barrels for lasers, though they wouldn't be needed in the classic sense, they would provide some protection for the optics as they are easily damaged and in fact, due to ionization, actually attract dirt to them. As dirt accumulates on the optics the lasers performance degrades. This is why CD/DVD/Blu-ray players need their lenses cleaned or they quit reading disks. So having them protected in 'barrels' makes sense to me, but I admit it's only opinion.

Quote

you are making the assumption also that the computer can't calculate or move quickly enough to compensate for the user. these machines ahve neuro-interfaces, they are not driven, more like worn. if the user is aiming at an enemy, the computer is aware through the neuro interface that it is his intended target. this also suggest that the crosshair is indicating what the user wants to shoot at, not some specific aiming mechanism that is tied to a real aiming point.

Computers take time to do anything at all, so some time will absolutely pass, all that's in doubt is how fast it happens. My opinioin is that it is a noticable delay, and as is pointed out in the GB Krubarax's quote below, it is supported by the novels. The neurohelmets primary job is to relay balance information, most mechwarrior control inputs are from the cockpit controls not the helmet. The mech can understand some intent but it's not thought control.

Quote

tracking time for ballistics, maybe I could see that, but for lasers, not needed.

I avoided talking about ballistic weapons, which have even more problems, simply to streamline the arguments. If it works for beam weapons then ballistics will definately have problems, and it indeed does work for beam weapons, the only thing that can really be disputed is the amount of time the delay would be.

GB Krubarax, on 01 August 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Well, in the novels, characters most oftenly (have to) wait for a partial, or complete target-lock, whis is said to be indicated by a red, respectively golden pulsing dot, in the center of the crosshairs.

This could be simulated in game, so you have a point.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Quote

However, the real problems comes with weapons wich have a traveltime, and thus a "lead time"

If you have to lead your target, your crosshairs is basically pointing out in thin air/to infinity/at some object behind (sometimes even in front of) your target.

In this case, you would not be able to get a "lock", and weapon convergence would be impossible to achieve.

As I alluded to above, this is easy to prove for ballistics, it's beam weapons that everyone argues about.

Quote

The current method is preferred by me, though I could agree wit a little "head bob" at higher speeds.

Great accuracy should force you to slow down.

By current method, are you meaning the one implimented in the game currently?

Quote

Being accurate AND fast *should* be a great skill, marking veteran MechWarriors

Truely the heart of my intensions for creating this thread.

Quote

Edit: this is both in the novels and in the TT rules, so it can not be discarded as fiction, or non-cannon.

In tt you get no penalty from being stationary (which does not mean the mech is not moving at all, but that it is not moving forwards at much speed.) you got moderate to-hit-penalty if your mech walked, and even mire penalty if you ran.

We need this to be in the game IMO

I completely agree, and while I am well aware of the TT rules, I thank you for pointing them out to others. Now let me point out another TT rule, you cannot target specific loactions of an active mech unless you have a Clan Targeting Computer that weighs tons. The only logical explanation for this is that the weapons tracking system is not fast enough to be able to do so. Now understand that TT has abstractions to it's movement system, which is how we get tank-like movement, but mechs move like we do not like a tank, their just not as quick or nimble as we are. This movement is important to understand that mechs are far more elusive than they are in the videogames.

Edited by OriontheHunter, 01 August 2012 - 06:32 PM.

[OriontheHunter]

Sorry for the double post but the forum couldn't handle the length of my post and wasn't displaying the quotes correctly, so I had to break it apart.

MustanGrande, on 01 August 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

I like to think that the mechs include some sort of ranging device incorporated into their targeting and tracking suites, that continuously adjusts the weapons. Essentially, as the reticule sweeps the ground and passes over targets, the weapons adjust in their mounts, tweaking their convergence distances and elevation so that they impact on the point of aim. At anything outside of an extremely close distance, the change in the weapons' orientation would be negligible, and would occur quickly enough and accurately enough to hit a mech-sized target. At least, that seems like the most likely answer in my mind,but i'm far from a battletech guru.

As I explained in my post, but due to it's length you may have missed it, this will only cause a rolling delay, the weapons will always 'lag' behind the crosshair whenever you move it and it will cause undo wear on the mechanisms that aim the weapons, causing them to wear more quickly. Increased wear, means increased slop in the system, which means less accuracy. Simply put, it wouldn't be done this way, in anyting but a videogame.

Technoviking, on 01 August 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

I didn't get past the first two paragraphs, and it is against the NDA to tell you have it all wrong, sorry!

I appreciate that you can't talk about it, but you'll understand if I'm skeptical of your opinion on the subject. After all you may like an arcade shooter mechanic, whereas I do not. I will however say, I would be happy to be all wrong about this, but I'm not seeing it if I am.

[Victor Morson]

Technoviking, on 01 August 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

I didn't get past the first two paragraphs, and it is against the NDA to tell you have it all wrong, sorry!

It's not against the NDA to say "Read the developers interviews for the past few months and you'll see how many times they explain this."

So OP, there is a convergence rate issue AND the cross hairs don't work like you think they do. You got every single thing wrong.

[SakuranoSenshi]

Holy Wall of FAIL, Batman!

[deadeye mcduck]

Yes, this IS an arcade shooter *sarcasm* Sounds like you already made your mind up about this game.

[OriontheHunter]

@MustanGrande You got it right(check the OP), at least that's the way the dev's choose to implement it, I still believe that it would only be done that way in a videogame, but that's what they have choose to do it.

Victor Morson, on 01 August 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

It's not against the NDA to say "Read the developers interviews for the past few months and you'll see how many times they explain this."

So OP, there is a convergence rate issue AND the cross hairs don't work like you think they do. You got every single thing wrong.

Thanks for the helpful direction, though I still have not found where the crosshairs work differently than I think. As for having everything wrong, the bulk of my post is about convergence which the devs have in the game. Not the way I would like it, but I will withhold further judgement till I've played it, since I know they've changed some other things to balance weapons and armor. What I got wrong was the assumptions I got from watching the videos.

SakuranoSenshi, on 01 August 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

Holy Wall of FAIL, Batman!

deadeye mcduck, on 01 August 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

Yes, this IS an arcade shooter *sarcasm* Sounds like you already made your mind up about this game.

Thank you both for contributing, your posts were immensely helpful, not only to me, but to those who follow I'm sure.

[SakuranoSenshi]

Yup. It succinctly warned people to not waste time trying to read your enormous block of horribly formatted text that was devoid of any real content. I think that it probably will outlast said block of text in the memory of future generations... possibly immortalized on a monument. (Not least because you've since edited your post, which could be considered dishonest, rather than simply reply to the thread with your concessions)

Edited by SakuranoSenshi, 02 August 2012 - 08:11 AM.

[OriontheHunter]

I see no tone of altruism in your posts only one of your own self-importance, yet you infer that I am being dishonest? I posted the way I did to prevent erronius posting, as some people on forums only read the first post or part of the first post before responding, this way they can see that I have changed my mind and may read my original unaltered post, if they wish, without feeling the need to defend the game. So if your finished stroking your own ego, I bid you farewell.

[SakuranoSenshi]

No, I'm never finished stroking my ego; it's so very big and so very worthy of stroking. :-)

Farewell!

[rainmakerjg]

Why most of Founders has this annoying habit of showing ignorance to anything coming from other potential players? IMHO OP is quite interesting and would be nice to at least read it to the end before forming any answer instead of writing not completely mature things like this: "I didn't get past the first two paragraphs, and it is against the NDA to tell you have it all wrong, sorry! "

Please guys. Be helpful and possibly stop using legendary NDA to cover lack of knowledge or will to share with others.
After all closed beta will finish and there will be no difference between us, members of this community. Because as I remember your status is not giving you any rights to bully or ignore other players and you paid your money for "goodies" not for privilege to be "bossy" every time anyone who would like to ask the question on this forum.

So could you please be so kind and answer the question in this thread without sarcasm and according to your NDA?

Edited by rainmakerjg, 03 August 2012 - 03:24 AM.

[Draemos]

OriontheHunter, on 01 August 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

Because it is and will remain so, unless the targeting mechanic is changed. Watching the videos, two things just keep bothering me. The first is that the crosshairs don't move, the entire mech is moving around them but they are nailed to the center of the screen, which is typical of an arcade shooter. Yes, I know that previous MW titles did the same thing, but just because they did it, doesn't mean it was a good thing. The second, is everytime the mech fires all the beam weapons converge exactly where the crosshairs are, also something that only happens in arcade shooters.


Why should the crosshairs move, because they are super imposed on the viser of the neurohelmet so if the pilot's head moves they move, and it doesn't matter if the pilot is moving his head or if his head is being translated by the mechs movement, in both cases the crosshairs will move.

It's called a gyroscope. Modern Navy fire control systems have the same thing to account for pitch and roll. They also account for things like the curvature of the earth, wind, atmospheric pressure, distance, etc.

A mech's targeting systems are more complex than a rifle scope.

Current day fire control systems are infinitely more advanced than what you are describing as unrealistic in a 31st century mech.

Edited by Draemos, 03 August 2012 - 06:09 AM.

[OriontheHunter]

@SakuranoSenshi Thanks for the chuckle.

@rainmakerjg Thank you. Well said.

Draemos, on 03 August 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

It's called a gyroscope. Modern Navy fire control systems have the same thing to account for pitch and roll. They also account for things like the curvature of the earth, wind, atmospheric pressure, distance, etc.

Actually if what talking about in your first few sentences is what your referring to it's called gyro-stabilization, the gyroscope in a mech is used for balancing the mech and has nothing to do with stabilizing the individual weapons only the entire mech itself, which moves back and forth as well as up and down as the mech walks/runs. Since the entire cockpit is moving like this, so is the mech pilot, as well as their head, so the crosshairs will move, since they are photons of light on the visor of the neurohelmet. Also most of what your talking about in this part of your post is not handled by gyro-stabilization but by other systems which do the measuring of the factors and still others that do the calculations, all of which takes time. Is that time hours, no, is it instantaneous, also no.

Quote

A mech's targeting systems are more complex than a rifle scope.

And I stated that in my post. The scope analogy is what I started with to establish the difference in the sight line(ie where you are looking) and the firing line(ie where the weapon is pointed). My appologies for not explaining it in a manner you could understand, but I honestly tried to keep simple and easy to understand.

Quote

Current day fire control systems are infinitely more advanced than what you are describing as unrealistic in a 31st century mech.

You do realize that in this fictional timeline and that the relavent date compared to ours means absolutely nothing or have you forgotten that at one point during the Succession Wars that this fictional universe lost the technology to even build battlemechs, as well as the systems on them, and had to rely solely on salvage to keep their mechs running. Or that the Star league had ER technology in the 28th century, but it is only been rediscovered recently. Many things have been lost in this universe and only some of them have been regained.

What's more, in our timeline 50 years ago they thought we would have flying cars, as well as other things, that have never happened so being in the future doesn't mean it's going to be as advanced as you think it does. Modern weapons systems still have lag, they still have to predict where the target is going to be at, which is one of the reasons that they don't have a 100% hit rate. I have friends that are both prior and current military and we discuss things like this.

[Pht]

OriontheHunter, on 01 August 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

Because it is and will remain so, unless the targeting mechanic is changed. Watching the videos, two things just keep bothering me. The first is that the crosshairs don't move, the entire mech is moving around them but they are nailed to the center of the screen, which is typical of an arcade shooter. Yes, I know that previous MW titles did the same thing, but just because they did it, doesn't mean it was a good thing. The second, is everytime the mech fires all the beam weapons converge exactly where the crosshairs are, also something that only happens in arcade shooters.

I think the locked reticule is due more to our controller setup's capabilities vs how the lore functions, and btw, MW3 did allow for a "free" reticule. It's simply not easy to have control of a 'mech's movement AND it's reticule at the same time with a mouse/kbd or mouse/joystick. Thus most of the 'mech games have had the reticule locked into the center of the hud.

Quote

Why should the crosshairs move, because they are super imposed on the viser of the neurohelmet so if the pilot's head moves they move, and it doesn't matter if the pilot is moving his head or if his head is being translated by the mechs movement, in both cases the crosshairs will move.

Actually, most of the time, the reticule is on the main cockpit hud and not in the neurohelmet viewscreen.

Quote

The second one requires a bit more explination as to why it's not acceptable in anything but an arcade shooter. S
...

What does all this mean? Simple, it takes time to get weapons aimed and if you don't allow for that time then your weapons will not hit what your aiming at. How much time? Well rather than figuring out what all this would take in realtime, I would suggest we give it a value that just 'feels right'.

You're right that the 'mech has to handle the target resolution; and you're right that it doesn't happen instantly. 'Mechs in the BTUniverse are not gundam-esque in their aiming abilities.

You want to know what's neat? We already know how long it takes for a 'mech t&t setup to get a ridiculously good fix - about thirty seconds, if you're really, REALLY taking your time and say, want to shoot something MILES away. Normal operation takes less than ten seconds. Quality of lock is indicated by color-codes on the Hud around the reticule and lock tones.

Quote

So how else to do it? Well, I'm open to suggestions as my preferred method is probably to sim for most people. I would prefer that all the weapons aim points be tracked all the time and represented in the HUD with simple geometric shapes, when the crosshair is over the target you want you tell the mech to aim and those shapes 'snap' towards the crosshair, how close they get would vary, but think ball park, then they would continue to move more slowly towards the cross hair until they get realively close.

Do it like the lore does it. The pilot manipulates the reticule on the hud and puts it where he wants things shot at, and the mech takes in sensory data, crunches it, and uses those results to determine how to align the individual weapons to best try and hit what the pilot is indicating with the reticule. Use color coding and tones to indicate quality of lock instead of cluttering the hud with things that are impossible to track easily in combat...

So you have the pilot tracking the target, choosing when to shoot, and where to shoot... with the 'mech doing all the rest.

As far as the back end game mechanic? ... we already have the data on how well a 'mech in the BTUniverse can hit an overall mech sized target and how well it can get multiple weapons to concentrate "under the reticule."

All we have to do is convince people that in an MechWarrior video game you should have the player directly controlling the 'mech and the 'mech directly controlling the weapons, instead of having the player directly controlling both.

You know, actually have people playing a game that simulates what it's like to pilot a battlemech, instead of quake version (whatever).

[BigSteel]

Fahr, on 01 August 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

these machines ahve neuro-interfaces, they are not driven, more like worn.

This is a big part thatis missing from the people who talk about SIM implemetation in this game. Its stings when it becomes a very unresposive World of Tanks like event.