44 replies to this topic

[Bluescuba]

All the reticle needs is some mildots... say 5 on each side. Then if you miss you can adjust by placing the appropriate mildot over the target.

Job Done... That will be 200 Million C-Bills please PGI; for sorting out your targeting complaints.

Edited by Bluescuba, 10 December 2012 - 04:42 PM.

[TruePoindexter]

LionOne, on 10 December 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

The crosshairs reticle MWO uses is essentially worthless for inducing lead. I'd love to see alternative reticles available. I'm really looking for something like the reticle in use on the M1A1 Abrams.

I'm not sure I understand what you're really after. Do you want guide marks that help you tick off lead or do you want the game to have a lead indicator.

Edited by TruePoindexter, 10 December 2012 - 11:00 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

if it's good enough for the US Army and Marines, You bet your Ash I want what a REAL Soldier uses to kill the enemy True!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 10 December 2012 - 11:01 AM.

[TruePoindexter]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 December 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

if it's good enough for the US Army and Marines, You bet your Ash I want what a REAL Soldier uses to kill the enemy True!

I'm just not sure what the issue is to begin with - the reticles seem to work fine. I would argue the convergence system gets more in the way of firing accurately than the reticle.

[Joseph Mallan]

Why not? Why should I have a harder chance to kill in a game than I do in real life? If I'm willing to take the risk in RL why wouldn't/Shouldn't I be willing to take it in a game?

True... I never fired a tank gun so I don't know what I'm missing i'm just wondering why people are afraid to pretend to do what we (soldiers) do and did for a job? The people we kill didn't have a chance, people playing this game will have the same equipment as we did/do. The field would be level, best tactics win. That's what we want isn't it?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 10 December 2012 - 11:24 AM.

[PurpleNinja]

Orzorn, on 10 December 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

None of that realism garbage is relevent.
The real reason the crosshair doesn't show lead is because that is within the realm of the targeting computer.

But now ECM is messing up with the targeting computer, so that's explains the lag shield.

[Joseph Mallan]

Orzorn, on 10 December 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

None of that realism garbage is relevent.

The real reason the crosshair doesn't show lead is because that is within the realm of the targeting computer.

I beg to differ,
Mongoose stole it from....here.

[potatoparrot]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 December 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

Why not? Why should I have a harder chance to kill in a game than I do in real life? If I'm willing to take the risk in RL why wouldn't/Shouldn't I be willing to take it in a game?

True... I never fired a tank gun so I don't know what I'm missing i'm just wondering why people are afraid to pretend to do what we (soldiers) do and did for a job? The people we kill didn't have a chance, people playing this game will have the same equipment as we did/do. The field would be level, best tactics win. That's what we want isn't it?

Well, lots of people like to play competitive games to... Compete.

In order to compete, the game needs at least a relatively high skill ceiling. Introducing automation, such as a "shoot here" reticule, drops the skill ceiling. That makes the game, well, near enough objectively worse.

Skill ceiling is good, automation is bad. People play games to, well, play them. The more the game does for us, the less we do in the game, the lower the skill ceiling, the less interesting the experience overall.

It'd be like if League of Legends lead skill-shots for you - That'd be garbage.

[DaZur]

I would not be surprise at all if PGI doesn't have an "enhanced" retical as a module up their sleeve somewhere...

"10,000" C-Bills will give you a rudimentary lead-computing retical" or some such nonsense.

[Dishevel]

Penance, on 10 December 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

Listen, people need to realize that this game was made long BEFORE things like the M1 were thought up. The technology that is around today was NOT around at the time this game was created, NOR has the game gone through any kinds of revisions. So things that we have today, simply do NOT exist in the game universe.

Accept it, or just stop being lazy and needing the game to tell you where to shoot, and you know, use your brain and lead targets on your own.

Umm.
Sarcasm, Right?
Please, please, please be sarcasm.

DaZur, on 10 December 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

I would not be surprise at all if PGI doesn't have an "enhanced" retical as a module up their sleeve somewhere...

"10,000" C-Bills will give you a rudimentary lead-computing retical" or some such nonsense.

More like 12,000,000

[TruePoindexter]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 December 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

True... I never fired a tank gun so I don't know what I'm missing i'm just wondering why people are afraid to pretend to do what we (soldiers) do and did for a job? The people we kill didn't have a chance, people playing this game will have the same equipment as we did/do. The field would be level, best tactics win. That's what we want isn't it?

It is a level field though - we all have the same reticles and firing mechanics. It may not be user friendly but it's definitely fair.

The only real gotcha with the current firing mechanics deal with convergence. A good example is with the YLW's arm mounted ACs. If you're fighting someone at point blank range you would think that it would be impossible to miss. Ironically because of the convergence system the game draws a line from the cannon to your reticle and tries to fire along that line - often leading to shots the fly upwards almost perfectly vertical that miss.

This is actually one major reason why I feel that for ballistics the Hunchback is almost unilaterally superior over the Centurion - the shoulder AC suffers far less from convergence snafu's like the example than the arm mounted AC does.

[Odins Fist]

LionOne, on 10 December 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

"Can We Get A Better Reticle?"

.
YES... Please can we get a reticle that isn't so thick, and yellow..?? Make it half the width (thickness of the lines), and Green.
.
Yellow is such a bad choice for the color, it makes me cringe....

Edited by Odins Fist, 10 December 2012 - 11:50 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Jings, on 10 December 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

Well, lots of people like to play competitive games to... Compete.

In order to compete, the game needs at least a relatively high skill ceiling. Introducing automation, such as a "shoot here" reticule, drops the skill ceiling. That makes the game, well, near enough objectively worse.

Skill ceiling is good, automation is bad. People play games to, well, play them. The more the game does for us, the less we do in the game, the lower the skill ceiling, the less interesting the experience overall.

It'd be like if League of Legends lead skill-shots for you - That'd be garbage.

So I don't understand, people wanna play a war game, they want to "compete" but they also want "balance" so if everything is equal, and every one can hit one another then the competition is who has the better plan and execution. How is competitive different from balanced?

[Roughneck45]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 December 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

So I don't understand, people wanna play a war game, they want to "compete" but they also want "balance" so if everything is equal, and every one can hit one another then the competition is who has the better plan and execution. How is competitive different from balanced?

But everyone can hit one another right now. You would just be making the system easier by removing most of the pilot skill from the eqaution.

[Joseph Mallan]

i don't know, we are still running around at fairly high speed, and we are saying "like" something. not a copy of it. What we are using now is more like iron sights I used back on the rifle range. Use tracking from the 70s if you think today's tech is to good.

Oh and Roughneck... Lag shield.

This is a combat game. Killing is super easy. I know I was a grunt!

[potatoparrot]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 December 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

So I don't understand, people wanna play a war game, they want to "compete" but they also want "balance" so if everything is equal, and every one can hit one another then the competition is who has the better plan and execution. How is competitive different from balanced?

Competitive demands a high skill ceiling, balanced simply demands that no one feature or small group of features be significantly stronger than alternatives, and that no feature has no counter.

This game is tactical, yes, but it's also undeniably an FPS. It was started as an FPS - The fact that it controls differently to most FPS' and has slightly different mechanics does not detract that it is first person and a shooter and that victory relies to some degree on a pilots ability to hit the mark.

Making it trivial to hit the mark lowers the skill ceiling because it removes an element of skill from the game. Some things can be filed under "quality of life" improvements that make an impact on skill ceiling but just make the game nicer to play (some things like if the game automatically turned when at maximum torso twist, that would lower the skill ceiling but wouldn't detract too much from it while also making the game friendlier to newer players) - It can be compared to League of Legends adding the Tower Aggro Indicator.

But just plain old showing people where to shoot to hit the target removes a very large amount of skill from the game - You no longer need to lead for ballistics, removing a significant drawback to an already very powerful weapon group.

Imagine if something like Call of Duty (if that even has bullet travel time) added a "shoot here" system. What if Battlefield 3 added an indicator when you had an RPG out that showed how far up to aim to hit that tank? What if League of Legends put an indicator above creeps that were weak enough to be last-hit?

All these things drop the skill ceiling in a way that is detrimental to the competitive aspect of the game. If everything becomes easier, then the game is less competitive despite still being balanced - The down side is that when things get easier, they get less competitive. For a competitive game, which an online shooter certainly falls under, this is bad.

I would not be against having a lead indicator module, though I would advise against anyone ever using it as it's a crutch.

[JebusGeist]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 December 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

Why not? Why should I have a harder chance to kill in a game than I do in real life? If I'm willing to take the risk in RL why wouldn't/Shouldn't I be willing to take it in a game?

Reverse the question: If you are willing to take the risk in a game, why wouldn't/shouldn't you be willing to take it IRL? I think the answer to both questions is pretty much the same, real life is not a game and a game is not real life. You get killed IRL and you don't reappear on another battlefield 15 minutes later alive and well, so would you argue that particular piece of realism should be incorporated into the game? Permanent death is definitely immersion.

By the way, which specific risk are you taking in real life using targetting systems in comparison to not using them? Seems like there is less risk involved there. In fact, seems like in real life the tendency now is to reduce the total number of personnel actually on the ground and replace them with remote warfare. As for the people on the ground, the idea seems to be to make whatever weapons and equipment they are using easier to work with so that even a poor quality soldier is more effective now than he would have been 80 years ago.

I assume if I could come up with an RL system that works as effectively as an Aim Bot works in video games governments would be throwing money at me trying to buy it. I mean, whats a more perfect weapon than one that any ***** can use effectively with next to no training? Thats IRL thinking, because in IRL a dead soldier is a permanently wasted resource, and someone with slow reflexes is a liability to himself and others.

Far as I know from several docs I've seen over the past 10 years the US military has been working on the equivalent of RL aim bots for quite a while. So basically, as I see it, the argument you have made is just as applicable to having aim bots in game. So what if it lowers, or virtually eliminates the skill ceiling for the game and a great deal of the challenge that a heavily skill based system provides, just as long as its true to life.

[Joseph Mallan]

However better does not necessitate OP.
Are SSRMs competitive (with or without ECM)
Is a Gauss Compteative
Is a better targeting system automatically not competitive?

Also good explanation Jings

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 10 December 2012 - 12:14 PM.

[RainbowToh]

Thontor, on 10 December 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

Watch the reticle itself, if it turns red that is a server confirmed hit. You can't trust anything else right now, not the enemy paper doll flashing, or what you actually see the weapon do in game. Only the reticle turning red is a confirmed hit.

Erm the enemy armor paper doll can be trusted. I checked both the red crosshair and the paper doll to ensure im hitting the right spot.

[Paleus Arelius]

As a M1 tanker I can say that target engagement is a bit more on the manual side than what is currently available. But that is good, its fun and takes skill to induce lead and adjust for drop for AC rounds. Now I am not saying engaging and destroying a target on an Abrams is fully automated, we still need to train constantly in sims and through live fire. It requires a lot of coordination to and know how of booth firing with and without a fire control computer and aux. Sights. (degraded modes) .
I would not mind a thinner and adjustable reticule.