If you want to go with OP's premise, then this thread is entirely stupid. (Though TBF, there are plenty of game with Aim-assist to the level of OP's description. They are not bad games either. It's just how you execute the aim-assist to still allow skill to come into play. An auto-aim assist does not make a game boring by default.)
But, as some people have done, which is to steer the direction toward IRL auto-targeting system, which I find a lot more interesting.
Let's start with the video Lily posted about the "auto-aim" rifle. Technically, that rifle isn't auto-aim per se. It's auto-tracking. There's a huge distinction between the two. Auto-aim would imply that not only is the target being tracked, but your mech's mechanical part actually moves to compensate for the lock. But for auto-track, we already have that in game. All those red squares that show up when you look at someone... that's auto-tracking.
But to have auto-aim would suggest that the mech itself has movement controlled by the firing solution (mech torso, and possibly even movement), which would be reason no. uno for why this is a bad idea for a moving mechanized unit. You don't want to fight the AI firing solution for the control of the mech body. I can see it comes into play if you have a turret situation, but for the most part, these things need to move with constant torso twist. It's the reason why we are playing MECHWARRIOR online instead of Turret Controller Online.
So practical reason no. 1, it's just not good to have to fight for controls between AI and yourself. (Though I can totally see it as situational toggle, depending on scenario needs)
(At this point, I like to again, point out the difference between auto-aim and auto-track. I felt most people are actually referring to auto-track. A phalanx missile defense system is auto-aim. A M-1 Abram advance computerized targeting system to tell you where to place the shot, that's auto-track.)
Reason no. 2 would be the complexity of such lock. Remember, real world doesn't work like in MWO where an ENTIRE arm have shared HP. In fact, technically the HP we have now should indicate the thickness of the armor, meaning: say joint A and B both have armor thickness to survive 60 points of damages. If Join A is hit by 60 points, doesn't mean the entire arm is gone. Just joint A is gone. Thus, it actually makes no sense to target a precise "spot" per se. Now, you could argue that you are always targeting center mass, but would you always want to target center mass or weak spots? And what if sometimes, such analysis is not possible except through visual confirmation? In which case, to ask the firing solution to be constantly refining the lock is too much of a distraction.
Reason no. 3 would be the delayed response. Often times, an enemy mech would torso twist away to protect damaged or vital components. (And I imagine auto-aiming for these parts is what the discussion is about, right?) Well, see, rather than wait for the components to become sight-line available again, depending on situation, I would fire anyways to expose additional weakness. Say you lock onto the right torso, but the right torso never came into view again. Does your firing solution just sat idle then? And if not, why not just have the firing control from the start and make your own decision?
Reason no. 4 would be that there's no appropriate machines to do so. What auto-aim implies that there needs to be a weapon officer. Much like any 2 seaters fighter jets to coordinate the complex firing solutions. There are plenty of modern FPS games that demonstrate such concept by having you play as either the pilot (where you just to steer toward a specific general area) OR as the weapon officer (where you just do precise aiming of whatever is in-front of you, like rail-shooter). However, aside from Atlas D-DC, there are no known mech that is designed to have 2 people. (Though, again, I don't see why not. In fact, for such a complex war machine, it almost felt like having 2 people should be standard.)
------------------
With all that said, there is a weapon system I like to see change, and that's the missile system. Cause as we know, missiles do not require LoS targeting. In fact, it's all electronic/heat/other signature lock that guides the missiles. So theoretically, if you can auto-track, you can also auto-lock. A while ago, I proposed a split firing mode where LRM 10, for example, can be firing into 2 people with 5 missiles a piece. It's the same concept. Rather than the redundant system we have now, (where you have auto-tracking AND you have to manually lock the target), you simplify the missiles and just fire with track signatures.
See, that to me, makes so much sense, that I wonder why it's not even put in game. (Though I imagine people would be super rear-hurt and cry, "LRM OP!" all the time.)
Edited by razenWing, 15 December 2016 - 10:20 AM.
8
Sal Roma, on 14 December 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:
