Aeon Amadi
A.N.O.N.Y.M.O.U.S.
League of Infamy
1805
   |
Posted - 2013.07.05 19:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
The single center dot is great and all but I am a man with a mustache and monocle who loves a bit of flare in his killing methods.
1.) Heat buildup scale may need to be closer to the reticle. Its hard to manage the effectiveness of our killing potential when the heat build scale is in the corner of the screen, taking our eyes away from the target if the television screen is too large.
2.) Range indicator should be consistent and not rely on the info readout provided when we are aiming at said target. it should conform comfortably with the reticle itself and give us, at the very least, an update on the range of where our reticle is aiming once every second or faster. This way when we are looking at our range, heat buildup wont be on the other side of the screen!
3.) Efficiency rating linked to range indicator. If the reticle is placed on an object 500m away, and were using a Blaster, our efficiency is going to change than if it were at, say, 40m. Obviously this will change based on Shields/Armor but it will help new tankers (and some vets) understand the weapon's capabilities. This is also something that needs to be close to the reticle and provided second-to-second, rather than just when its on a target.
4.) We dont need windage scales and drop compensators! Being as Dust has neither of these (and the fact we're shooting plasma out of coil lines) they are flashy but largely impractical. Which is cool, if youre a monocled gentleman who likes immersing himself like I do.
Now the in depth bits.
Blaster -:-
Currently both the Large (1st and 3rd person) and Small Blasters have the same boring center dot sight. This is effective but it should be so much more. These are powerful, manly turrets which are designed to make things very dead (all game mechanics aside). The reticle shouldnt change - if it aint broke dont fix it - but it does need some informational tools and perhaps a circle to indicate the potential for bullet spread (despite there being not much of on the Large variant). A curved heat scale on the side of the dot could very easily conform to th voluptuous nature of this Gallente designed turret.
Railgun -:-
This sight is very elusive. Third and First person reticles are inconsistent and the small turret has a bizarre center dot like the blasters (no wonder theyre so tricky to use). The third person reticle is very much again to a PSO-1, shown here: http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc8cnwzIZg1r9khx4o2_1280.jpg . The first person sight is different, looking something like a mildot scope. This all well and good, but largely unnecessary and provides us no real tactical information. But I do like the third person sight, and theres a lot of room for expansion. A rectangular heat build scale would also fit nicely along the windage scale, giving it more use and staying true to the Caldari's sharp edge style.
Missile -:-
This finnicky beast will actually lie to you. Its sights are a direct match to the Railgun but the missiles act differently at range (the importance of that range indicator mentioned earlier). Missiles will fire on either side of the center dot, making accurate aiming tricky. There instead need tobe two separate dots for each missile being fired to be effective. This sight is from Halo, apparently, but its the only one I could find on google that gives justice to what the missile should be: http://www.halopedia.org/images/thumb/1/1a/Rocket_Launcher_Reticle.svg/119px-Rocket_Launcher_Reticle.svg.png
Whew! Wall of text. For those that read all the way through, thanks so much for your patience.
Discuss! Throw out some ideas  |
Aeon Amadi
A.N.O.N.Y.M.O.U.S.
League of Infamy
1809
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 22:02:00 -
[2] - Quote
Oso Peresoso wrote:Its my understanding that the missiles missing is a result of the vehicle velocity being significant compared to the missiles velocity, thus there is need to aim behind the target while moving forward. Military and law enforcement personnel that specialize in sharpshooting from helicopters are familiar with this phenomenon, and expect there are certain military electronics systems that calculate the proper adjustment factor based on the speed of the shooters vehicle, the velocity of the projectile, and the estimated range and angle of the target. A UI element for rocket turrets that a rough magnitude and direction of compensation would go a long way towards convincing people they aren't broken.
Regarding rainguns, I agree that windage, rangefinders, and drop indicators are a complete waste of UI space, and this cosmetic junk should be replaced by something functional
Its actually simple physics, you add the velocity of the vehicle to the velocity of the round being fired if its movingin the same direction as the point of origin. Firing backward will result in a loss of velocity andit hasbeen proven that if the velocity of the weapon is moving in one direction and the bullet fired in the opposite direction are the same velocity, the bullet will simply fall to the ground.
Firing sideways causes the round to fire normally, but the forward velocity is congruent and this causes the round to appear as though its firing diagnally. The reason Missiles have this issue in Dust is because they arent on a simple mathematical formula like Blasters, which is just placing a line between the point of origin and the target point until that line is intersected, whereas Missiles seem to operate on trajectory.
Hell, it would explain why missiles are so wonky on dropships as any change in velocity on the vehicle would have to be sent from Client (pilot) to server to client (gunner) resulting in delay. Missiles going to the left or right being a change in velocity.
Maybe itd be better to have missiles on a Hit Scan system like Blasters, in that case?
This is all just theoretical however. |