Read by Council AI Assisted Aim

[Edymnion]

Using a target-lead indicator in the HUD maintains the mini-game of still having to steer and retains the skill element. I prefer that approach to any form of aim-assist. I just find aim-assist ruins the RP feel and is indicative of a poorly designed combat mechanic.

Either way its the same basic thing.

Point your crosshair at the lead reticule and have the game calculate where you should be clicking, or click on the ship itself and have the game adjust your aim so that the fire actually lands at the point you clicked.

Personally I think the "You point at what you want to die, and the computer adjusts your aim to make sure you hit it" is much more in keeping with the "We're flying space ships that can bend the fabric of reality" level of technology, instead of "We stuck a 19th century gatling gun on the front of a 30th century space fighter, lets see if anyone notices!"

 

[Kingofanime]

I remember the X3 games having a targeting reticule and a small amount of AI auto-aim within the reticule. And I honestly don't think I would have ever played the games much if they didn't have those. I do play starmade, but I'm usually building or using ships that are big enough to have turrets. I avoid small ship dog-fights. Long drawn out small ship battles in X3 were exciting. But long drawn out small ship battles in starmade are 5-10 minutes of aiming frustration that is not fun for me.

 

[Edymnion]

I remember the X3 games having a targeting reticule and a small amount of AI auto-aim within the reticule. And I honestly don't think I would have ever played the games much if they didn't have those. I do play starmade, but I'm usually building or using ships that are big enough to have turrets. I avoid small ship dog-fights. Long drawn out small ship battles in X3 were exciting. But long drawn out small ship battles in starmade are 5-10 minutes of aiming frustration that is not fun for me.

Agreed, I just went pirate farming today because I needed a break from building my new shipyard.

I tried using my cannons against the pirates (custom pirates, bit stronger than Isanths, but not overly so) and it was just an exercise in futility. If they weren't right in front of my face, the best I could do was spray and pray. It wasn't fun, so I went back to how I normally fight pirates. Lock on missiles for the first few, then go salvage them while my turrets kill everything around me.

I actually do wish I could participate more actively in the fights, but the simple fact of the matter is that the only ways I can reliably hit fighters in my ship (which is only like 150m long) is lock-ons (which take so long to lock on and recharge that its less actual combat and more "Oh, hey, I'm allowed to do something") and letting the turrets fight for me.

Just seems like something is wrong when the best way to fight is to literally just fly around doing nothing while the turrets basically play the game for you.

 

[jayman38]

There needs to be a replacement "fun" mechanic if autoaiming takes away dogfighting "fun". My personal preference is the introduction of subsystem selection and aiming. That way, you are tactically "aiming" instead of twitch-gaming "aiming".

 

[nightrune]

There needs to be a replacement "fun" mechanic if autoaiming takes away dogfighting "fun". My personal preference is the introduction of subsystem selection and aiming. That way, you are tactically "aiming" instead of twitch-gaming "aiming".

Makes me want a targeting computer block that enables this on ships.

 

[Malacodor]

Either way its the same basic thing.

Point your crosshair at the lead reticule and have the game calculate where you should be clicking, or click on the ship itself and have the game adjust your aim so that the fire actually lands at the point you clicked.

Personally I think the "You point at what you want to die, and the computer adjusts your aim to make sure you hit it" is much more in keeping with the "We're flying space ships that can bend the fabric of reality" level of technology, instead of "We stuck a 19th century gatling gun on the front of a 30th century space fighter, lets see if anyone notices!"

No, it totally isn't the same thing. If the target changes speed and/or direction, an auto-aim feature would very likely miss the target, without a way for the player to do something against it. A lead reticule, however, would change it's position relative to the target, which would allow us to hit the target by leading the lead reticule or at least by wild guessing.

 

[Edymnion]

No, it totally isn't the same thing. If the target changes speed and/or direction, an auto-aim feature would very likely miss the target, without a way for the player to do something against it. A lead reticule, however, would change it's position relative to the target, which would allow us to hit the target by leading the lead reticule or at least by wild guessing.

I don't think you're thinking that all the way through logically.

The target changing direction or speed after you fire is something that neither method can compensate for. The reticule would move, and you'd need to move to follow it, but you either hold your fire when you see it moving or you fire and miss, its the same for both. One just points to where you lead the shot to, the other leads the shot for you.

Plus, if you go the ai assisted leading, it could be done to only auto-lead when you are clicking directly on an entity. You fire into empty space and it fires off normally, meaning those who want to lead their shots manually still can, while those who want to risk the target taking evasive action and throwing off the aim assist can do that.

Either way, its the computer helping you lead your shots. One just leads for you, the other just shows you where to lead.

 

[Malacodor]

I don't think you're thinking that all the way through logically.

The target changing direction or speed after you fire is something that neither method can compensate for.

I don't think you're thinking that all the way through logically.

A constant linear acceleration is predictable. Flying in a circle is predictable. Also, manual targeting enables us to spread the projectiles to allow for a chance hit, instead of reliably missing.

 

[Lecic]

I HAVE BEEN SUMMONED.

Right now, the only really viable ship based weapons for taking out other ships are lock on missiles and beams (IMO), due to the fact that they can actually be accurately aimed by a human.

Cannon fire, dumbfire missiles, etc for me at least are relegated to either base assault weapons (cannons for cutting out pirate station faction blocks, missiles simply because I'm aiming at the broad side of a barn) or as turrets (due to the fact that the AI can actually hit a small fast moving target by properly leading the shots to a degree no human can match at range).

So how about a little AI assist on aiming the dumbfire stuff?

Just to the point that if you click on the target directly, the array will automatically lead the shot the amount required as if it had been fired by a turret.

Wouldn't replace the lock on missiles because the calculation would be done at the time of firing and the target could still change direction to evade, but it would make all of the weapons viable as a ship based system instead of (again, what I consider) the pretty rigid "this is for ships, this is for turrets" division we have now.

You're a scrub who can't aim. As a wise man once said, GIT GUD.

Does anyone actually use cannons or dumbfire missiles as their primary weapon on even a moderately sized ship

Yes. Because I can aim.

Using a target-lead indicator in the HUD maintains the mini-game of still having to steer and retains the skill element

Target lead absolutely does NOT retain the skill element. It drops almost all of it. A target lead tells you exactly where to aim based on a target's velocity, current vector, and size.

Aim assist is garbage. It does not belong in this game. It is for people who have not bothered to learn how to actually lead their targets on their own, and I will continue to oppose this crap every time it gets suggested, because it is DIRECTLY OPPOSED to the idea that this game requires any sort of skill beyond building a ship with good stats.

 

[Gonzalo]

Using a target-lead indicator in the HUD maintains the mini-game of still having to steer and retains the skill element. I prefer that approach to any form of aim-assist. I just find aim-assist ruins the RP feel and is indicative of a poorly designed combat mechanic.

Yeah i really think this is a good idea. considering we have warp drive technology and can propel lock on guided energy missiles, i see no problem in having something like this. also if i fight someone in a ship that is 200 mass and you are also about 200 mass, it is SO hard for me to hit someone with cannons.

"gonzalo your such a noob"

this aint no fps boi. as an asteronaut i can understand. but ship no.

 

[Edymnion]

I don't think you're thinking that all the way through logically.

A constant linear acceleration is predictable. Flying in a circle is predictable. Also, manual targeting enables us to spread the projectiles to allow for a chance hit, instead of reliably missing.

So lead the shots yourself. I said clicking on the target directly would have the AI aim your actual fire like it was a turret. Don't click directly on a target, your shots fly normally.

Best of both worlds. Doesn't have to be one or the other. Though frankly, if I had to choose one or the other, I would still choose the AI because the turrets still do a better job predicting and landing shots than any human I've seen.

 

[Pacific_Jim]

As someone who can't aim particularly well I gotta say I'm against this. It's not particularly hard to hit slower moving targets, and for faster moving targets either move in closer, or if your ship is too slow to dogfight with them use turrets, it's kind of what they're there for.

 

[Lecic]

Yeah i really think this is a good idea. considering we have warp drive technology and can propel lock on guided energy missiles, i see no problem in having something like this. also if i fight someone in a ship that is 200 mass and you are also about 200 mass, it is SO hard for me to hit someone with cannons.

"gonzalo your such a noob"

this aint no fps boi. as an asteronaut i can understand. but ship no.

Balance trumps lore. Aim assist takes away skill and makes balance shifted heavily towards who can build a better ship and makes pilot skill much less important.

 

[Gonzalo]

Aim assist takes away skill and makes balance shifted heavily towards who can build a better ship and makes pilot skill much less important.

o really? how do you know this? please share. also you should play this game:
Arthur . Games . Binky's Facts and Opinions | PBS Kids

 

[Lecic]

o really? how do you know this? please share.

Simple logic dictates that if you remove one of the primary facets of being a good pilot (having good aim), you shift the balance in favor of ships with better stats and make pilot skill matter less. It also makes the OTHER primary facet of pilot skill, dodging shots, much more difficult, because unless your ship has very high acceleration, it will be much harder to dodge shots except at huge ranges.

 

[Pacific_Jim]

I might make another suggestion topic on the matter to be more in depth, but honestly I think the opposite approach more be a better way to balance the difference between AI and player aim. Remove the difficulty setting, tie the aim accuracy to the NPC/AI system operating the weapon. Bobby AI should be fixed at medium, then Easy should be bottom of the barrel NPCs. Hard and Mean however would be the best of the best. It would tie in nicely to the crew system in the works, since you would need somewhere to put those NPCs, and it would likely encourage players to set up stations for training grounds.

 

[Gonzalo]

Simple logic dictates that if you remove one of the primary facets of being a good pilot (having good aim), you shift the balance in favor of ships with better stats and make pilot skill matter less. It also makes the OTHER primary facet of pilot skill, dodging shots, much more difficult, because unless your ship has very high acceleration, it will be much harder to dodge shots except at huge ranges.

thanks, that's what i wanted to hear

 

[Jojomo]

I don't think you're thinking that all the way through logically.

A constant linear acceleration is predictable. Flying in a circle is predictable. Also, manual targeting enables us to spread the projectiles to allow for a chance hit, instead of reliably missing.

How many levels of derivatives do you want assisted reticules to calculate though? A constant curve? A constantly changing curve? A constantly changing changing curve? .....

I don't think there needs to be any type of aiming assist (some weapons aren't appropriate for some situations and that's fine), but if an assisted reticule was implemented I think it should be limited to linear prediction.

For the dogfighters out there, your primary goal should be to manoeuvre to a position behind the enemy, just like it is in real life (except when using seeking missiles). It's much, much easier to hit them from there.

In fact I'd go as far to say that for a small fighter vs another small fighter (X-wing size) manoeuvrability and speed is easily the most important aspect of the ship (excluding pilot ability of course, and assuming no turrets)

 

[Malacodor]

How many levels of derivatives do you want assisted reticules to calculate though? A constant curve? A constantly changing curve? A constantly changing changing curve? .....

I don't think there needs to be any type of aiming assist (some weapons aren't appropriate for some situations and that's fine), but if an assisted reticule was implemented I think it should be limited to linear prediction.

I guess I worded that somewhat mistakable. What I meant was that a lead reticule should use the same level of aiming the AI uses, which would leave room for aiming better through cunning prediction of evasive maneuvers and the like.

 

[Jojomo]

I guess I worded that somewhat mistakable. What I meant was that a lead reticule should use the same level of aiming the AI uses, which would leave room for aiming better through cunning prediction of evasive maneuvers and the like.

Is it known what level of prediction the AI uses? Is it just linear?