Targeting. Static reticle or Floating reticle ?

[Mack]

Having re-read the original post it seems what is being suggested is not just a floating targeting reticule but more like some kind of forward facing turret.
That would of course render dog-fighting completely redundant and thus ruin one of the main game-play elements of Elite.
Elite without dogfighting would be some other game. It isn't going to happen.

I probably failed in writing the original post, I actually don't care about targetting, I care about movement, I just said targetting since in most games the flight cursor and the targetting cursor were one in the same.
Personlly I don't like turrets!! - I just like a ship that flys where I point it to fly.

 

[TheSpackman]

Why not both depending on weapon system

That's kind of what I would assume should be the case? Not all weapons lend to a fixed position.

Sorry if it's been said (not had time to read all posts) but your main front weapon should be fixed. Indeed trying to dogfight, especially at close range with the twisting and turning required, and manage targetting seperately would we a nightmare. However for turret weaponry surely it has to be mobile, albeit on a restricted tracking speed so you can't for example just move the mouse to where your target is and instantly be on them.

I'm thinking Han Solo and Luke trying to hit the tie fighters in the millenium falcon. Fighters can pass by weapons faster than they can track.

 

[Bounder]

Assuming yaw is available. Don't count on this.

If we can limit aim to the Z axis and a fixed ironsights we might as well limit steering to pitch and roll.

Jonty's chess analogue is apt: Does it make sense that bishops can only move in diagonals? Is it realistic that queens can move as far as they like in both diagonals and orthogonals while pawns can only move one or two steps forward?

It's a completely broken and nebulous analogy, as you've surmised it. To tidy it up, the rules of chess are akin to the laws of mechanics - they're absolute. Opting to constrain your own mobility is akin to eschewing one's queen. And maybe that could work if it were reciprocal. But if my queen can move in 3 planes and you decide you only want yours to use 2... you'd better be some fearsome chess player.

If every piece on the board moved like a queen - chess would certainly be a much easier game to learn, and it would be a more direct, shortest-path-to-the-target type of game design for sure - but most of the depth of chess would be lost.

So help me clarify this; you're equating a set of symbolic constraints or 'rules' of movement to the 'realism' of motions in 3-space, to argue they're inimical to fun?

OK so by that rationale why not give your queen a 'facing direction' and restrict her to moving in that direction only - with each 45° rotation to face diagonally, vertically or horizontally constituting a discrete move in its own right?

Or why not get rid of the queen altogether - either option could be more fun and require more skill.


But this isn't 'realistic' because the laws of chess are what they are, just as the basic laws of mechanics are immutable and complete; we don't choose either, we just make do as best we can within those constraints.

If however you insisted on bringing a spoon to a laser fight, i agree you should be able to...

Similarly, if your cannons had the ability to turn freely in whichever direction irrespective of your ship's orientation or movement vector, battles would become a simple, predictable chore - you acquire the target, wait for it to come into range, shoot. The one with the most powerful weapon and strongest shields wins. Is this your idea of fun?

what about situational awareness, reaction times, aiming skill, etc. - the better prepared player has the advantage... but is that 'unfair'? Did you choose a fixed mount weapon because it was more powerful, cheaper, smaller, lower power consumption etc., or just because you felt moveable weapons just weren't 'chess'? Regardless of the reason, if it's a choice then it's a strategy, and different strategies have differing priorities and restrictions. Thus you might attack with a knight or a queen - it's your strategy that matters, not the 'fun' or 'fairness' of their comparative mobility.

It's not so much about making sense than about which set of rules leads to the most interesting gameplay. In a multiplayer game the rules must apply to all players equally, so whatever liberties you allow yourself, you must assume your opponents will have as well. Unrestricted targeting in space very quickly leads to inability to evade fire.

If white and black have the same pieces following the same rules, but one opts not to use a given piece, or to restrict its abilities, should the opponent be obliged in any way - let alone forced - to follow suit?

That's not chess. That's not even tiddlywinks!

 

[Bounder]

That's kind of what I would assume should be the case? Not all weapons lend to a fixed position.

Sorry if it's been said (not had time to read all posts) but your main front weapon should be fixed. Indeed trying to dogfight, especially at close range with the twisting and turning required, and manage targetting seperately would we a nightmare. However for turret weaponry surely it has to be mobile, albeit on a restricted tracking speed so you can't for example just move the mouse to where your target is and instantly be on them.

I'm thinking Han Solo and Luke trying to hit the tie fighters in the millenium falcon. Fighters can pass by weapons faster than they can track.

The proposition is that you can move a reticle around the screen to point in a direction of travel, that's also the aiming direction. Of course space flight allows separate axes for each but that's not the actual question at hand, which is simply whether the reticles are static or dynamic, or some combination.

So if main weapon is unmovable, it'll take longer for the crosshairs to center on where you're aiming, because the whole ship has to assume that direction.

If OTOH your main weapon has a small arc of freedom then the crosshairs could reach the target before the ship's completed the change of direction.

Either way you're pointing at areas of screen and clicking/holding RMB to tell the ship AND weapon where to point.

Thinking about it some more, there's no practical reason why pitch & roll handling couldn't also benefit from a floating leading reticle: so when you rotate, the reticle rotates accordingly on screen, immediately, while the ship's rotation catches up due to angular inertia. This would assist in giving some visual feedback on how much input you've applied and how far you're going to rotate; if you can see you've rotated the reticle 33° then you'll know that's how far the ship's going to rotate, even if it handles like a rogue asteroid in getting there..

 

[Zak Gordon]

My concern's not so much about weapon mobility as ship manoeverability....

In the older Elite games the bigger ships (that had turrets etc) were not as maneuverable as the smaller, more fighter based craft. This was part of the fun of having the different ships.

At the large end of the ship in Frontier and FFE i was a fan of the Python as a reasonable balance between combat/trade type craft. It was slow (compared to a small craft) to maneuver, but it's size and defensive capabilities made up for that to some extent.

With the ships that had turrets on them the crafts maneuverability was less an issue as you could rely on the turrets quick movement etc.

But the idea of having some kind of auto-aim, as console fps games use, really does not fit that well with the history of Elite. Elite always has been a game primarily about your skills as a pilot, and i hope it remains so for Elite: Dangerous.

One option/addition that could come into play as a tech solution is to have some kind of targeting computer upgrade? Then players that like that option have a way to get something like it in the game? That could work a little like the auto-aim from console fps games, so not perfect, just an assist?

 

[Bounder]

In the older Elite games the bigger ships (that had turrets etc) were not as maneuverable as the smaller, more fighter based craft. This was part of the fun of having the different ships.

At the large end of the ship in Frontier and FFE i was a fan of the Python as a reasonable balance between combat/trade type craft. It was slow (compared to a small craft) to maneuver, but it's size and defensive capabilities made up for that to some extent.

With the ships that had turrets on them the crafts maneuverability was less an issue as you could rely on the turrets quick movement etc.

But the idea of having some kind of auto-aim, as console fps games use, really does not fit that well with the history of Elite. Elite always has been a game primarily about your skills as a pilot, and i hope it remains so for Elite: Dangerous.

One option/addition that could come into play as a tech solution is to have some kind of targeting computer upgrade? Then players that like that option have a way to get something like it in the game? That could work a little like the auto-aim from console fps games, so not perfect, just an assist?

yeah as i said, the idea would be that the ship's direction follows to point wherever the moveable reticle is positioned on-screen, with a corresponding inertial lag (ie. bigger ships take longer and more effort to respond to inputs) - so all could manoevre the same way (using the floating reticle to aim weapons and heading), but heavier craft will be more lumbering and cumbersome, and thus more likely to favour animated gun pods.

Automatic aiming is so well advanced already it beggars belief that automatic turrets would be beyond the means of most starship commanders. Generally i don't appreciate auto-aim in first person shooters but in this case it's a high-tech weapons pod, and inconceivable that most such items won't feature auto-aim and fire.

While i enjoy manual dogfighting i don't see how you can entirely neglect realistically-automated weaponry in a pseudo-realistic combat sim..

It's a conundrum, and i've yet to see a satisfying resolution...

 

[Zak Gordon]

................

While i enjoy manual dogfighting i don't see how you can entirely neglect realistically-automated weaponry in a pseudo-realistic combat sim..

It's a conundrum, and i've yet to see a satisfying resolution...

It is isn't it. I think there can be room for an auto-aim like equipment upgrade(s), something that works like a not super accurate auto-aim from current day fps games, and something that can only be fitted to turret like structures (so not the fixed mount gun ports).

This way it won't be on all ships, mostly on the bigger more lumbering trade type ships, so won't get too much in the way of pure dog-fighting skills. As it is equipment it can also get damaged/need repairing, and more importantly would be down to player choice etc.

The reason for it to not be super accurate (other than gameplay fun) is that space is big, distances are huge and objects can be small in that vastness, so hitting a fast moving small fighter is not at all easy, even for a computer. Modern day weapon systems that use computer aim could be the example to draw from in this?

Rpg systems like 'Traveller' had a really good ruleset for this kind of thing.

 

[MikeSnos]

I put it to you, Prime Minister, that if you desire a turret laser then you're rubbish at dogfighting.

Harsh, but almost certainly fair!

 

[Bounder]

Harsh, but almost certainly fair!

Well i put it to you sir that if you're unable to move horizontally and i can, then what you call "dogfighting" i call "ejection capsule practice".

 

[Robert Maynard]

If the transit time for the mobile mount to aim at the user designated aim point took a sufficient length of time then being able to aim at a point other than the projection of the main fore/aft and port/starboard axes of the vessel may be made more "fair", if at the same time coupled by a suitable angular restriction.

After all, the mobile gun mounts require to be strong enough to handle vessel accelerations and therefore could not be expected to orient themselves to the aim point instantaneously.

Also, I would imagine that a robust, reliable, mobile gun mount would be expensive, heavy and require quite a lot of power....

 

[Captain N]

what about situational awareness, reaction times, aiming skill, etc. - the better prepared player has the advantage... but is that 'unfair'?

It's not realistic. None of those things matter if you remove aiming and dogfighting skills.

Whether you move horizontally or backwards or dance around making loops and pirouettes doesn't matter if I'm going to snipe you from a thousand km's distance with my auto-aimed laser turrets.

The fact that the ships ever even get to a distance where their movements relative to each other would matter for aiming isn't realistic, why do you insist the dogfighting movements would need to be realistic?

Even in those other games that allow unrestricted six axis movement, but have the fights happen in close dogfighting distances, I find the movements of the ships ultimately isn't that important. The combat just becomes "hold your reticle on the target and keep smashing fire button". Yes, at the same time I'm applying some random thrust to my ship to make it harder for the enemy to hit with their unrealistic slower-than-light projectiles, but eventually I don't even notice this is happening - it's because it's not intelligent gameplay, it becomes automatic.

When it becomes this, the ships might as well as be static.

And how do you know whether the rules of chess are physical laws or whether the pieces just agreed to move that way?

 

[Cody]

And how do you know whether the rules of chess are physical laws or whether the pieces just agreed to move that way?

<chuckles>

 

[Bounder]

It's not realistic. None of those things matter if you remove aiming and dogfighting skills.

Whether you move horizontally or backwards or dance around making loops and pirouettes doesn't matter if I'm going to snipe you from a thousand km's distance with my auto-aimed laser turrets.

The fact that the ships ever even get to a distance where their movements relative to each other would matter for aiming isn't realistic, why do you insist the dogfighting movements would need to be realistic?

Even in those other games that allow unrestricted six axis movement, but have the fights happen in close dogfighting distances, I find the movements of the ships ultimately isn't that important. The combat just becomes "hold your reticle on the target and keep smashing fire button". Yes, at the same time I'm applying some random thrust to my ship to make it harder for the enemy to hit with their unrealistic slower-than-light projectiles, but eventually I don't even notice this is happening - it's because it's not intelligent gameplay, it becomes automatic.

When it becomes this, the ships might as well as be static.

And how do you know whether the rules of chess are physical laws or whether the pieces just agreed to move that way?

If you get a chance check out Pioneer, or Arma2/DayZ - they feature floating reticles that lead both the aiming and travel directions, and both the aiming and travel directions change at different rates - aim moves first, then direction of travel.

Something like this would work fine. It's intuitive, simple and much more reaslistic than conventional FPS games. In Pioneer the weapons are static so the floating reticle just leads the heading, and you can't hit the target till the crosshairs have caught up with the reticle.

If the weapons could move then it'd appear more like Arma2/DayZ. It's a simple, innovative control method and works well.

If you ever played FE2/FFE then it's almost identical, except now you can see the floating reticle on-screen, providing useful feedback for controlling your inertia.

It's still dogfighting, it's just that things have moved on a bit since Elite or Knights of the Sky when all most players had was keyboards and microswitched joysticks.

And as for realism, if the handling needn't be realistic why should the galaxy or anything else? It's Elite, not Starfox..

 

[Cmdr Andy B]

I'd like to point out something that I think everyone has missed - mostly we wont be flying 33rd century combat aircraft we will be flying the 33rd century version of trucks with guns added.

an advanced helmet and targeting system that tracks your guns to the movement of your head would only be available to military pilots, think of this in terms of the RL America today - you can buy an assault rifle but Boeing Integrated Defense Systems wont sell just any Tom or Mohammed a fully kitted out Apache attack helicopter

some ships may have the sort of advanced targeting systems you are looking for but it would stand to reason that the military would keep all the really good stuff for themselves, after all there is already a large piracy problem to contend with in the elite universe letting just anyone buy top of the line combat automation would be asking for whole cargohold full of trouble

 

[Captain N]

If you get a chance check out Pioneer, or Arma2/DayZ - they feature floating reticles that lead both the aiming and travel directions, and both the aiming and travel directions change at different rates - aim moves first, then direction of travel.

Something like this would work fine. It's intuitive, simple and much more reaslistic than conventional FPS games. In Pioneer the weapons are static so the floating reticle just leads the heading, and you can't hit the target till the crosshairs have caught up with the reticle.

If the weapons could move then it'd appear more like Arma2/DayZ. It's a simple, innovative control method and works well.

If you ever played FE2/FFE then it's almost identical, except now you can see the floating reticle on-screen, providing useful feedback for controlling your inertia.

It's still dogfighting, it's just that things have moved on a bit since Elite or Knights of the Sky when all most players had was keyboards and microswitched joysticks.

Well now it just seems you're talking about something else. I have nothing against the OP's proposal that there should be a separate leading reticle for steering using mouse - I imagine it makes things easier for those who prefer mouse control without giving them advantage over other methods of control. (I prefer joystick myself, and fixed reticle works best for that)

And as for realism, if the handling needn't be realistic why should the galaxy or anything else? It's Elite, not Starfox..

There's no rule that says that everything in a game needs to be realistic, or otherwise nothing should. It's not an all or nothing kind of deal. All games are selective when it comes to realism, to various degrees. It's just a matter of choosing when and where to deviate from reality for the sake of gameplay. Having a realistically scaled universe can add to the feeling of immersion without making things overly complicated or tedious so including that in the game is a no-brainer.

When it comes to space combat, well nobody knows what exactly space combat is going to be like, so we can only extrapolate from what we already know. Unfortunately, by almost any reasonable extrapolation it's not going to be anything particularly fun or interesting, and everything would most likely be fully automated and carried out by computers. I think it's perfectly justified to ignore realistic predictions in this respect and just do something whimsical but fun. Just like the original Elite. Or Frontier, but like many others I never found Frontier combat as fun as Elite, despite it not being all that realistic either.

 

[BattleMetalChris]

A weapon lining up for the target, or a reticle telling you where to shoot is even now rather common.

1. Nowday fighters have a reticle in their heads up display showing the pilot in what direction to point his aircraft for the best intercept and lofting sollution.

2. Headsup displays show the amount of lead the pilots should give the gun, even taking target's manouvering into account

If we're going that route, then given that ships' primary weapons are instant-hit lasers, and it's set 1200 years in the future, if we really considered it you'd just have the ship's computer aim the gun at the target and you'd never miss

 

[Cosmos]

This poll is yet another occasion when the options don't include all the possibilities.

Turrets would probably be great on a highly unmaneuverable ship, but reticle combat also signifies high degree of piloting skill. The game should probably employ both.

I do find these polls are becoming a constant distraction to the relevance of the discussion.

 

[SnowGhost]

A weapon lining up for the target, or a reticle telling you where to shoot is even now rather common.

1. Nowday fighters have a reticle in their heads up display showing the pilot in what direction to point his aircraft for the best intercept and lofting sollution.

2. Headsup displays show the amount of lead the pilots should give the gun, even taking target's manouvering into account

3. The hydra rocket pods on attack helicopters move overvone axis. (Up/down)

4. Guns on attack helicopters are slaved to the gunner or pilot's head, laser target system or (in the ah64d apache) to the radar

So I think fighters in the year 3200+ will have simmelar features.
In the game: why not making it an upgrade? "Weapon target tracking system"

And you'd fire missiles that were automatically aimed by computer from 40 miles away and never see your opponent. It might be realistic but it's not fun, because war (and space combat) isn't fun, it's deadly.

Elite is a a game and fun, engagement and involvement have to take precedence over realism.

 

[Bounder]

And you'd fire missiles that were automatically aimed by computer from 40 miles away and never see your opponent. It might be realistic but it's not fun, because war (and space combat) isn't fun, it's deadly.

Elite is a a game and fun, engagement and involvement have to take precedence over realism.

And yet i used to love Gunship on the 'Miggy. Sniping tanks with Hellfires from 8km away then ducking behind a hill.. it was a total blast.

 

[wondervirus]

I do find these polls are becoming a constant distraction to the relevance of the discussion.

Only if you're taking them that way.

The polls don't mark the end of the conversation; they're just a hook to dangle more ideas off of.