Pilot Archive
Thread: Would you support removing the targetter from PvP?
JanuHull wrote:
One of the things I've discovered having come from a mindset where I thought PvP should be like PvE and changing to the point of enjoying the current PvP system is the realization that once you are up to the point where you can compete with others in the turns, the pace of combat, in my opinion, actuallyslows down to a managable level. Instead of trying to quickly spam as many shots into your opponent as possible before he returns the favor, you are wrestling him for position to make the one shot that could end it.
Once you're in the turns, there are all sorts of options open. Do you hold the high ground with more speed, do you slow for the inside track hoping your opponent overflies you, do you hold steady on veolcity, or do you let inertial sliding push you into a more elliptical path for the rare straight shot? Even better, getting into the turn, rolling on axis, then reversing your turn can break the tight turn and force a reset into another turn where your initial entry into the mix gives you more advantage or a quick joust that can open opportunities.
That's where PvP in space is worth the investment of timegetting into the upper tier of players over the ground game. Its not aboutshot spam or mitigation or template, its about you physically working yourself into position and making every shot count and any ship has a legitimate shot, however long the odds might be.
/salute, Very well said.
And every now and then, you think you're at this level and you have a run in with someone who makes you go W-T-F was that?! 
Loki_Ashaman wrote:
And every now and then, you think you're at this level and you have a run in with someone who makes you go W-T-F was that?!
I swear, I can shoot down JSF's in myregular xwing, but I can't shoot a little measly TF down. Must be something wrong with me
Loki_Ashaman wrote:
JanuHull wrote:
One of the things I've discovered having come from a mindset where I thought PvP should be like PvE and changing to the point of enjoying the current PvP system is the realization that once you are up to the point where you can compete with others in the turns, the pace of combat, in my opinion, actuallyslows down to a managable level. Instead of trying to quickly spam as many shots into your opponent as possible before he returns the favor, you are wrestling him for position to make the one shot that could end it.
Once you're in the turns, there are all sorts of options open. Do you hold the high ground with more speed, do you slow for the inside track hoping your opponent overflies you, do you hold steady on veolcity, or do you let inertial sliding push you into a more elliptical path for the rare straight shot? Even better, getting into the turn, rolling on axis, then reversing your turn can break the tight turn and force a reset into another turn where your initial entry into the mix gives you more advantage or a quick joust that can open opportunities.
That's where PvP in space is worth the investment of timegetting into the upper tier of players over the ground game. Its not aboutshot spam or mitigation or template, its about you physically working yourself into position and making every shot count and any ship has a legitimate shot, however long the odds might be.
/salute, Very well said.
And every now and then, you think you're at this level and you have a run in with someone who makes you go W-T-F was that?!
I don't use it much myself as I usualy target the ship that I'm not currently attacking so that I can keep track of it at the same time.
Interesting idea, but from my experiance it doesn't help me much as I know where to hit a ship just based on it's speed, distance and turning degree.
KaylBreinhar wrote:
Darkknight109 wrote:
KaylBreinhar wrote:
It's useless in fast-paced PvP anyway. You can only trust it in PvE - unless you're flying against a really god-awful pilot, you can't trust it in PvP.
Actually it's not. Maybe not for aiming to hit them, but when they fly off your screen it lets you know exactly where they are. Which makes for very close, un-star warsy PvP.
Okay, so under this logic, why not penalize people who have higher screen resolutions (such as 1600x1200) since their wider perspective would give them an unfair advantage over players using 1024x768. Same principle.
Hell, this is a huge hotbutton issue with the 1920x1080 HD capability of the upcoming consoles - players with HDTVs (and PS3 owners with two of 1920x1080 capability) having an unfair advantage over lesser-equipped players on older tube televisions.
JTL isn't XvT - it isn't even XWA. It's a glorified Rogue Squadron with a chat function (harsh, I know, but until they focus on JTL more, it's the truth). They're not going to take away the lead indicator, because it helps newbies. And, as another denizen of this forum said on his podcast, if they can't fix a decimal point to correct WO3, they're not going to remove the lead indicator.
Think about it - some people won't even do their T1 DUTIES because "teehee, it's too hard to learn how to do anything other than macro!!!" - requiring people to learn to use the radar would be like trying to teach a comatose chimpanzee Euclidian geometry.
I disagree with everyone. JTLS is unique. The whole mechanics thing differs totally on this one aspect...momentum. In XWA and XvT and hell even the Rogue Leader games, your ship couldn't slide or at least nowhere to the degree that you can in JTLS. Those games also are -much- slower than JTLS.
Anyone claiming the green lead reticle needs removing is 1. Either not very experienced and hasn't really pvp'ed at high speed yet or 2. Is a much better pilot than I and every other veteran pilot I know of....but I sincerely doubt that.
True, I think some aspects of those other games might be cool if they were incorporated, for example capital ships and deeper, more involving missions however, comparing physics and how these games actually worked is ridiculous. JTLS, is and will always be linked to the ground game, therefor it'll have aspects of the ground game such as grinding and (I'd love to see standardised parts but...) reverse engineering and the aspect of being able to improve your starship through ways which realistically and from a military perspective are too, utterly ridiculous.
I agree, the lead reticle in pve at least makes everything real easy...FOR MASTERS, but just spare a moments thought for those just picking the game up for the first time. The lead reticle is part of the learning process of having to lead your targets. In pvp, with the ship I fly and the insane speeds I'm turning at, the lead reticle isn't very accurate at all. It does however give you a basic idea of where to shoot. Now considering that two good pilots will get several micro second opportunities to take shots at each other, consider the game without the reticle. Furballs which might last 10 - 20 minutes on average (this can be common on Starsider and often it goes on longer. Halyn and I have dueled up to...well I lost count of how long it was before) would now last for...I don't know...a decade?
For those of you who want to "turn off the targeting computer", try hitting Control-Shift-H. I do it every now and again, the effect is awesome.
However, I would recommend a decent cap to shield shunt macro, otherwise you really are flying with your pants down.
ProCambarus wrote:
Darkknight109 wrote:
ProCambarus wrote:
The old type of targetting system is not really compatible with the new ship parts. In the old system there was no refire rate, so when you hit the fire it had an instantenous hit. In this system the time your weapon fires depends on the active time elapsed since it was fired last time. (Refire rate). Also in the old system it provided a guaranteed hit and no other setting resulted a hit. With the weapon alignments introduced it would not be practical. (Would it hit? Which slot/weapon would?)
Have you ever played TIE Fighter?
You will be suprised. I "soloed"
It's almost identical to JtL in terms of mechanics. There was a refire rate in the old system and it wasn't an instantaneous hit...
It might look similar, but it is substantially different. In T/F if you trigger the weapon it fires the active weapon group immediately THEN it stops until the preset refire rate and then fires the active weapon group again. In SWG more often than not there is an initial delay for how the weapons work. It calculates based on how long you keep the fire button pressed. You have to keep the button pressed for the whole time according to the refire rate to have the next shot, even if you interrupt fireing. Weapons (in the same group) are more independent and you can see the individual/variable frequencies they are shot. As there is an INITIAL delay when you press the button, it is the reason why the old system is not applicable. Naturally I do know that the old system calculated with vectors and the it was scored on landing, if it was not clear, my apologies. The instant element was the fire when triggered.
It took into account weapon allignments (which existed in that game as well... TIE Defender's spread could be a real hassle at times.)
This is where I am not certain looking back and I don't have DOS on anymore to check that, but I cannot recall shots not dealing full damage of all weapons linked and fired simultaneously.
The system calculated the predicted hit or miss based on a shot fired out of the next gun set to fire. I suppose that could be a problem for those that instantly switch between multiple group weapons, but I would just simplify things by saying whichever group is "selected" (as is noted currently on the right side of the screen) is the one the targetter calculates for, as, odds are, that's the one that will be firing. If you mean what slot/weapon would it hit, that's the same as it is current system.
Remember how fire linking worked? Linking fire=halving speed. This is quite the opposite of the current system, where -again- all weapons have their RR circling unrelated to each other. But the point again is in the initial delay when you trigger a weapon.
I can tell you with 100% confidence that damage in Tie Fighter depended on how many weapon bolts actually hit the target ship.
In reality, the weapon/hit system in Tie Fighter was far more complex than it is in JTL. In Tie Fighter (and X-Wing), each bolt that was fired from your ship was treated as an individual entity. You could stagger or link fire. If you were in an Interceptor with fully linked fire and all 4 of your bolts hit the target, all 4 did damage. If only two bolts hit, only those two did damage. If no bolts hit, it did no damage (unlike JTL).
I wish JTL was like that.
The problem with TIE fighter was that the hit detection sucked, it was just a sphere around the ship.
If they could combine the firing mechanics of TIEfighter (seoerate damage for each bolt, link control, convergance control) with the hit detection of JTL (well not the bugged ones like the RGI and JSF) you would have a great game.
TalKurgan wrote:
Time to give the ol' CTRL+SHIFT+H a try! We don' need no stinkin' instruments!
Message Edited by ProCambarus on 10-09-2005 12:32 PM
ProCambarus wrote:
I do not have a clue why do you think JTLS does not handle bolts separately, while it does. In addition it handles all mounted weapons independently too (as well as calculates bolt vectors from all mount places).
Message Edited by ProCambarus on 10-09-2005 12:32 PM
Probably because 1 bolt from a TIE Interceptor doesn't do 1/4th damage? But instead does full damage? There's no question that it handles the bolts HITTING seperately, but if evenn 1 bolt hits you do full damage.