Forums » Suggestions
So, I've always thought it'd be extremely cool if the guns in VO had some sort of arc to them, even if slight in most cases. Instead of linear firing patterns, guns could deviate with a lateral curve in different ways. Maybe the majority of the curve would start at the beginning, and straighten out some towards the end, or perhaps the farther the target is the greater distance the shots would fly off before shooting in at a sharp angle. My personal favorite would be something with a variable curve that could be modified on the fly.
Not only would this look cool and Sci-Fi'ish, but it could add a new degree to the fine tuning of balance in the universe, as one type of curve might be good in one situation, but not so great in the next. Just an idea anyways.
Not only would this look cool and Sci-Fi'ish, but it could add a new degree to the fine tuning of balance in the universe, as one type of curve might be good in one situation, but not so great in the next. Just an idea anyways.
So what would make it curve? I'm all for things "looking cool", but why would a particle or plasma beam/bolt deviate unless some outside force acts on it?
Additionally, what good is a weapon that doesn't go where you point it?
Additionally, what good is a weapon that doesn't go where you point it?
hmmm... I'm with popcornmeister on this one. Even if you could explain it as some kind of lorenz force, or even have the targeting computer automatically compensate, I really don't think it would add anything to the game that would make it worthwhile.
Well, that's the real question. It would still technically go where you *point* it, but not necessarily how you *line* it up. In other words, in both situations your fire would cross the point where your lead off indicator predicts your target will be, but obviously wouldn't take the same paths to that point. Although in some situations (a target accelerating straight towards or away from you, but not changing its relative angle) a curve could be detrimental, in other situations (a target accelerating laterally across your field of view) an arc in your fire could give you the superior angle.
To illustrate my point, I posted these screenshots of me blasting a fleeing Cunjo. The reason why the resolution is so low is because my Mac is over 7 years old, but I still think it gets the idea across.
Oh no! The mechanics of VO can't compensate for acceleration.
Aha! This curved firing pattern lets me shoot at an angle I couldn't before. *beep beep beep*
To illustrate my point, I posted these screenshots of me blasting a fleeing Cunjo. The reason why the resolution is so low is because my Mac is over 7 years old, but I still think it gets the idea across.
Oh no! The mechanics of VO can't compensate for acceleration.
Aha! This curved firing pattern lets me shoot at an angle I couldn't before. *beep beep beep*
I don't get it...how does it determine the "place you're aiming at" in the third dimension? If you're shooting at something really close the arc would have to be different than if it were far away
Welp, one way would be the exact same method that VO currently uses for its guns. It calculates the target's current speed, and determines the point that the target will be at by the time one of your shots would hit it. The curved shot thing might do just that, and then add a degree of arc to the path of fire. I'll draw up another illustration.
Edit: Here we go. The big circle at the bottom is you.
Edit: Here we go. The big circle at the bottom is you.
In each of your examples, the curved shot path still has no effect on whether you hit the target, or actually makes it less likely.
In your example of a target that is accelerating (a situation that the lead-off indicator and autoaim do not handle well), your curved shot is still being computed by the same method as the normal autoaim, and so will reach the target point at the wrong time, just as a shot fired using autoaim often does against a target that is accelerating rapidly. Your example assumes that the curved shot would get ahead of the fleeing target, but this is not likely to be the case, unless you forced it to aim at a point further away than the target, causing the curve to intersect their flight path at a point further along than the lead-off indicator would suggest. Turning off autoaim and leading the target manually in such a situation (with normally firing weapons) would be much more likely to work.
In your second diagram, the two shots are not exactly equivalent. The curved shot would have to be fired sooner than the linear one, as it has a longer distance to travel, but still has the same velocity. The end result is that you (or the auto-aim algorithm) have to lead the target more in order to land a shot at any given time than if your shots fired in a straight line.
Additionally, with auto-aim disabled, this would be even more of a hinderance, as there is no longer a distance to use in order to determine the curve properly. Either it assumes the current distance to your target (which will often be wrong unless both ships are stationary), or the distance that the lead-off indicator would show, which will again be wrong if you aren't aiming directly at the lead-off.
For energy weapons, I don't really see how this makes any sense. Missiles, however, might be more interesting if their flight paths weren't always so precise.
In your example of a target that is accelerating (a situation that the lead-off indicator and autoaim do not handle well), your curved shot is still being computed by the same method as the normal autoaim, and so will reach the target point at the wrong time, just as a shot fired using autoaim often does against a target that is accelerating rapidly. Your example assumes that the curved shot would get ahead of the fleeing target, but this is not likely to be the case, unless you forced it to aim at a point further away than the target, causing the curve to intersect their flight path at a point further along than the lead-off indicator would suggest. Turning off autoaim and leading the target manually in such a situation (with normally firing weapons) would be much more likely to work.
In your second diagram, the two shots are not exactly equivalent. The curved shot would have to be fired sooner than the linear one, as it has a longer distance to travel, but still has the same velocity. The end result is that you (or the auto-aim algorithm) have to lead the target more in order to land a shot at any given time than if your shots fired in a straight line.
Additionally, with auto-aim disabled, this would be even more of a hinderance, as there is no longer a distance to use in order to determine the curve properly. Either it assumes the current distance to your target (which will often be wrong unless both ships are stationary), or the distance that the lead-off indicator would show, which will again be wrong if you aren't aiming directly at the lead-off.
For energy weapons, I don't really see how this makes any sense. Missiles, however, might be more interesting if their flight paths weren't always so precise.
In your example of a target that is accelerating (a situation that the lead-off indicator and autoaim do not handle well), your curved shot is still being computed by the same method as the normal autoaim, and so will reach the target point at the wrong time, just as a shot fired using autoaim often does against a target that is accelerating rapidly.
That part atleast is correct. The shot would then proceed along it's curved path with a chance of hitting the target not where the lead off indicator predicted it would, but rather where the curve intersects the path of the target the second time. (Left shot)
Or, while firing at the accelerating target as per my second diagram, a curved shot might hit where a linear shot would not, because the curve exagerates a little bit out of the way, and hopefully into the path of the target. (Right shot)
Here's a cleaner diagram.
That part atleast is correct. The shot would then proceed along it's curved path with a chance of hitting the target not where the lead off indicator predicted it would, but rather where the curve intersects the path of the target the second time. (Left shot)
Or, while firing at the accelerating target as per my second diagram, a curved shot might hit where a linear shot would not, because the curve exagerates a little bit out of the way, and hopefully into the path of the target. (Right shot)
Here's a cleaner diagram.
Learn to compensate for acceleration manually, turn off Auto-Aim.
Done.
Done.
The problem with turning off auto-aim is that you then can't shoot in one direction while flying in another. It limits your options. Regardless, compensating for acceleration isn't even the point of this thread. All discussion up to this point has just been argument over whether a curve would or would not have any effect. Assuming that it would, a gajillion things could be done with it. A curve, for example, could be tacked on as a disadvantage to a gun that's unusually strong.
Mynt: It is very well possible to have non-collinear firing and movement vectors. Turn off Flight Assist.
It is, however, not what I would call feasible to have collinear vectors when it comes to firing and sight. Id est you look in the direction you shoot (usually), unless you turn off Mouselook.
It is, however, not what I would call feasible to have collinear vectors when it comes to firing and sight. Id est you look in the direction you shoot (usually), unless you turn off Mouselook.
I'm with tosh, when firing at a running target, or one of them annoying "5 finger lotus" styles, I turn off auto aim, increases the chance of a hit, as for not being able to travel in one direction and still fire, well, you would have to elaborate, cos i'm damn sure autoaim does not effect my ability to shoot and move, either on or off.
keep in mind any curved firing solution would lengthen the path of travel of payload. thus slowing it down.
i just dont see the point in that.
i just dont see the point in that.
It would be useful with gauss; imagien if the target ship is ahead of you, and it turns to the left to dodge. You hit the "fire patter alpha" and your shots curve in that direction.
Heeeel, it'd be cool to have weird weipions for the heck of it. Along with that guided missile...*drulezz*
Heeeel, it'd be cool to have weird weipions for the heck of it. Along with that guided missile...*drulezz*
I'm afraid most people won't be able to harness the split-second available to them to decide which shot pattern they should use.
I am with Miha on this: K.I.S.S.
I am with Miha on this: K.I.S.S.
well, it doesn't make sense for any weapon other than missiles and rockets.
edit:
fire patter alpha
aw gawd... you're a trekky aren't you? *hiss*
edit:
fire patter alpha
aw gawd... you're a trekky aren't you? *hiss*
"I am with Miha on this: K.I.S.S."
Pre-emptive agreeing with me, toshiro? I hadn't even posted to this thread yet!
I do think keeping it simple is the best option here. Seems to me that curving energy weapons would be a) difficult to explain in the terms of the ingame mechanics (read: in-character explanations, how the technology was created) and b) remain believeable. I honestly can't see any reason to implement such a feature--it's hardly necessary, and the time the devs spend implementing it would be better spent with you learning to aim instead. :P
Pre-emptive agreeing with me, toshiro? I hadn't even posted to this thread yet!
I do think keeping it simple is the best option here. Seems to me that curving energy weapons would be a) difficult to explain in the terms of the ingame mechanics (read: in-character explanations, how the technology was created) and b) remain believeable. I honestly can't see any reason to implement such a feature--it's hardly necessary, and the time the devs spend implementing it would be better spent with you learning to aim instead. :P
OK, i have to say it seems like everyone is ignoring the obvious advantage to cureved firing patterns:
they are harder to dodge. If the vector of the ammunition is constantly changing it's harder to know which way to go to get out of the way.
I think the best implementation of this would be Variable Terjectory Balistic Missiles, which would fire such that they will travel through the point the lead indicator is predicting the target to be at time of expected. impact, but use a randomly chosen vector to do so. They aren't seeking missiles as once fired they don't adapt their targeting data, but they aren't pure rockets as they do alter terjectory once launched.
These could be especially effective for attacking capitle ships that are defended by point deffence turrets, as the changing coarse makes them harder to intercept.
they are harder to dodge. If the vector of the ammunition is constantly changing it's harder to know which way to go to get out of the way.
I think the best implementation of this would be Variable Terjectory Balistic Missiles, which would fire such that they will travel through the point the lead indicator is predicting the target to be at time of expected. impact, but use a randomly chosen vector to do so. They aren't seeking missiles as once fired they don't adapt their targeting data, but they aren't pure rockets as they do alter terjectory once launched.
These could be especially effective for attacking capitle ships that are defended by point deffence turrets, as the changing coarse makes them harder to intercept.
"they are harder to dodge."
In other words, they're a crutch; a substitute for actual skill. No thanks. I want to be better in PvP like most other people, but I refuse to let something like that give me the illusion that I'm better. Mecha could explain better, I think.
In other words, they're a crutch; a substitute for actual skill. No thanks. I want to be better in PvP like most other people, but I refuse to let something like that give me the illusion that I'm better. Mecha could explain better, I think.
I can do it just as well
NINNY!
NINNY!