Would Autotrackers belong in PR?

[DenvH]

I think the current system is fine, not all tanks ingame have tracking systems like this and it would be fair to keep tanks like they are now. With an auto tracker it would be too easy to kill, however I can see stabilisation making it into the game at some point. Would require some heavy/near impossible coding I guess but we'll see.

But if such an auto lock/tracking system was to be implemented, it should be locked with the press of a button while aiming dead on target (like pointing a laser), and it should be possible to lock on friendly vehicles. So identifying the target should still play a role, not like you see a few pixels and get an automated lock like the AA idea..

[Mora]

Like i said, hold a button down it "lases" the area you point at after a second or so and it will automatically stay on that point until you release the button or move away from it with a sweep. This point would "stick" on objects much like the laser target does now. So you can track moving targets as well.

Think of it this way. Attack chopper gunner sees a tank moving, he points at the tank and presses the button it lases so now the center of the screen is centered on the tank and tracking him.

Or just have the aim lock on where ever you aim at. Until you move the turret your self. Similar to what the apache gunner has in real life.

[Hunt3r]

The laser target currently has problems with the speed being too slow, and basically invalidating itself by virtue of taking longer than just stopping and taking a shot. Current AFVs can shoot on the move at full speed, able to take out everything from infantry to buildings while doing so. Basically, I'd like to see the AFVs in PR also be able to do so as easily as one can in reality.

[Wh33lman]

ok, lets see how we can balance this

... This basically means that the Bradley can lock onto anything with sufficient FLIR contrast, be it a flare, infantryman, tank, anything....

"sufficent heat signature": it really wouldnt be fair to have it lock on to infantry, thats out.

"anything": exactly, yours, mine, theirs, ours. thermal is balanced because you dont know what your shooting at. this proposed FCS shouldnt know the difference either. you could end up locking on to those fires you see on Kashan, or even a friendly tank.

as for you people screaming "AIMBOT,AIMBOT!!!!", there is a system in alot of console shooters that will slightly track a targets movement. it wont point the the gun directly at the enemies head, but if you have your recitule on the target, it will stay closer to the target and make it slightly easier to hit. its not like the gun is pointed in one direction when fired, and the shell will curve around to hit the target.

Overkill, take another look at the video YOU posted. the lock can be broken over rough terrain. so flying along on kashan isnt going to help your ability to shoot.

this is the initial test video from CA, and it really describes how it actually works.

Tank FCS initial testing - Xfire Video

the real point of PR is to balance realisim with gameplay. if PR was completely real, it would suck. from a gameplay perspective, this is very clearly debatable. as with thermals, if its implimented, it need to be done so very carefully. personally, i think it would be very cool to have it in.

[Hunt3r]

Well, it would redefine the tactics and procedures for armor vs. armor engagements, with it really being more about who can spot the other first, with it also being easier for armor to take on FOBs.

Deployed TOWs would also no longer be the insta-kill machine they are now, increasing teamwork by making a need for one side to properly coordinate their AFVs capable of killing tanks with infantry and FOB defenses.

This would also add the critical component for modern AFVs, which is shoot on the move. Warfare is defined by protection, firepower, and mobility. Current PR AFVs can have protection, but must make a choice between firepower and mobility. You can either move, and have decreased firepower (Not possible to shoot on the move), or not move, and have increased firepower.

[Bazul14]

Yo dawg, gyroscope stabilization at least is on the field of battle since WW2, Shermans had it and a few other tanks did so.

Also, please lets remember that the game is called Project Reality, and it is oriented in a conflict in the close future. Even in the present, most tanks are equipped with stabilization and autotrackers. We are not talking of a 1950s conflict where we have armored battles just using heavier tanks and longer distances. Tanks and APCs can shoot on the move and benefit from the autotracking system.

The current way that we do armored fights in PR is like in WW2, which goes on these lines:

Driver, GO!
Tank bearing X, DRIVER< STOP STOP STOP@!@!@!!!
GJ target down, or damn, we phailed. Most of the times it depends on the reaction times of the drivers when too stop.

IRL tanks can shoot on the move and hit the target with the help of such systems.

As for the aimbots, well ya, it would be kind of cheating, since the computer is doing the actual tracking and aiming.




Oh, and some of the benefits of 3d sights and thermals:



See any fundamental difference between PR functions and these hacks? No, because they are founded on the same basis, and that of improving a game. Now for whom, and in which way the things improve the game differs from situation to situation.

Hacks and mods usually go hand in hand, so stop sticking to the dogma: Hacks=Pariah.

There is not any great difference from these hacks and PR, only that PR is fun and TW oriented while hacks are mostly for the personal short term fun(it kind of gets boring after always getting a headshot on each shot...).

Introduce autotracking. It will improve and make tank combat more realistic.

[Cassius]

Well I think the realism in PR should be a Vietnam tech era realism, with most being straight out of the barrel unto the target, with a bit of elctronic help here and there.

A truly realistic game with all the automatization would make games pretty boring. Finding out how a game would play with all the technological help that can be implemented would be a lot of work, but essentially you are looking at aimbot tanks shooting at attack helicopters.

The plus side would be that tactics coordination information and teamwork would become even more important.

[Mora]

I think you missed the point here, its not about aimbots, its about tracking. You cannot just flip on the target and shoot. It doesn't work like that.

[Hunt3r]

That, and I would advise that there be the ability to autotrack things like fires, dead vehicles, unmanned vehicles, friendly vehicles, either unmanned or not.

I want to make it easier to shoot on the move, but that shouldn't exclude gunners from having to adequately identify friend or foe.

As a side note, gyroscopic stabilization in tanks like the M60A3 TTS, the direct predecessor of the Abrams series of MBTs, required that the vehicle slow to 11-12 mph to maintain a stable firing platform.

[Wh33lman]

That, and I would advise that there be the ability to autotrack things like fires, dead vehicles, unmanned vehicles, friendly vehicles, either unmanned or not.

I want to make it easier to shoot on the move, but that shouldn't exclude gunners from having to adequately identify friend or foe.

nonono, we need these things for balance. do you know how many friendlies ive mowed down because i was a little too quick on the trigger?

[Hunt3r]

The point is to let people shoot on the move, but still need to make sure that they're shooting at something enemy. You can't lock up infantry, so INS will not become a nightmare for the INS side, and in AAS, armor will be critical in providing direct fire support, and also as the most powerful anti-armor asset on the battlefield.

[Celestial1]

nonono, we need these things for balance. do you know how many friendlies ive mowed down because i was a little too quick on the trigger?

"Make the game easier for me because I am trigger happy"

[MaxCookies]

You might as well make PR a console-friendly game with cover mechanics, automatic health-regen and popamole combat. It'd ruin balance - and that is pretty much one of the most important aspects of the game.

[Hunt3r]

You might as well make PR a console-friendly game with cover mechanics, automatic health-regen and popamole combat. It'd ruin balance - and that is pretty much one of the most important aspects of the game.

Well, I don't think the game is very balanced as you believe it is to be. Right now TOWs handily beat all AFVs by virtue of having a one-shot one-kill missile. HATs are still a sizeable threat.

This should be implemented because it's realistic and would also make AFVs as powerful as they are in reality. TOWs and ATGMs, while very powerful, are limited IRL by the need to stay pointed at the target all the way to splash, are often slow enough to be heard by the tankers well in advanced, have smoke trails that can be spotted, and can be dodged and decoyed.

ATGMs can be a very big threat, but they should not be able to duel with tanks.

[MaxCookies]

Well, I don't think the game is very balanced as you believe it is to be. Right now TOWs handily beat all AFVs by virtue of having a one-shot one-kill missile. HATs are still a sizeable threat.

This should be implemented because it's realistic and would also make AFVs as powerful as they are in reality. TOWs and ATGMs, while very powerful, are limited IRL by the need to stay pointed at the target all the way to splash, are often slow enough to be heard by the tankers well in advanced, have smoke trails that can be spotted, and can be dodged and decoyed.

ATGMs can be a very big threat, but they should not be able to duel with tanks.

Balance, while being far from perfect, is much better than in vBF2 - can't mention any OP vehicles or weapons, almost everything is effective when used properly, and vice versa.

HATs are indeed a sizeable threat, but they need an awfully long time to be deployed, rendering the user an easy target. TOWs are pretty effective as well, but they're very vulnerable.