54 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

Sader325, on 04 May 2016 - 08:31 PM, said:

Now who's being stubborn?

I never said I wasn't stubborn.

I absolutely am being stubborn about this, because calling something aim assist (which has a very specific meaning in a fps game) that isn't actually that is incredibly misleading.

But even then I'd have just written it off as someone being a typical forumite, except that in this case you're being misleading in a very "tinderbox" sort of subject. This is the sort of thing that gets a large number of people believing that it is aim assist as per the normal fps definition (which it objectively is not), and the last thing we need is halfwits who take what youre saying at face value about up in arms about "3PV exploits" or other such ****. Yes, I know you didn't say it was an exploit, but that's exactly what's two steps down that road.

As you're a sort of "front and center" sort for a large part of the community, that's a real danger.

[Sader325]

Wintersdark, on 04 May 2016 - 08:45 PM, said:

I never said I wasn't stubborn.

I absolutely am being stubborn about this, because calling something aim assist (which has a very specific meaning in a fps game) that isn't actually that is incredibly misleading.

But even then I'd have just written it off as someone being a typical forumite, except that in this case you're being misleading in a very "tinderbox" sort of subject. This is the sort of thing that gets a large number of people believing that it is aim assist as per the normal fps definition (which it objectively is not), and the last thing we need is halfwits who take what youre saying at face value about up in arms about "3PV exploits" or other such ****. Yes, I know you didn't say it was an exploit, but that's exactly what's two steps down that road.

As you're a sort of "front and center" sort for a large part of the community, that's a real danger.

Sader325, on 04 May 2016 - 07:47 PM, said:

So what it comes down to is you won't call it aim assist because it wasn't designed that way.

And I will call it aim assist, since it has (Albeit accidentally and primarly for PPC's) created the conditions in which to assist aiming shots.


We are at an impass.

^ We are here again.

[Juodas Varnas]

This thread is dumb.

Sader, how about you actually play a game with actual aim assist (like CoD or Halo with a controller) and then come back.

[Wintersdark]

Sader325, on 04 May 2016 - 07:47 PM, said:

So what it comes down to is you won't call it aim assist because it wasn't designed that way.

No. I won't call it aim assist because aim assist is a specific thing, it has defined meaning. The design and intent here is irrelevant.

Aim assist is a system that draws near misses into being hits, that essentially makes the target object bigger than it actually is. It actively adjusts firing angles to make shots that would have narrowly missed hit.

This does not do that. It doesn't adjust your aim at all, and the target itself isn't larger. The target area on the screen, the rejion in which you can hit the target, is exactly the same size. The conditions when you can hit (a static target) are the same: when your cross hairs are over the target.

There is no active assistance. Your aim is never adjusted.

It visually looks like aim assistance in a specific situation (particular angles and surroundings) butdue to what's actually happening it works against you in more circumstances (see: video 2, where what looks like a hit becomes a miss)

Now, you may argue that that was aim assistance, as that crosshair jump down showed you a shot that looked like it would hit but would actually hit terrain! Except that in that situation, in FPV, your cross hairs would have already been on the terrain.

What happened was 3PV made it look like you could have a hit that wasn't possible, then didn't allow it. In FPV, it never would have looked possible in the first place. In both, the actual possible target area is identical.

3PV is acting against you here, creating visual distortion, then correcting it. In essence, making an extra penalty then removing it while your cross hairs are over your target. It's just ceasing to actively hinder you rather than helping.

"But this is still assistance, even if still backwards!" You may erroneously argue. No.

Once those targets are moving, and you want to hit them with PPC's. If you need to lead them? Because your cross hairs will still be converging on distant terrain, they'll appear higher. You'll need to lead your target, AND aim (from your cameras perspective) over top of the target. This makes leading targets way harder, due to that active hindering effect I explained above - because your cross hairs aren't over a nearby target, it doesn't stop distorting your aim.

---

Sader: Look at this duck I found!



Wintersdark: No, that might look like a duck, but it's not a duck. Ducks have bills, and webbed feet. This is a duck:



Note the webbed feet and bill?

Sader: But if you look at it while it's sitting down, and pointed away from you, it looks like a duck! It smells like a duck, too! It must be a duck!

Wintersdark: *headdesk*

[Bobzilla]

So not aim assist, but convergence on target indicator?

[kesmai]

Bobzilla, on 05 May 2016 - 02:29 AM, said:

So not aim assist, but convergence on target indicator?

mix projectile weapons of different projectile speed.
watch the "soft whatever" theory go down the drain faster than a pound of poop.

[Sjorpha]

Sader your well earned position as a known top player in a major unit comes with some responsibility.

Wintersdark is right, even if you think this is helpful you should absolutely not call it "aim-assist" since that is very likely to set off the conspiracy nuts in the community and lead to all sorts of false rumors about 3PV being exploitable.

Obviously you can persist in the hairsplitting and insist on your own definition of "aim-assist" despite the fact that it's not the common one, but that is potentially harmful for no benefit at all.

[Pariah Devalis]

Sorry, Sader. Not aim assist. Aim assist will attract the reticule if it is anywhere near an enemy. All we're seeing here is the POV reticule snap wonkiness inherent from the third person reticule draw. Considering it is just as likely to snap it to a target as it is to a piece of terrain, and that it won't automatically follow a target softly, it is not an aim assist.

[Wintersdark]

Bobzilla, on 05 May 2016 - 02:29 AM, said:

So not aim assist, but convergence on target indicator?

No.

All its doing is showing exactly the same thing the fpv reticule shows, except in FPV the reticule is essentially just moving directly towards you instead of up or down.

Understand, nothing different is actually happening, despite how it looks. It's purely a visual artifact of the different perspectives (cross hairs are drawn relative to the cockpit, not the camera).

What's happening is very unintuitive because we're used to 3PV cross hairs being drawn relative to the camera, not an arbitrary point elsewhere - EVERY other 3PV game does it like that. So, when you see it in MWO, it looks strange, and *feels* like it's helping (or alternatively screwing, depending on the circumstances) you. But it's basically just a trick of perspective.

[Tarogato]

An example of why this is not an aim-assist and why 3PV is bad for your aim:

[process]

[tenchugecko]

OP cant admit.

[MechWarrior5152251]

suddenly PPCs are viable!

[Greyhart]

The more important thing about that video is the lack of targeting.

The number of times you fire at mechs with empty triangles. You deny your team information on the position of enemy forces

[Revis Volek]

Greyhart, on 05 May 2016 - 08:06 AM, said:

The more important thing about that video is the lack of targeting.

The number of times you fire at mechs with empty triangles. You deny your team information on the position of enemy forces

Thats what l33ts do to ensure their kill doesn't get stolen secured by another pilot.

[Jackal Noble]

With Sader on this, while it may not be "a very specific " definition of aim assist, it is a aim guidance of a sort

Edited by JackalBeast, 05 May 2016 - 09:19 AM.

[Fut]

Can't help but feel embarrassed for the OP, what kind of self-respecting MechWarrior would want to use an aim-assist?

[Felicitatem Parco]

Fut, on 16 May 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

Can't help but feel embarrassed for the OP, what kind of self-respecting MechWarrior would want to use an aim-assist?

Sader325, on 04 May 2016 - 06:54 PM, said:

Watch the video @ 3:20 as a Long range hit a target standing on top of HPG. Watch as my crosshair approaches the targets location it JUMPS to the mech and i immeaditly click.

I was not aiming, I was waiting for the crosshair to move into position. Perfect example of soft targeting in action.

It moved because the convergence range changed when the enemy walked into your Crosshair .You do not control the cross hairs in 3PV, you can only control the pilot and the pilot is responsible for moving your targeting Crosshair around. There are times when it looks like the Crosshair is jumping from point to point but from your pilot's perspective it is going very smoothly.

This does not include the walking Bobble that was unrelated to this Crosshair jumping.

Remember you cannot place your crosshairs on the Target that your pilot does not have direct line of sight on. Also that the location of the Crosshair in third person mode is a representation of where the pilot sees the shot will be impacting. You can often watch the Crosshair jump from one location to the other location when you were in 3rd person mode only because the pilot was slowly scrolling the Crosshair around and changed its convergence distance based on the Pilot's perspective.

In 1 PV your crosshair does not "move" when you drag it off the edge of a wall, but it will jump in 3PV because the convergence range changes.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 16 May 2016 - 01:32 PM.

[Coolant]

I watched the said start point in the video and I still don't know what soft targeting means?

[Felicitatem Parco]

Coolant, on 16 May 2016 - 01:28 PM, said:

I watched the said start point in the video and I still don't know what soft targeting means?

It's "autoaim" and the OP needs to read my post above regarding crosshair convergence range and perspective.