Devs: Why doesn't the lead indicator grow or shrink depending on target range?

[Nemarus]

Eventually, most GSF pilots come to realize that, regardless of how close a ship is or how much its model fills your screen, you can't actually shoot it. All you can ever shoot is the lead indicator.

 

So I have a question: why does the lead indicator, and the small cluster of pixels at its center that I have to target in order to land a hit, stay the same size no matter what range my target is at? I would expect the hittable area could be bigger the closer my target gets, to approximate the real-life truth that a closer target takes up a larger wedge of my view and is thus easier to hit.

 

Some of you may be going, "Huh?" at this point. So let me give some background on how targeting works in GSF (or at least, how it seems to).

 

<Begin Theory>

 

GSF is built using the same engine as the ground game--which means ships (like characters) are not physical 3D models with collision detection. They are just single points in space, and the only collision detection that occurs is ensuring that point does not pass through static planar obstacles such as walls/floors/asteroids. There are a number of good reasons for BioWare to have implemented both the ground game and GSF this way. True 3D collision detection is expensive, both for developers to code and for computers to calculate in real time, especially when networking latency is involved. And for the original ground game, a target/quickbar WoW-style MMO, there's no reason to have collision detection. So I get that. Unfortunately it means we're unlikely to see dynamic objects we can collide with. The closest we've ever come is moving elevator platforms, and we know how glitchy those can be.

 

But GSF being built on the same engine has a few consequences. In GSF, we are never actually shooting at a ship model. The ship models are all just illusions--a facade painted around a 3D point representing a ship's position--they are not 3D hitboxes. This also means that, even though the ship models get bigger as you get closer to them, they still just represent a point in space, which is equally hard to hit at any range.

 

It also means that a ship that is moving very slowly can still be very difficult to hit if it is turning erratically. Imagine being in a Scout with high turn rate. Hold down S to slow yourself down, then move your mouse to the top of the screen. You'll spin over and over again in a tight loop. Doing such a maneuver should make you easy to hit (since the Scout itself isn't really moving much), but it actually makes you quite difficult to hit with lasers, because the lead indicator is moving in a much larger circle, very fast. It's like comparing a spinning figure skater's head to their outstretched arm. And if you mix in a little yaw or roll with the pitch, you become almost impossible to hit (except with missiles, which target the ship-point, not the lead-indicator).

 

The lead indicator is just another point in space, determined by taking the ship's position and velocity into account. When you align your crosshair with the center of that lead indicator (give or take a few pixels) and press the left mouse button, that creates a potential hit. At that point the game does an RNG Accuracy vs. Evasion check to determine if you actually hit the target. If you do, you see damage flytext (sometimes before the lasers, which are also an illusion, reach the target ship).

 

The thing is, both the lead indicator and the smaller "hittable area" in its center seem to stay the same size regardless of how far away the target is.

 

<End Theory>

 

This means that aiming at a target is actually easier to do when the target is far away than when the target is close, because when the target is far away, it is far easier to follow lateral movements.

 

If the target got bigger when it was closer, then there would be a tradeoff to consider. Close targets would be bigger (easier to hit) but move faster (harder to follow). Far targets would move slower (easier to follow) but be small (harder to hit). But that's not the case.

 

Now, the game does try to simulate this a bit by giving every weapon a damage and RNG Accuracy penalty that increases with range. But it's a pretty light penalty, and often the benefit of getting sustained fire on a distant target outweighs the small damage/accuracy penalty. Plus, if a target is close up, that means it is much harder to center, meaning you'll suffer the much more severe RNG Accuracy tracking penalty.

 

So what does all this mean? Well it means it's often beneficial to engage at the edge of your weapon range, instead of closing in on your target. It also means there's no benefit to Gunships zooming in--in fact they should always zoom out as much as possible.

 

Now I want to pause a moment and commend BioWare. It's amazing that you've turned a WoW-style MMO engine into one of the most fun 3D combat games I've ever played. I think most players don't even realize the magic trick that's been pulled on them (and I suspect most won't read this post in full). So by no means am I trying to slam the system you've created. I think it's an absolutely brilliant example of clever optimization and programming finesse, given the existing constraints of engine/budget/time.

 

But for all my admiration, I still have to wonder: why doesn't the lead indicator's hittable area (and railgun aiming circle) get bigger for close targets and smaller for far targets? It would better approximate the game most players think they are playing (a true space sim with dynamic 3D collision detection, like X-wing), and it would reward/incentivize closing/zooming in on your target.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Nemarus

[Slivovidze]

Probably because engine.

As you said yourself, GSF runs on the same engine as ground game. And the engine is horrible even for ground MMO's, it's hard to imagine the difficulties they are fighting with in the 3D action shooter.

 

There are no hitboxes, as you said, just moving points, and you can't really enlarge a point. A thousand times enlarged point is still just a point.

 

So, we are hunting for points, which are easier to shoot from distance than from close-up. Screw logic. Surprisingly, it works and is fun.

 

I'll be on lookout for some steps forward in this area, but I won't hold my breath.

[Nemarus]

Probably because engine.

As you said yourself, GSF runs on the same engine as ground game. And the engine is horrible even for ground MMO's, it's hard to imagine the difficulties they are fighting with in the 3D action shooter.

 

There are no hitboxes, as you said, just moving points, and you can't really enlarge a point. A thousand times enlarged point is still just a point.

 

So, we are hunting for points, which are easier to shoot from distance than from close-up. Screw logic. Surprisingly, it works and is fun.

 

I'll be on lookout for some steps forward in this area, but I won't hold my breath.

 

I'm not 100% certain, but it feels to me like the current hittable area of the lead indicator is larger than a single pixel. Feels more like a small circle of pixels, about the same diameter as the railgun reticle.

 

And actually it's easy to enlarge a point in 2D space (which is all we care about for a lead indicator). Just make it a small circle--which again, I think it already is.

 

We also know the engine does plenty of calculations based on range. Damage and RNG Accuracy, and whether or not a target is even in range of a weapon or not. So I don't see any great technical hurdle here.

[Zharik]

I'm not 100% certain, but it feels to me like the current hittable area of the lead indicator is larger than a single pixel.

 

It is the whole circle. You can see your cursor change when you are "lined up on it" properly. Click once at the edge of an otherwise "easy" hit and see the damage tick.

[Kalphitis]

OP -- I'm right there with you. One of the reasons that I absolutely despise dogfighting in GSF is because shooting targets at close range is just so counter-intuitive, silly, and frustrating.

 

This is why I prefer attacking targets 6-10K out with HLCs on my strike fighter, and why I don't really enjoy playing the scout very much.

 

Also why I tend to ignore targets that are chasing me....just avoid them and try to attack somebody else. Don't want to get drawn into a close-quarters silliness brawl where we fly in circles and try to hit our small target window.

 

In addition, I would like to add that I personally have found that the target indicator is not always valid for me when targets are very close. For instance, if I'm following a target at close range and they are angling/curving away from me (such that I have to 'lead' them in order to get a hit), I find that if I aim for their leading indicator it usually doesn't count as a hit -- when my indicator turns red. Note that I'm sure that I'm not just 'missing' due to them evading. When I shoot around slightly behind their targeting indicator (when it's not 'red' on my screen) I tend to get more hits.

 

Yes that's right, in close quarter combat I get more hits with my lasers when my targeting reticle is not 'red' -- which in theory shouldn't be possible.

 

For this reason, when I'm very close to an enemy target, I tend to just ignore the targeting reticles altogether. I just look at where my lasers are going, and adjust my aim to make them match up with where the enemy ship is.

 

I'm curious if anybody else has experienced this? I don't think it's lag...believe it's a targeting glitch (whereby the lead targeting reticle just isn't accurate) that gets amplified when you're in close quarters, but when farther away it's minimalized. If it was lag, I would have to aim 'ahead' of the targeting reticle to get a hit, but I typically have to aim behind it.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Kalphitis

[Loc_n_lol]

The problem is, the circle does grow up at very close range, but that doesn't seem to actually affect the size of the "hitbox". OR maybe it's jsut the lag making it super unreliable at close range.

 

I guess one other way to go about it would be to have varying circle sizes for different weapons (short range laser cannons larger, long range laser cannons same-ish, railguns smaller)

 

Either way there's something wrong with the sniper class requiring the least amount of aiming skill (not counting bombers ofc...).

[Kalphitis]

We do often compare GSF to First Person Shooters. In an FPS, a sniper aiming reticle is very small, which makes it difficult to get 'headshots'. A shotgun on the other hand has a reticle that is huge, you basically cannot miss in close quarters.

 

Maybe GSF should consider that? It would be worth testing at any rate...though admittedly it would make scouts more powerful than they already are.

[Zharik]

In addition, I would like to add that I personally have found that the target indicator is not always valid for me when targets are very close. For instance, if I'm following a target at close range and they are angling/curving away from me (such that I have to 'lead' them in order to get a hit), I find that if I aim for their leading indicator it usually doesn't count as a hit -- when my indicator turns red. Note that I'm sure that I'm not just 'missing' due to them evading. When I shoot around slightly behind their targeting indicator (when it's not 'red' on my screen) I tend to get more hits.

 

I believe that this is lag. Similar to the lag that makes your missile lock on "break" even though the target is in the middle half of the circle's area.

[Altheran]

I believe that this is lag. Similar to the lag that makes your missile lock on "break" even though the target is in the middle half of the circle's area.

 

Tonight, someone launched a repair probe just in front of me. I killed thrusters. I stopped at 100m, both immobile, dead center... All shot missed for 2-3s.

 

I got tired, resumed moving (distance actually passed by the "0m" point - so it wasn't 100m behind me), turned back and shot at 500m. The probe had been destroyed in less than 1s.

 

There's definitely something fishy. Lag can't explain the issue considering both immobile objects (and given that Chris said there isn't any fall-off accuracy under 500m in the livestream)

[Zharik]

Yeah I have had that happen with drones too. Seems like 300m is the closest you can consistently get them as you should.

[Armonddd]

I'm not 100% certain, but it feels to me like the current hittable area of the lead indicator is larger than a single pixel. Feels more like a small circle of pixels, about the same diameter as the railgun reticle.

 

When I'm in a tight turning war with BLCs, I can hit pretty much anywhere within the center circle of the lead reticule (which at that point has grown a significant amount compared to if I were 4 km out). BLCs are funky at close range, though.

[Pilgrim_Grey]

When I'm in a tight turning war with BLCs, I can hit pretty much anywhere within the center circle of the lead reticule (which at that point has grown a significant amount compared to if I were 4 km out). BLCs are funky at close range, though.

 

Yeah, where most guns get more accurate inside of 1k meters, BLCs seem to still be getting better, at least in my experience. I had that one thread where I asked about all the missing at close range, so it's something about their accuracy going up at close range counteracting the higher miss rate we all get at close range.