Forums » Suggestions
The problem with turning off auto-aim is that you then can't shoot in one direction while flying in another.
wait... what?
wait... what?
Okay, there's alot of misunderstandings here, which isn't surprising considering that most people aren't used to thinking in curves. Allow me to dispel:
Mynt: It is very well possible to have non-collinear firing and movement vectors. Turn off Flight Assist. This is true, and possible even with Flight Assist on. What isn't possible is shooting anywhere other than directly ahead while auto-aim is off. Turning it off disables that turret that every gun seems to be attached to. Yes, your guns are on swiveling turrets in this game.
cos i'm damn sure autoaim does not effect my ability to shoot and move. Turning off auto-aim does indeed limit your ability to shoot. I'd like to see you shoot a target that's not directly in front of you without auto-aim turned on. You'd have to *move* so that the target is actually directly in front of you. In other words, you're faced with the choice of moving in one direction, or aiming (moving so that your ship's nose faces the target); you can't aim in one direction and fire in the other.
keep in mind any curved firing solution would lengthen the path of travel of payload. thus slowing it down. No. The Devs are *quite* capable of modifying the speed of any gun. If a curved nuetron blaster took 30% longer to reach it's target, there's no reason why it's base speed couldn't be upped 30% to compensate.
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. This is a twitched base FPS style kind of game, and you question whether people have the skill to make split-second decisions?
well, it doesn't make sense for any weapon other than missiles and rockets. True. What were the logical explanations for infinate power sources, traversable wormholes, a speed limit of no more than 225m/s, and a universe full of people who never die again?
"they are harder to dodge."
In other words, they're a crutch; a substitute for actual skill. No, you simple minded ninny. Your use of that metaphor is a crutch for your lack of articluation. Just because you don't use anything but Plasma Govs doesn't mean the rest of us are flying "on a crutch". Believe it or not, it's normal for people to use weapons that give them an advantage. People who use AGT aren't using a "crutch", it's just that you and Mecha are hobbling yourselves because you think it makes you manly, so to speak.
Mynt: It is very well possible to have non-collinear firing and movement vectors. Turn off Flight Assist. This is true, and possible even with Flight Assist on. What isn't possible is shooting anywhere other than directly ahead while auto-aim is off. Turning it off disables that turret that every gun seems to be attached to. Yes, your guns are on swiveling turrets in this game.
cos i'm damn sure autoaim does not effect my ability to shoot and move. Turning off auto-aim does indeed limit your ability to shoot. I'd like to see you shoot a target that's not directly in front of you without auto-aim turned on. You'd have to *move* so that the target is actually directly in front of you. In other words, you're faced with the choice of moving in one direction, or aiming (moving so that your ship's nose faces the target); you can't aim in one direction and fire in the other.
keep in mind any curved firing solution would lengthen the path of travel of payload. thus slowing it down. No. The Devs are *quite* capable of modifying the speed of any gun. If a curved nuetron blaster took 30% longer to reach it's target, there's no reason why it's base speed couldn't be upped 30% to compensate.
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. This is a twitched base FPS style kind of game, and you question whether people have the skill to make split-second decisions?
well, it doesn't make sense for any weapon other than missiles and rockets. True. What were the logical explanations for infinate power sources, traversable wormholes, a speed limit of no more than 225m/s, and a universe full of people who never die again?
"they are harder to dodge."
In other words, they're a crutch; a substitute for actual skill. No, you simple minded ninny. Your use of that metaphor is a crutch for your lack of articluation. Just because you don't use anything but Plasma Govs doesn't mean the rest of us are flying "on a crutch". Believe it or not, it's normal for people to use weapons that give them an advantage. People who use AGT aren't using a "crutch", it's just that you and Mecha are hobbling yourselves because you think it makes you manly, so to speak.
Point by point:
» "What isn't possible is shooting anywhere other than directly ahead while auto-aim is off."
What do you call shooting while strafing? Your shots move in the same direction as your ship on top of moving forward at their shot velocity.
» "Turning off auto-aim does indeed limit your ability to shoot. I'd like to see you shoot a target that's not directly in front of you without auto-aim turned on."
See above.
» "The Devs are *quite* capable of modifying the speed of any gun. If a curved nuetron blaster took 30% longer to reach it's target, there's no reason why it's base speed couldn't be upped 30% to compensate."
Sure, they can increase the speed. But then the shots are also faster when not using the curved-fire mode.
» "This is a twitched base FPS style kind of game, and you question whether people have the skill to make split-second decisions?"
He isn't questioning if people have the skill to make split-second decisions. He's questioning whether the average player will have the reaction time to change the firing mode in time to "save the day" as it were, assuming they are able to make that decision on the fly, and that they actually DO make such a decision.
» "What were the logical explanations for infinate power sources, traversable wormholes, a speed limit of no more than 225m/s, and a universe full of people who never die again?"
a) Gravitic pulse reactors. These draw power from nearby gravity wells. Gravity is constant, and doesn't cease. Therefore, infinite power source.
b) Who says wormholes aren't traversable in the first place? We haven't even proved they exist yet.
c) If you're traveling at half the speed of light, your opponent may not be able to hit you, but you sure as hell aren't gonna land a hit on your opponent. Not to mention relativistic effects.
d) Some people might use an accelerated cloning system ala EvE Online. Some might fly via remote. Some use escape pods. There's a whole thread on this subject alone somewhere in the RP forum. Go dig it up.
» "No, you simple minded ninny. Your use of that metaphor is a crutch for your lack of articluation. Just because you don't use anything but Plasma Govs doesn't mean the rest of us are flying "on a crutch". Believe it or not, it's normal for people to use weapons that give them an advantage. People who use AGT aren't using a "crutch", it's just that you and Mecha are hobbling yourselves because you think it makes you manly, so to speak."
First, what you are suggesting is, at its most basic and simplistic level, a beef to the autoaim system. It widens the time you have to fire a shot that will (most likely) hit your target if it is moving across your weapon's cone of effect. That's what autoaim IS.
Also, I'm not "hobbling" myself by not using AGT. I use gauss in PvP for crying out loud. The AGT is too heavy for me to use even against hive bots, and even with the autoaim, it's still too inaccurate with the spread. I just don't use it often.
I'm well aware it's normal for people to use weapons and equipment that give them an advantage. Why else do you think we have four or five Serco flying gat-flare SCPs in C-10 all the time instead of something a little more level? Why else do you think people use ships and layouts that they're comfortable and have practiced with?
Yes, beefs to the autoaim system are effectively crutches. As the autoaim approaches "perfect", there is less and less of a reason to even use blasters--you might as well just /oper /kill your target. Simply using AGT in its own right, as you believe I implied, is not a crutch. What is a crutch is using only the AGT to the extent that it's the only thing you can kill with--at that point, all it takes to kill you is someone who knows how to dodge AGT (or a ship capable of doing so), and then your use of the AGT is hobbling you, not helping you.
Now, why don't you think about this:
If one player ("Bob") can kill a vulture in a dogfight consistently with railguns, and another player ("Sam") can kill a vulture in a dogfight consistently using gauss, who is more skilled? Bob or Sam?
First, let's compare their ships. Whatever ship Bob is using, Sam should be using it as well for an even comparison. Same goes for powercell. So we have a semi-static ship/powercell layout whose mass and other stats stay the same as base values.
Next, their weapons. Both versions of the gauss cannon have a mass of 1000kg. Only the MkIII railgun has a mass of 1000kg, so I'll use that in the comparison (standard and MkII have an 800kg mass, and the advanced version masses a whopping 2500kg). In the time that it takes for the railgun to reload, one could fire three gauss MkI blasts, and four MkII blasts, for one and half and two times the energy respectively. Still, assuming all shots hit and the player had the energy to shoot that many, that's much more damage than the railguns could dish out in a single blast. Gauss blasts go less than half as fast as railguns (180 or 190m/s compared to 400m/s or greater). Last, there's the autoaim aspect: gauss has decent autoaim (about a 40 to 50-degree arc), but the railguns have no autoaim at all (if they do have it, it's barely more than a degree or two). It takes more skill and hand-eye coordination to land a shot on a vulture that is facing you directly with railguns than it does to hit with gauss. Then there's the whole issue with how the server quantizes angles, which results in the infamous "twisting" of railgun pellets--even if you and your opponent have matched vectors and are not moving at all relative to each other, a railgun shot might miss your opponent simply because of the way the server quantizes the angle of the shot.
On top of that, autoaim is farily easy to fool/spoof. Simply doing a barrel roll will throw off the autoaim for any weapon except an AGT at very close range to the point that it's more efficient to turn off your autoaim and use a spray'n'pray tactic than it is to leave it on and hope that one of your shots will land. Even with curved shots, if you're fighting an intelligent opponent, you're just about as likely to miss as you would be without the curving shots.
Most people will say that Bob is more skilled than Sam, or that Bob has better reflexes than Sam does. Other numbers often will go into this comparison, such as each player's PK count, their PK/death ratio, how many kills they've made with their weapon of choice, etc., but for the sake of this comparison the assumption is that those numbers are about equal between the two players.
PS: For the record, I consider myself one of the worse PvPers in the game. I use what I have practiced with, and what I feel comfortable using in combat, not something for the purpose of making my life harder. You, sir, are the ninny, not me.
» "What isn't possible is shooting anywhere other than directly ahead while auto-aim is off."
What do you call shooting while strafing? Your shots move in the same direction as your ship on top of moving forward at their shot velocity.
» "Turning off auto-aim does indeed limit your ability to shoot. I'd like to see you shoot a target that's not directly in front of you without auto-aim turned on."
See above.
» "The Devs are *quite* capable of modifying the speed of any gun. If a curved nuetron blaster took 30% longer to reach it's target, there's no reason why it's base speed couldn't be upped 30% to compensate."
Sure, they can increase the speed. But then the shots are also faster when not using the curved-fire mode.
» "This is a twitched base FPS style kind of game, and you question whether people have the skill to make split-second decisions?"
He isn't questioning if people have the skill to make split-second decisions. He's questioning whether the average player will have the reaction time to change the firing mode in time to "save the day" as it were, assuming they are able to make that decision on the fly, and that they actually DO make such a decision.
» "What were the logical explanations for infinate power sources, traversable wormholes, a speed limit of no more than 225m/s, and a universe full of people who never die again?"
a) Gravitic pulse reactors. These draw power from nearby gravity wells. Gravity is constant, and doesn't cease. Therefore, infinite power source.
b) Who says wormholes aren't traversable in the first place? We haven't even proved they exist yet.
c) If you're traveling at half the speed of light, your opponent may not be able to hit you, but you sure as hell aren't gonna land a hit on your opponent. Not to mention relativistic effects.
d) Some people might use an accelerated cloning system ala EvE Online. Some might fly via remote. Some use escape pods. There's a whole thread on this subject alone somewhere in the RP forum. Go dig it up.
» "No, you simple minded ninny. Your use of that metaphor is a crutch for your lack of articluation. Just because you don't use anything but Plasma Govs doesn't mean the rest of us are flying "on a crutch". Believe it or not, it's normal for people to use weapons that give them an advantage. People who use AGT aren't using a "crutch", it's just that you and Mecha are hobbling yourselves because you think it makes you manly, so to speak."
First, what you are suggesting is, at its most basic and simplistic level, a beef to the autoaim system. It widens the time you have to fire a shot that will (most likely) hit your target if it is moving across your weapon's cone of effect. That's what autoaim IS.
Also, I'm not "hobbling" myself by not using AGT. I use gauss in PvP for crying out loud. The AGT is too heavy for me to use even against hive bots, and even with the autoaim, it's still too inaccurate with the spread. I just don't use it often.
I'm well aware it's normal for people to use weapons and equipment that give them an advantage. Why else do you think we have four or five Serco flying gat-flare SCPs in C-10 all the time instead of something a little more level? Why else do you think people use ships and layouts that they're comfortable and have practiced with?
Yes, beefs to the autoaim system are effectively crutches. As the autoaim approaches "perfect", there is less and less of a reason to even use blasters--you might as well just /oper /kill your target. Simply using AGT in its own right, as you believe I implied, is not a crutch. What is a crutch is using only the AGT to the extent that it's the only thing you can kill with--at that point, all it takes to kill you is someone who knows how to dodge AGT (or a ship capable of doing so), and then your use of the AGT is hobbling you, not helping you.
Now, why don't you think about this:
If one player ("Bob") can kill a vulture in a dogfight consistently with railguns, and another player ("Sam") can kill a vulture in a dogfight consistently using gauss, who is more skilled? Bob or Sam?
First, let's compare their ships. Whatever ship Bob is using, Sam should be using it as well for an even comparison. Same goes for powercell. So we have a semi-static ship/powercell layout whose mass and other stats stay the same as base values.
Next, their weapons. Both versions of the gauss cannon have a mass of 1000kg. Only the MkIII railgun has a mass of 1000kg, so I'll use that in the comparison (standard and MkII have an 800kg mass, and the advanced version masses a whopping 2500kg). In the time that it takes for the railgun to reload, one could fire three gauss MkI blasts, and four MkII blasts, for one and half and two times the energy respectively. Still, assuming all shots hit and the player had the energy to shoot that many, that's much more damage than the railguns could dish out in a single blast. Gauss blasts go less than half as fast as railguns (180 or 190m/s compared to 400m/s or greater). Last, there's the autoaim aspect: gauss has decent autoaim (about a 40 to 50-degree arc), but the railguns have no autoaim at all (if they do have it, it's barely more than a degree or two). It takes more skill and hand-eye coordination to land a shot on a vulture that is facing you directly with railguns than it does to hit with gauss. Then there's the whole issue with how the server quantizes angles, which results in the infamous "twisting" of railgun pellets--even if you and your opponent have matched vectors and are not moving at all relative to each other, a railgun shot might miss your opponent simply because of the way the server quantizes the angle of the shot.
On top of that, autoaim is farily easy to fool/spoof. Simply doing a barrel roll will throw off the autoaim for any weapon except an AGT at very close range to the point that it's more efficient to turn off your autoaim and use a spray'n'pray tactic than it is to leave it on and hope that one of your shots will land. Even with curved shots, if you're fighting an intelligent opponent, you're just about as likely to miss as you would be without the curving shots.
Most people will say that Bob is more skilled than Sam, or that Bob has better reflexes than Sam does. Other numbers often will go into this comparison, such as each player's PK count, their PK/death ratio, how many kills they've made with their weapon of choice, etc., but for the sake of this comparison the assumption is that those numbers are about equal between the two players.
PS: For the record, I consider myself one of the worse PvPers in the game. I use what I have practiced with, and what I feel comfortable using in combat, not something for the purpose of making my life harder. You, sir, are the ninny, not me.
Pointby point then, because I suspect this thread won't develope into anything besides a flamefest at this point. At the very least, there's the chance that you might learn something, so pay close attention as I dismantle your flimsy argument.
» "What isn't possible is shooting anywhere other than directly ahead while auto-aim is off."
What do you call shooting while strafing? Your shots move in the same direction as your ship on top of moving forward at their shot velocity.
That's still firing directly ahead of *you*, the user. In contrast, with auto-aim I can shoot that same angle, without strafing, and most importantly I can do so far quicker because the response time for auto-aim is instantaneous, where as strafing to achieve an angle is only as quick as your ship's thrusters. Not instantaneous.
» "The Devs are *quite* capable of modifying the speed of any gun. If a curved nuetron blaster took 30% longer to reach it's target, there's no reason why it's base speed couldn't be upped 30% to compensate."
Sure, they can increase the speed. But then the shots are also faster when not using the curved-fire mode.
It's certainly a possibility that the shots are also faster when not using the curved-fire mode, but why would you assume that the Devs would intentionally create such an unbalanced gun? Read the statement carefully; *IF* the blaster took 30% longer, *THEN* it would go 30% faster. Therefor you can kinda' reason out that *IF* the blaster didn't take 30% longer, *THEN* it wouldn't go 30% faster. Gee.
» "This is a twitched base FPS style kind of game, and you question whether people have the skill to make split-second decisions?"
He isn't questioning if people have the skill to make split-second decisions. He's questioning whether the average player will have the reaction time to change the firing mode in time to "save the day" as it were, assuming they are able to make that decision on the fly, and that they actually DO make such a decision.
Questioning whether the average player will have the reaction time to change the firing mode in time to "save the day" as it were, assuming they are able to make that decision on the fly, and that they actually DO make such a decision *is* question whether people have the skill to make split-second decisions. That's what having the reaction time, etc, is... having the skill to make split-second decisions. That's why this game is described as "twitch based". The point is, the better skilled the player, the better abled he'll be to take full advantage of curved weaponry, kind of like how the better skilled a player in VO is, the better abled he'll be to take full advantage of linear weaponry. But thanks for pointing that out, Miharu. I'm sure many people needed you to reiterate what everyone's saying.
» "What were the logical explanations for infinate power sources, traversable wormholes, a speed limit of no more than 225m/s, and a universe full of people who never die again?"
a) Gravitic pulse reactors. These draw power from nearby gravity wells. Gravity is constant, and doesn't cease. Therefore, infinite power source.
b) Who says wormholes aren't traversable in the first place? We haven't even proved they exist yet.
c) If you're traveling at half the speed of light, your opponent may not be able to hit you, but you sure as hell aren't gonna land a hit on your opponent. Not to mention relativistic effects.
d) Some people might use an accelerated cloning system ala EvE Online. Some might fly via remote. Some use escape pods. There's a whole thread on this subject alone somewhere in the RP forum. Go dig it up.
That was a rhetorical question, ninny. My aim was obviously to point out that the explanations for those four things were either missing, or involved a stretch of logic, and that weapons that fire in a curved manner because of, say, magic "Gravitic pulse reactors" would hardly be far-fetched in comparison.
» "No, you simple minded ninny. Your use of that metaphor is a crutch for your lack of articluation. Just because you don't use anything but Plasma Govs doesn't mean the rest of us are flying "on a crutch". Believe it or not, it's normal for people to use weapons that give them an advantage. People who use AGT aren't using a "crutch", it's just that you and Mecha are hobbling yourselves because you think it makes you manly, so to speak."
First, what you are suggesting is, at its most basic and simplistic level, a beef to the autoaim system. It widens the time you have to fire a shot that will (most likely) hit your target if it is moving across your weapon's cone of effect. That's what autoaim IS.
Eh, **** you. What I'm suggesting, at its most basic and simplistic level, is weapons that fire in a bloody curve. There are probably more situations where a curve would be detrimental to your chances of hitting, then not. On the other hand, an intelligent player could take advantage of the situations where a curve might be beneficial, and likewise, an intelligent player could try and force the dogfight in situations where the curve would not be so detrimental. And for the last freakin' time, autoaim is an option that makes your guns turreted, so that they can fire within some degree of angle. Nothing more, nothing less, but if you want to philosophize about the meaning of that, fine.
Also, I'm not "hobbling" myself by not using AGT. I use gauss in PvP for crying out loud. The AGT is too heavy for me to use even against hive bots, and even with the autoaim, it's still too inaccurate with the spread. I just don't use it often.
I'm quite aware of your tendency to use gauss, and keeping that in mind, I don't think you know what you're talking about when you start claiming that "[curved weaponry] widens the time you have to fire a shot that will (most likely) hit your target if it is moving across your weapon's cone of effect" or that you supposedly "refuse to let something like [weaponry that is harder to dodge] give [you] the illusion that [you're] better".
For all your awareness that it's normal for people to use weapons and equipment that give them an adevantage, you still don't seem to comprehend that what that means is if weapons that were harder to dodge truly was, metaphorically speaking, using a crutch, then everyone except for Mecha who for some insane reason fights with Gov Plasma cannons, would be using crutches. That... doesn't make sense. Just because a gun is powerful in one certain respect doesn't mean that your doing something that, while it feels comfortable, is only an illusion of your true potential, Ms. Tri Guass.
Why else do you think we have four or five Serco flying gat-flare SCPs in C-10 all the time instead of something a little more level? Why else do you think people use ships and layouts that they're comfortable and have practiced with?
Why must every thread eventually turn the course of "N3RF PR0Mz"? If something's so overpowered, then fly it. Leave balancing to the Devs, they're pretty practiced at that sort of thing.
Yes, beefs to the autoaim system are effectively crutches.
So are beefs to Damage, Velocity, Energy, Delay, Mass, Port type, and Licenses. The whole concept of that stupid stupid metaphor, is that people who fly things which are 'easy' to win with are at risk of becoming dependant on such things. At it's most basic and simple level, the metaphor is just a way of glorifying that with words what you can't with victories.
As the autoaim approaches "perfect", there is less and less of a reason to even use blasters.
If that were so, then why do people use blasters, smart guy? I gauruntee you that, atleast to most people, autoaim approaching perfection or not, each gun has it's advantages and disadvantages weighed, more or less, fairly. Considering that some people in this thread have already claimed that a curvy gun would be useless, and you seem so hellbent on the idea that it would be monstrously overpowered, I'm willing to bet that the elements for balancing would sort themselves out.
Simply using AGT in its own right, as you believe I implied, is not a crutch. What is a crutch is using only the AGT to the extent that it's the only thing you can kill with--at that point, all it takes to kill you is someone who knows how to dodge AGT (or a ship capable of doing so), and then your use of the AGT is hobbling you, not helping you.
Even if you're 1Ik3 t0tA11y pWnz0rZ with Megapositron blasters, it won't do you a lick o' good if you have AGT equipped. Someone who's skilled in a flare + AGT Prom will fare just as well in one as someone who's just as skilled in every ship shape, and form, because you can only fly one ship at a time anyways. The only thing Mr. Flies-Every-Ship has over Mr. AGT-Flare-Prom-Only is bragging rights. I don't think you understand the metaphor.
» "What isn't possible is shooting anywhere other than directly ahead while auto-aim is off."
What do you call shooting while strafing? Your shots move in the same direction as your ship on top of moving forward at their shot velocity.
That's still firing directly ahead of *you*, the user. In contrast, with auto-aim I can shoot that same angle, without strafing, and most importantly I can do so far quicker because the response time for auto-aim is instantaneous, where as strafing to achieve an angle is only as quick as your ship's thrusters. Not instantaneous.
» "The Devs are *quite* capable of modifying the speed of any gun. If a curved nuetron blaster took 30% longer to reach it's target, there's no reason why it's base speed couldn't be upped 30% to compensate."
Sure, they can increase the speed. But then the shots are also faster when not using the curved-fire mode.
It's certainly a possibility that the shots are also faster when not using the curved-fire mode, but why would you assume that the Devs would intentionally create such an unbalanced gun? Read the statement carefully; *IF* the blaster took 30% longer, *THEN* it would go 30% faster. Therefor you can kinda' reason out that *IF* the blaster didn't take 30% longer, *THEN* it wouldn't go 30% faster. Gee.
» "This is a twitched base FPS style kind of game, and you question whether people have the skill to make split-second decisions?"
He isn't questioning if people have the skill to make split-second decisions. He's questioning whether the average player will have the reaction time to change the firing mode in time to "save the day" as it were, assuming they are able to make that decision on the fly, and that they actually DO make such a decision.
Questioning whether the average player will have the reaction time to change the firing mode in time to "save the day" as it were, assuming they are able to make that decision on the fly, and that they actually DO make such a decision *is* question whether people have the skill to make split-second decisions. That's what having the reaction time, etc, is... having the skill to make split-second decisions. That's why this game is described as "twitch based". The point is, the better skilled the player, the better abled he'll be to take full advantage of curved weaponry, kind of like how the better skilled a player in VO is, the better abled he'll be to take full advantage of linear weaponry. But thanks for pointing that out, Miharu. I'm sure many people needed you to reiterate what everyone's saying.
» "What were the logical explanations for infinate power sources, traversable wormholes, a speed limit of no more than 225m/s, and a universe full of people who never die again?"
a) Gravitic pulse reactors. These draw power from nearby gravity wells. Gravity is constant, and doesn't cease. Therefore, infinite power source.
b) Who says wormholes aren't traversable in the first place? We haven't even proved they exist yet.
c) If you're traveling at half the speed of light, your opponent may not be able to hit you, but you sure as hell aren't gonna land a hit on your opponent. Not to mention relativistic effects.
d) Some people might use an accelerated cloning system ala EvE Online. Some might fly via remote. Some use escape pods. There's a whole thread on this subject alone somewhere in the RP forum. Go dig it up.
That was a rhetorical question, ninny. My aim was obviously to point out that the explanations for those four things were either missing, or involved a stretch of logic, and that weapons that fire in a curved manner because of, say, magic "Gravitic pulse reactors" would hardly be far-fetched in comparison.
» "No, you simple minded ninny. Your use of that metaphor is a crutch for your lack of articluation. Just because you don't use anything but Plasma Govs doesn't mean the rest of us are flying "on a crutch". Believe it or not, it's normal for people to use weapons that give them an advantage. People who use AGT aren't using a "crutch", it's just that you and Mecha are hobbling yourselves because you think it makes you manly, so to speak."
First, what you are suggesting is, at its most basic and simplistic level, a beef to the autoaim system. It widens the time you have to fire a shot that will (most likely) hit your target if it is moving across your weapon's cone of effect. That's what autoaim IS.
Eh, **** you. What I'm suggesting, at its most basic and simplistic level, is weapons that fire in a bloody curve. There are probably more situations where a curve would be detrimental to your chances of hitting, then not. On the other hand, an intelligent player could take advantage of the situations where a curve might be beneficial, and likewise, an intelligent player could try and force the dogfight in situations where the curve would not be so detrimental. And for the last freakin' time, autoaim is an option that makes your guns turreted, so that they can fire within some degree of angle. Nothing more, nothing less, but if you want to philosophize about the meaning of that, fine.
Also, I'm not "hobbling" myself by not using AGT. I use gauss in PvP for crying out loud. The AGT is too heavy for me to use even against hive bots, and even with the autoaim, it's still too inaccurate with the spread. I just don't use it often.
I'm quite aware of your tendency to use gauss, and keeping that in mind, I don't think you know what you're talking about when you start claiming that "[curved weaponry] widens the time you have to fire a shot that will (most likely) hit your target if it is moving across your weapon's cone of effect" or that you supposedly "refuse to let something like [weaponry that is harder to dodge] give [you] the illusion that [you're] better".
For all your awareness that it's normal for people to use weapons and equipment that give them an adevantage, you still don't seem to comprehend that what that means is if weapons that were harder to dodge truly was, metaphorically speaking, using a crutch, then everyone except for Mecha who for some insane reason fights with Gov Plasma cannons, would be using crutches. That... doesn't make sense. Just because a gun is powerful in one certain respect doesn't mean that your doing something that, while it feels comfortable, is only an illusion of your true potential, Ms. Tri Guass.
Why else do you think we have four or five Serco flying gat-flare SCPs in C-10 all the time instead of something a little more level? Why else do you think people use ships and layouts that they're comfortable and have practiced with?
Why must every thread eventually turn the course of "N3RF PR0Mz"? If something's so overpowered, then fly it. Leave balancing to the Devs, they're pretty practiced at that sort of thing.
Yes, beefs to the autoaim system are effectively crutches.
So are beefs to Damage, Velocity, Energy, Delay, Mass, Port type, and Licenses. The whole concept of that stupid stupid metaphor, is that people who fly things which are 'easy' to win with are at risk of becoming dependant on such things. At it's most basic and simple level, the metaphor is just a way of glorifying that with words what you can't with victories.
As the autoaim approaches "perfect", there is less and less of a reason to even use blasters.
If that were so, then why do people use blasters, smart guy? I gauruntee you that, atleast to most people, autoaim approaching perfection or not, each gun has it's advantages and disadvantages weighed, more or less, fairly. Considering that some people in this thread have already claimed that a curvy gun would be useless, and you seem so hellbent on the idea that it would be monstrously overpowered, I'm willing to bet that the elements for balancing would sort themselves out.
Simply using AGT in its own right, as you believe I implied, is not a crutch. What is a crutch is using only the AGT to the extent that it's the only thing you can kill with--at that point, all it takes to kill you is someone who knows how to dodge AGT (or a ship capable of doing so), and then your use of the AGT is hobbling you, not helping you.
Even if you're 1Ik3 t0tA11y pWnz0rZ with Megapositron blasters, it won't do you a lick o' good if you have AGT equipped. Someone who's skilled in a flare + AGT Prom will fare just as well in one as someone who's just as skilled in every ship shape, and form, because you can only fly one ship at a time anyways. The only thing Mr. Flies-Every-Ship has over Mr. AGT-Flare-Prom-Only is bragging rights. I don't think you understand the metaphor.
"you can't aim in one direction and fire in the other."
Wow. You're right, that's completely beyond any semblance of logical!
I don't know how people haven't caught onto the phallusy of that statement before!
Wow. You're right, that's completely beyond any semblance of logical!
I don't know how people haven't caught onto the phallusy of that statement before!
With auto-aim, you can fly in one direction, and aim in another. Without auto-aim, you can only aim in the direction that you're flying in. Does that make it easier to understand? I'll go ahead and draw a diagram just to make sure.
Mynt, your basic understanding of mathematics is flawed.
To put it quite simply, your idea wouldn't work. You're applying an improper compensation for acceleration. Normal autoaim with normal firing misses the target because it can't compensate for acceleration. Likewise, your curved path model would have no better chance of hitting without said compensation, and furthermore, it's stupid. It's utterly unrealistic and the physics of it are so fucked up it's not even funny.
To put it quite simply, your idea wouldn't work. You're applying an improper compensation for acceleration. Normal autoaim with normal firing misses the target because it can't compensate for acceleration. Likewise, your curved path model would have no better chance of hitting without said compensation, and furthermore, it's stupid. It's utterly unrealistic and the physics of it are so fucked up it's not even funny.
Cunjo, you're just mad because I totally pwnd joo with that first set of diagrams. (the screenshots of my poor quality Mac) Here's just two situations where the curve would indeed have a better chance of hitting the target.
You see, the one on top approaches from the opposite angle of the target, and thanks to the curve, comes in at a steeper angle; almost directly into the face of the oncoming target, as opposed to from the side.
The one on the bottom approaches from the same angle as the target, and because shots sometimes are faster than ships, has the chance of wrapping around and hitting.
You see, the one on top approaches from the opposite angle of the target, and thanks to the curve, comes in at a steeper angle; almost directly into the face of the oncoming target, as opposed to from the side.
The one on the bottom approaches from the same angle as the target, and because shots sometimes are faster than ships, has the chance of wrapping around and hitting.
What the fuck man? Seriously, what the fuck?
I'm just trying to get my idea across accurately enough so that others can understand where I'm coming from. If you're confused as to what exactly that is, check out the opening post. That's all, and everything I'm trying to say, with nothing more or nothing less. All the diagrams and endless explanations are just for the benefit of the people who can't seem to comprehend the OP. Er, I hope that satisfies your questions, genka.
Shots that miss should damage you, yourself. Instant punishment for people who can't aim (like me). Now, seriously....
Mynt, despite your diagrams (which are nice as such), most of us (including players who are not what one may call actually proficient at PvP combat), we do not *want* this.
It's tough, but you'll have to abandon this idea and move on. I've been there, it hurts, but you won't gain anything by providing more and more information why it would work.
You'll only get patronizing remarks from people like me. This turning into a flamefest will only become true if you keep responding.
Mynt, despite your diagrams (which are nice as such), most of us (including players who are not what one may call actually proficient at PvP combat), we do not *want* this.
It's tough, but you'll have to abandon this idea and move on. I've been there, it hurts, but you won't gain anything by providing more and more information why it would work.
You'll only get patronizing remarks from people like me. This turning into a flamefest will only become true if you keep responding.
What I can't "comprehend about the OP" are two things:
a) Why you think that this would be a good idea
and
b) Why you think anyone else would think that this is a good idea.
And I don't want endless explanations. I want a concise, clear explanation that goes beyond the "I think so, so it must be true" level.
Or, failing that, at least try to put your idea down into one post, rather than smear it out over a two-page thread of bickering.
PS: And no more diagrams.
a) Why you think that this would be a good idea
and
b) Why you think anyone else would think that this is a good idea.
And I don't want endless explanations. I want a concise, clear explanation that goes beyond the "I think so, so it must be true" level.
Or, failing that, at least try to put your idea down into one post, rather than smear it out over a two-page thread of bickering.
PS: And no more diagrams.
You don't want "this"... just what do you mean by "this", and why not?
Well then, now that it's been made painfully clear just how on top of things we all are, I'm off to bed!
Wish you all the same pleasure!
Wish you all the same pleasure!
I agree with Mynt, this would be a great idea! I'm tired of firing a missile at a target that moves by my view in a horizontal direction, only to have the missile fire behind the moving target. After all, it's supposed to be a seeking missile! Can't its turret compensate for the movement of the ship before the missile is fired?
Those trajectory images are right-on, too, seeing as people are not flying in straight lines most of the time. With the compensated trajectories adding more interseption area, I think it would not only look so much cooler to see them chase enemies more quickly and effectively, but it would also allow you to save your ammo without missile spamming, with the benefit of reducing lag in sectors.
On top of it all, this adds a certain extra level of fun in dodging. Right now, we have to have these dumb 100-meter radii of sensitivity (ie. sun flares). That's so stupid when you can just strafe in one direction to dodge those rockets. There's no fun in that. But can you imagine being fired at with a heat-seaking weapon that moves in an arc toward you? Or how about missiles that roll around a central axis in a double-helix like some modern swarm missiles? That's so much cooler than having volleys of 8 missiles that just end up lagging the sector!
EDIT: When the missiles home in your direction in an arc, they leave your view. That adds a further dimension of excitement, because you create a fear of the unknown: better move fast, because those missiles he just fired at you (which you can't see without turning away from him) are coming right at you!!!
Those trajectory images are right-on, too, seeing as people are not flying in straight lines most of the time. With the compensated trajectories adding more interseption area, I think it would not only look so much cooler to see them chase enemies more quickly and effectively, but it would also allow you to save your ammo without missile spamming, with the benefit of reducing lag in sectors.
On top of it all, this adds a certain extra level of fun in dodging. Right now, we have to have these dumb 100-meter radii of sensitivity (ie. sun flares). That's so stupid when you can just strafe in one direction to dodge those rockets. There's no fun in that. But can you imagine being fired at with a heat-seaking weapon that moves in an arc toward you? Or how about missiles that roll around a central axis in a double-helix like some modern swarm missiles? That's so much cooler than having volleys of 8 missiles that just end up lagging the sector!
EDIT: When the missiles home in your direction in an arc, they leave your view. That adds a further dimension of excitement, because you create a fear of the unknown: better move fast, because those missiles he just fired at you (which you can't see without turning away from him) are coming right at you!!!
Give me a break. How long have you been fighting again? Why don't you take what you *think* you know and shove it where energy focus doesn't shine(or atleast I hope it doesn't shine there, give a new meaning to dag's little "my pants are shining with an awesome power"). Don't tell me what I do and why I do it. Yeah agt IS a crutch because it aims for you, all your dumb ass has to is atleast see the ship on your screen. Yeah autoaim off is great, I use it because it is great, I don't have any need to show off to some moron talking out of his ass. I know exactly what I'm doing.
When did this turn into a discussion about auto-aim? If you want to discuss auto-aim, make a new topic.
This topic is about changing trajectories of a weapon's path. It seems as logical as the current missile homing system now. Or if you want it for energy weapons, why not just invent some realistic-sounding explanation like "false gravity tractor beam" that is projected instantaneously between the target computer's predicted enemy location and your ship? This gravity beam is only strong enough to pull in the energy shots, not surrounding objects...or it's keyed to the shots' frequency... or something. Sheesh, don't you think it takes an imagination to come up with what's already been made, anyway? Use a little creativity and ingenuity, people!
[STAMP OF APPROVAL] -- whatever this means, coming from me ;)
This topic is about changing trajectories of a weapon's path. It seems as logical as the current missile homing system now. Or if you want it for energy weapons, why not just invent some realistic-sounding explanation like "false gravity tractor beam" that is projected instantaneously between the target computer's predicted enemy location and your ship? This gravity beam is only strong enough to pull in the energy shots, not surrounding objects...or it's keyed to the shots' frequency... or something. Sheesh, don't you think it takes an imagination to come up with what's already been made, anyway? Use a little creativity and ingenuity, people!
[STAMP OF APPROVAL] -- whatever this means, coming from me ;)
"Cunjo, you're just mad because I totally pwnd joo with that first set of diagrams."
No mynt, I just find your logic insulting as a member of the same species. The sheer stupidity of it is just mindboggling, and to add to that you actually seem to think you're right.
No mynt, I just find your logic insulting as a member of the same species. The sheer stupidity of it is just mindboggling, and to add to that you actually seem to think you're right.
Anyway, I dislike the idea until someone mentioned missiles going on a curve. That is smart. Missiles tend to try to make escape maneuvers difficult, not just bullcharge the enemy.
Maybe a gun with limited ammo, but not strictly a missle, per se? Kinda' like the rail gun.