Hit Boxes and Close Range Shooting

[Pilgrim_Grey]

I have seen two possible issues that may or may not be related and also may be related to the issue of hitboxes of targets growing bigger if a gunship zooms out when they're in sniping.

 

First, drones have a tiny hit box. As in it's even smaller than the targeting reticle on them. I thought maybe it was just me at first or lag, but unless you are DEAD center on their targeting reticle, you will miss them. Shoot as much as you want, they will not take a hit. This has happened more than once when I was live fire testing it in matches (yes, I'm a masochist). Unless they have some innate evasion mechanic, of course (and if they do this is stupid... but of course so is granting evasion to a fighter at a standstill).

 

More, as you get closer, this hit box seems to get smaller. To the point where it's easier to hit a drone if they're a couple hundred meters in front of you rather than in your face. I've had to give up and fly through a drone and come back again because it was not getting hit at close (where it's filling a decent amount of your screen, rather than its usual small dot).

 

Second, this seems to be the case with ships as well. This could be the functioning of lag, since this usually happens when I and my target are flying around or at each other, but the closer a ship is, the harder it seems to be to hit. You can actually see your lasers flying through their ship and not registering (and I've seen it when the bomber or whatever was being dumb and just sitting there and taking the hits). I know this could be lag or evasion at work, of course, but it happens much, much less when I am firing at range. I actually have better luck shooting targets in the 5-7k meter range with my heavy lasers than I do up close--and I mean when you're actually hitting the reticle, not missing it entirely.

 

This is all admittedly down to my lone experience, but I've flown a lot since January and this seems to happen consistently enough with even static targets that I don't think it can just be lag. Any enlightenment or thoughts people can offer would be helpful.

[Morgrid]

I don't expect my bomber to be able to shoot something 50 meters in front of it when rocking Heavies. Doesnt make sense because of how large they are with their limited range of movement.

[Nemarus]

There are no hitboxes in GSF from what I can tell. You are only ever aim at a cluster of about 9 pixels at the center of the lead reticle.

 

It doesn't matter how huge a ship is in your view--if you aren't aiming at the center of the lead reticle, you aren't hitting.

 

This causes a bit of a paradox in GSF, in that objects farther away are often easier to hit than targets close up--it's easier to track the movement of the lead reticle at a distance than it is when it is near you. All weapons have an increasing accuracy penalty with range, but it's not nearly as severe as the tracking penalty for aiming toward the edge of your firing arc, which happens a lot more when a target is close to you than if a target is farther away.

 

In other words ... load up long range weapons, use long range capacitors, and engage enemies just short of the edge of your max range. You'll do a lot more consistent damage than if you try to always close in on your foes.

 

The only exception is Burst Laser Cannons--they suffer too much of an accuracy and damage penalty for range, and have a very low tracking penalty.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Nemarus

[DamascusAdontise]

I have noticed the small icon for drones, though with practice I havent had any issues shooting them down (except sometimes at range in a gunship)

 

As to the close range thing, this is likely a symptom of the primary weapon your using. The only weapons I have found that can land shots at point blank range consistently are burst lasers and rapid lasers (IE the lasers with the shortest range in the game)

 

Quad lasers and heavy lasers especially are very wonky at close ranges, I am kind of torn though as to whether this is intended or not. The result is a set of close range weapons and long range weapons, and neither can fill the others roll (so you have to pick one that suits your ship/playstyle)

[MrWoolie]

All right, so what you are experiencing, is the wonderful and logical GSF mechanic of RNG accuracy and tracking penalty.

 

To put it simply, all cannons, even if you did successfully target the hit box, could miss. On top of that, every degree the your cannon deviates from the direction you are currently facing will cause another accuracy reduction. Essentially, the "tracking penality" is so great, that some cannons with much lower base accuracy rating will perform better when shooting at the edge of your screen than a cannon with a high base accuracy rating, but high tracking as well. (eg. BLC and heavies)

 

Another part of this system is that, if the enemy is within 500m~ or so, you suffer a massive ~90% accuracy drop. The only time you will be able to hit the enemy with your cannons will be when you use BLC (which isn't affected by this) or toggle one of the scout systems called" Targeting Telementry."

 

The reason you are struggling with drones is probably because of your weapon choice. They may be small, but they are stationary, and dies in 1 to 3 hits depending on the laser.

 

You said that you were using heavies, they are the worst lasers for melee combat. Their tracking penalty is huge, there is no point firing unless the enemy is right at the center of your screen.

 

Since you have heavies, you probably fly a strike. The best laser for dogfighting for strikes is Quads. They aren't the best, but they are better than heavies or rapids.

 

If you do continue to use heavies, you need to keep the enemy a large distance from you. With this type of cannon, it is actually better to have a smaller reticle farther from you, then a close one, because you don't have to turn as much to center something far away.

[Ramalina]

I suspect there are at least small hit boxes of some sort, because I know I've hit things with blasters that were not my currently selected target.

 

The accuracy is so horrendously bad that it usually happens accidentally rather than on purpose, but it can happen.

 

 

Also, as people said, the lovely combination of physical aiming and RPG style roll to hit both being needed to land shots on target.

[Armonddd]

Another part of this system is that, if the enemy is within 500m~ or so, you suffer a massive ~90% accuracy drop. The only time you will be able to hit the enemy with your cannons will be when you use BLC (which isn't affected by this) or toggle one of the scout systems called" Targeting Telementry."

 

Just want to point out that telemetry only increases accuracy by 10%. You can upgrade it to reduce the evasion of nearby enemies by 5%, but drones don't have evasion.

[zaskar]

Since you have heavies, you probably fly a strike. The best laser for dogfighting for strikes is Quads. They aren't the best, but they are better than heavies or rapids.

 

For you.

 

The ford 3 cylinder 90hp engine is the best engine for all cars, no matter what your driving style or simple transportation needs may be.

[Armonddd]

For you.

 

The ford 3 cylinder 90hp engine is the best engine for all cars, no matter what your driving style or simple transportation needs may be.

 

You have four options to apply to one specific ship with one specific goal. We're not looking at all cars, we're looking at one specific car. We're not looking at all engines, we're looking at four vastly different engines. We're not looking at everyone's driving style or transportation needs, we're looking at a specific need.

 

Your analogy is flawed. Try better next time.

[Zharik]

...drones don't have evasion.

 

Reference please...

 

(I actually think they DO have evasion, but that is merely conjecture)

[Armonddd]

Reference please...

 

(I actually think they DO have evasion, but that is merely conjecture)

 

Source: I've never missed a properly lined up shot against a drone, and I attack all bombers in my BLC scout because I'm suicidal. You'd think if they had 5% evasion, I'd have missed any of the hundreds of shots I've fired at them.

 

Also, the tooltips would probably say something to that effect.

[QuinMantha]

Trying to plug drones one at a time with a railgun brings a very apt quote to mind. I'll try modifying it a little.

 

"The target area is only two meters wide. It's a small (missile sentry drone) right (behind the main drone). The (drone) leads directly to the (bomber's feelings of self-worth.) A precise hit will set up a chain reaction which will destroy the (bomber.) Only a precise hit will set up a chain reaction."

 

"That's impossible, even for a computer!"

[zaskar]

You have four options to apply to one specific ship with one specific goal. We're not looking at all cars, we're looking at one specific car. We're not looking at all engines, we're looking at four vastly different engines. We're not looking at everyone's driving style or transportation needs, we're looking at a specific need.

 

Your analogy is flawed. Try better next time.

 

So a ship built to kill bombers and gunships, say a supercharged V8 is exactly the same as the build for TDM dogfighting, a turbocharged 1.6 liter?

 

Both can be used for either specialty however the builds perform best when used for what you designed them for.

[Armonddd]

So a ship built to kill bombers and gunships, say a supercharged V8 is exactly the same as the build for TDM dogfighting, a turbocharged 1.6 liter?

 

Both can be used for either specialty however the builds perform best when used for what you designed them for.

 

No. Between rapids, heavies, quads, and ion cannons, quads are flat out the best at dogfighting. Rapids suck, heavies can't handle close-range fighting, and ions can't land kills. Quads are flat out the best.

[Nemarus]

No. Between rapids, heavies, quads, and ion cannons, quads are flat out the best at dogfighting. Rapids suck, heavies can't handle close-range fighting, and ions can't land kills. Quads are flat out the best.

 

Uh, what? I'll grant you that Rapids suck... but...

 

Heavies can hit at 6900m, ignore armor and have shield piercing. You can kill a ton without ever getting in close-range fighting range.

 

Ions, when combined with Clusters and anything else, can easily kill things ... plus you can keep full power to shields while using them and not suffer any offensive loss, since 3-4 ion bolts will drop the shields of just about anything.

 

To me, Quads are inferior in both long-range and close-range fighting. They can't take out turrets, they run out of power way too quickly, they have no shield piercing, they have shorter range than heavies and more tracking/arc restrictions than Lights or Ions.

 

Sure, I take them on a Sting ... but that's because it's either Quads (medium range) or BLC's (short range) and I prefer attacking at range.

 

On my Gladiator though, I use Heavies/Ions/Clusters. On approach to a satellite, Heavies let me take out turrets quickly before they can shoot much at me. On the satellite, they let me kill incoming fighters long before they can shoot back at me. If anyone gets close I put power to shields and use Ions and Clusters to get plenty of kills. If someone tries to flee, I switch back to Heavies and shred their hull before they can get 7000m away. Sure I'd exchange my Ions for BLC's if they were available ... but I see no reason to use Quads on a Rycer/Gladiator.

 

I can see using Quads on a Quell, in order to straddle the difference between short and long range combat ... but truth be told, I even use Heavies on my Quell ... and you know how I get around their inferior close-range fighting? I don't fight at close range. I pull away from the satellite and work with my allies to destroy foes from a distance.

 

Of course, I know I'm arguing with someone who chooses to engage at short range at all times, even against Bombers in a Scout.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Nemarus

[zaskar]

No. Between rapids, heavies, quads, and ion cannons, quads are flat out the best at dogfighting. Rapids suck, heavies can't handle close-range fighting, and ions can't land kills. Quads are flat out the best.

 

And there are three weapons on a type 1 for dogfighting. I wish I could have a couple of type 1s, or god forbid a load out system. I run either ions, heavies and missiles or ions, quads and clusters.

 

I have been playing with rapids and concs but without a load out system they are too situational. Their is plenty of room and need for different mixes. On scout2, there are arguments that quads + tt are best but many argue it's burst + overcharge. It is all style and situation.

[Armonddd]

Of course, I know I'm arguing with someone who chooses to engage at short range at all times, even against Bombers in a Scout.

 

Well, I mean, how else am I supposed to get a shot again, that sweet adrenaline?

 

(gonna go buy a pizza because I kind of forgot to eat today, will give a serious response later)

[Morgrid]

For you.

 

The ford 3 cylinder 90hp engine is the best engine for all cars, no matter what your driving style or simple transportation needs may be.

 

Their new 1 litre 3 cylinder puts out over 130 hp now.

[Armonddd]

alright *****es we got sum pizza let's logic some gsf with bromarus

 

I'll grant you that Rapids suck...

 

Bam, one of five weapons down.

 

Ions, when combined with Clusters and anything else, can easily kill things ... plus you can keep full power to shields while using them and not suffer any offensive loss, since 3-4 ion bolts will drop the shields of just about anything.

 

When I said "ions can't land a kill", I meant more that they can't land a killing blow. If you're making a support ship, that's fine -- you're not planning to leave your allies anyway, so doing nothing but ripping off shields is fine because your buddies can finish them off. Plus, I mean, you're a type 1 strike. You've got a backup weapon. You can use it if you need to. But in and of themselves, ion cannons won't land (m)any kills because of their exceedingly low hull damage, meaning they're the only gun available to the strike that requires you to swap weapons to be viable. And most of the time the target's going to be pretty close by then. (It doesn't help that you lose a quarter second or so swapping weapons and re-pressing the mouse button.)

 

oh my god this pizza so good

 

To me, Quads are inferior in both long-range and close-range fighting. They can't take out turrets, they run out of power way too quickly, they have no shield piercing, they have shorter range than heavies and more tracking/arc restrictions than Lights or Ions.

 

The strength of quads is versatility. Remember how we were talking about that earlier? It's not as good as "lol you thought I had torps here lemme ****** clusters on you, but it's pretty nice. Yeah, your long range isn't anywhere near as good as heavies, and your short range isn't as good as lights, much less bursts, but you get to do both. That's a pretty neat thing, and it's important for a lot of pikes/quells. For mando ships and starguards, it means you can take ions with no regrets, because you've got your workhorse laser and your specialty laser and you don't need much else.

 

Side note about lights because I forgot that pikes and quells can get them: they don't really jive with the strike's concept of "versatile mid-range fighter". They're certainly not bad, they just don't do the job you want them to.

 

man papa murphey's and five finger death punch this could only get better if they nerfed bombers

 

Sure, I take them on a Sting ... but that's because it's either Quads (medium range) or BLC's (short range) and I prefer attacking at range.

 

Yeah, I know that feel. I don't particularly like quads on my sting, but that's because

my aim is **** don't tell anyone

 

 

Heavies can hit at 6900m, ignore armor and have shield piercing. You can kill a ton without ever getting in close-range fighting range. [...] On my Gladiator though, I use Heavies/Ions/Clusters. On approach to a satellite, Heavies let me take out turrets quickly before they can shoot much at me. On the satellite, they let me kill incoming fighters long before they can shoot back at me. If anyone gets close I put power to shields and use Ions and Clusters to get plenty of kills. If someone tries to flee, I switch back to Heavies and shred their hull before they can get 7000m away. Sure I'd exchange my Ions for BLC's if they were available ... but I see no reason to use Quads on a Rycer/Gladiator.

 

And that's a totally legitimate thing. That strategy works because you put yourself in a position where the enemy is forced to come at you from a distance. And I know that build -- it pretty much always hugs the satellite, because that's its thing. Heavies and ions work fine there, because realistically you're mostly looking at enemies streaming in one by one, and you'll just shred them.

 

guys what happened to half the pizza

 

I can see using Quads on a Quell, in order to straddle the difference between short and long range combat ... but truth be told, I even use Heavies on my Quell ... and you know how I get around their inferior close-range fighting? I don't fight at close range. I pull away from the satellite and work with my allies to destroy foes from a distance.

 

But in a strike, against any scout that knows what he's doing, you're going to be forced to fight at close range. And once that happens, you're just flat out disadvantaged. Rapids and lights can't really fix that problem without presenting other major disadvantages, and heavies are just real bad in that situation. Of course, your gladiator has a specific solution to that problem (a cheesy as balls solution, but a solution nonetheless), but suffice it to say I don't think your build is very popular, and that strategy certainly doesn't work too well in TDM, where people can get to you much more easily (and you don't have satellites to circle when things get bad).

Edited March 8, 2014 by Armonddd

[Zharik]

Also, the tooltips would probably say something to that effect.

 

Aw, that's cute...

[Pilgrim_Grey]

Trying to plug drones one at a time with a railgun brings a very apt quote to mind. I'll try modifying it a little.

 

"The target area is only two meters wide. It's a small (missile sentry drone) right (behind the main drone). The (drone) leads directly to the (bomber's feelings of self-worth.) A precise hit will set up a chain reaction which will destroy the (bomber.) Only a precise hit will set up a chain reaction."

 

"That's impossible, even for a computer!"

 

Yeah, that's what made me write the OP, just to figure out what was up with the stuff I was seeing. I figured some of it was due to lag and other weird stuff with how our accuracy counts, but it's still weird overall. I'm still quite sure their hitbox is really small... you have the target reticle around them when they're selected, and then the much smaller circle that you have to be centered on if you're going to land hits. I'd have to test it with someone willing to do so, but it really seems to be the case. I don't miss in that smaller circle, I do when I'm outside it but within the reticle's circle.

 

For the ship targeting, this has also happened when another ship is reasonably in the center of my screen, which is what made me wonder how much of it is really accuracy. Even when I have to track up or to the side a good amount in mid to long range shooting, I feel like I can solidly count on hits. Not so at close range.

 

I'm also willing to admit there is confirmation bias and me just noticing misses more than hits, but that's why I wanted to see what you all think.

 

And just an fyi, I've noticed this with Quads, Heavies, Lights, and regular Laser cannons, as that's mostly what I've had on my ships.