44 replies to this topic

[LionOne]

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.

[SI The Joker]

Great idea, but I'd like to see the dev team fry the bigger fish, first.

[Roughneck45]

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 think that is intentional, to create a skillgap between players.

If the reticle told you the lead you needed to hit the target that would be way too easy. Not to mention problematic with the warping light mechs.

Edited by Roughneck45, 10 December 2012 - 08:48 AM.

[FrostPaw]

Hmm, I think a lot of people will tell you they like that it takes "skill" to lead a target.

I'd just be happier if I knew I was actually missing rather than the client/server netcode was fluffing it by giving me false information.

In order to get better at something, you first need accurate information about what you're doing wrong. Telling me I'm hitting and then apparently not is not a baseline to improve upon.

A target lead indicator might help those of us with higher latency, but only if it is accurate to the actual position of the target. A target lead indicator that relies on client information to plot a lead point is no better than what we already have by "guessing".

[Penance]

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.

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.

Edited by Penance, 10 December 2012 - 08:51 AM.

[Dax Frey]

I actually like the reticule, I don't see what the problem is.

[ThunderHart]

I like it just the way it is.

[Joseph Mallan]

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.

I'm sorry. but teh Abrams wasn't around ONE year ago? THIS game is much younger than an Abrams. Considering We TT players have been comparing the M1's weapons to CBT weapons for at least a decade. And a Wiki check shows the Abrams has been in service:
In service 1980–present
Predating BattleDroids by a few years.

[Penance]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 December 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

I'm sorry. but teh Abrams wasn't around ONE year ago? THIS game is much younger than an Abrams. Considering We TT players have been comparing the M1's weapons to CBT weapons for at least a decade. And a Wiki check shows the Abrams has been in service:
In service 1980–present
Predating BattleDroids by a few years.

but the advanced tech they've added to the tank hasn't always been around...sorry about not knowing the inception date of the abrams, but that's not really the relevant point, the technology in it is new. real life evolved...the game never did. the tank started at one point, and is in a totally differnet place now.

asking them to do it now (huds, weapon systems, etc), having played the game a while I know you understand everything needs to change. i mean everything, from mech construction, to weapons to anything, all would need to be updated to todays science. a complete and total rehaul of the game (which it could use in some ways).

don't get me wrong, it seems silly that modern tanks can pop smoke, chaff & flares, while a "tank of the future" doesn't have it, but it all boils down to the feel that the designers had all those years ago. people can't parallel real life and a game.

Edited by Penance, 10 December 2012 - 09:06 AM.

[Neklatan]

FrostPaw, on 10 December 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Hmm, I think a lot of people will tell you they like that it takes "skill" to lead a target.

I'd just be happier if I knew I was actually missing rather than the client/server netcode was fluffing it by giving me false information.

In order to get better at something, you first need accurate information about what you're doing wrong. Telling me I'm hitting and then apparently not is not a baseline to improve upon.

A target lead indicator might help those of us with higher latency, but only if it is accurate to the actual position of the target. A target lead indicator that relies on client information to plot a lead point is no better than what we already have by "guessing".

Very true, but back to the OP, assuming it could be done properly, great idea. Always thought that a leading indicator for ballistics/PPC/SRM and the likes would make a cool module.

[Aegis Kleais]

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.

They are planning to do a UI overhaul, and my hope is that the HUD is included (set for around Jan-Feb 2013). I'm with you; odd as it sounds, I want my Mech's HUD to be reminiscent of today's technology. It would serve to show them as military war machines as well as prove the fact that the military actually develops rather optimized HUDs.

Sure they require training, but that's what game manuals are for!

For example, recently, PGI added a NEW UI element on screen showing when you were under the protective envelope of friendly ECM and when you were under disruption by an enemy.

In more traditional UI/HUDs, there would be a simple 'ECM' text that lights up when under protection and a 'LOW SIGNAL' (probably shown in the military vernacular of 'LO SIG') It'd be almost nostalgic

[Vassago Rain]

Penance, on 10 December 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

but the advanced tech they've added to the tank hasn't always been around...sorry about not knowing the inception date of the abrams, but that's not really the relevant point, the technology in it is new. real life evolved...the game never did. the tank started at one point, and is in a totally differnet place now.

asking them to do it now (huds, weapon systems, etc), having played the game a while I know you understand everything needs to change. i mean everything, from mech construction, to weapons to anything, all would need to be updated to todays science. a complete and total rehaul of the game.

don't get me wrong, it seems silly that modern tanks can pop smoke, chaff & flares, while a "tank of the future" doesn't have it, but it all boils down to the feel that the designers had all those years ago.

Uhmm.
I don't think you realize just how ancient the systems on the american battletanks are, or how clueless FASA were.

[Penance]

Vassago Rain, on 10 December 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

Uhmm.
I don't think you realize just how ancient the systems on the american battletanks are, or how clueless FASA were.

Then again, the OP is just talking about the reticule, the cross and circle for the arms, I'm thinking entire systems. so admittedly went on a tangent. As to the point, the current system is fine. Circle tells me where my arms are shooting, cross, stationary guns.

The BT universe to me has always been about the mechs (chassis) & mech pilots, notsomuch about the technology in the mechs, although that stuff is cool too and important. In the few books I've read of the world, all portray mech-pilots using cunning, wits, and tactics to kill a foe...not a targeting computer that tells you where to shoot.

Use the Force Luke.

then again, if light mechs didn't jump around like house of pain, this topic wouldn't be posted.

Edited by Penance, 10 December 2012 - 09:16 AM.

[Aegis Kleais]

Also, it would be nice to have a SMART reticule. Yeah we have a reticule for the arms and for the hull, but if there are no equipped/functioning weapons in either, that reticule should disappear; otherwise it just gets in the way.

[FrostPaw]

Actually the more I think about this the more I wonder if it's possible. If each weapon system has a separate travel time when firing, how could the reticle know which weapon to lead for on a mech with multiple weapon types?

Edited by FrostPaw, 10 December 2012 - 09:22 AM.

[Redshift2k5]

Nothing based on "a real tank does X" is relevant, only how it actually affects your gameplay is relevant.

[Colaessus]

Yes, because a circle and a "+" is to damn simplistic to show the direction your torso or arms are firing at.

[Joseph Mallan]

Penance, on 10 December 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

but the advanced tech they've added to the tank hasn't always been around...sorry about not knowing the inception date of the abrams, but that's not really the relevant point, the technology in it is new. real life evolved...the game never did. the tank started at one point, and is in a totally differnet place now.

asking them to do it now (huds, weapon systems, etc), having played the game a while I know you understand everything needs to change. i mean everything, from mech construction, to weapons to anything, all would need to be updated to todays science. a complete and total rehaul of the game (which it could use in some ways).

don't get me wrong, it seems silly that modern tanks can pop smoke, chaff & flares, while a "tank of the future" doesn't have it, but it all boils down to the feel that the designers had all those years ago. people can't parallel real life and a game.

not according to the tankers in Murphy's Law sir. We are mostly present and former Military personnel, and the video games have never come close to what our combat vehicles can do. You need to go back to the 70's or earlier to have the Tech of 3025!

[Orzorn]

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.

[Vassago Rain]

FrostPaw, on 10 December 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

Actually the more I think about this the more I wonder if it's possible. If each weapon system has a separate travel time when firing, how could the reticle know which weapon to lead for on a mech with multiple weapon types?

It's battletech. I ain't gotta explain ****.