[BUG] Reaver's gun is critically broken. Evidence inside.

Discussion in 'Gameplay Bugs' started by sdfasdfa, Jan 16, 2013.

  1. tl:dr; The Reaver's gun is massively offset and belly-mounted for no reason. Pictures at the bottom.

    Disclaimer: The Reaver is all-round a very bad aircraft right now, offering now tangible advantages for lots of disadvantages. This is however not the subject at hand, nor should this be the place to entertain discussions about it's acceleration or hitbox. This is exclusively about the ill-conceived gunmount that makes it sight's massively worse than any other fighter's and is an unfair disadvantage beyond those already provided by intentional game imbalance.

    Vertical offset and what it does:
    Guns have to be mounted some place, and bullets have to originate from that gun. A gun's sighting is at the simplest level just a parallel viewpoint to the gun's trajectory. That approach works really well if you can keep the sight very close to the gun, as any error will only start coming into effect when the target is visually much too large for inaccuracies to change anything.

    At greater distances between sights and bullet origin however, the closer a target is the greater the difference between sighting and bullet trajectory. The sloppiest solution, and historically used for horizontal offsets on wing-mounted guns, is sight convergence. Instead of parallelity, you arbitrarily decide on a point of intersection. Before that point, the offset still exists but is smaller than it would be for non-convergent sights. Past the point of convergence, the sights and projectiles will diverge in the opposite direction of the original projectile. This is overall not a very good solution, and the real answer for historical fightercraft was to mount the guns ontop of the engine block and align them with the pilot's view. The only difficulty was perfecting gun synchronizers or interrupter gears to allow high rates of fire without damaging the propeller, but it allowed for much more accurate shooting regardless of range.

    How PlanetSide handles this:
    Vehicle sights in PlanetSide are simply parallel for the most part. And ESF gunmounts are close to the shooter. Closest on the Mosquito and reasonably close on the Scythe. The Reaver gets a bellymounted cannon that the pilot aims from an elevated cockpit.

    Why is that a problem? Can't you just adjust?
    You can technically adjust for anything, if you ignore all human limitations. You could adjust for bullets coming out of your side, or for your crosshair to be a splitting image of Pablo Picasso's The Scream or for fire that comes out of a new, arbitrary point every time you spawn a Reaver while your crosshair just grabs a drink and asks you existential stuff in the disembodied voice of Ira Glass.

    You can do all that, but it's harder and usually not quite fair. And their is a small mathematical problem that you have to add up in your head:
    Target velocity lead: theta1=velocity/time/range -> but time/range is constant, so only the target's velocity matters.
    Gun offset adjustment: theta2=offset/range -> But only the offset is constant, range varies, so theta2 varies a lot

    Also keep in mind that these do not have to be on the same plane, so you end up adding the offset adjustment towards the bottom of your craft to the target adjustment (which obviously goes in the targets heading). It's a vector addition problem that changes every instant.

    You should be seeing that theta2, your adjustment for offset, decreases with range and increases drastically as a target gets closer. You have to constantly be adding this to your gun-lead. That means a head-on target that is diving just a little bit might have to be first aimed at a bit lower, then dead-on, then above - which is to say the least, horribly unintuitive. Good luck competing against someone who has to only adjust for the fastest bullet velocity in the game (750m/s).

    The evidence as promised:

    [IMG]
    Vertical gun offset, Mosquito: ~40 pixels


    [IMG]
    Vertical gun offset, Reaver: ~160 pixels

    These are all tested origin points of both the view and the gunfire. Two people worked on all of these (thanks to Chichechevache and novaSphere) in order to verify origins accurately. These are not guesses based on the model. The Mosquito's low view origin surprised us too. Both screenshots show craft from the same distance.


    In conclusion & suggestion:
    All fighters should have an equal gun offset as a highest priority in balancing them against each other. The Reaver's nosegun can easily be moved into the nose and the cockpit view lowered a bit (since the firstperson viewmodel is entirely artificial and not consistent with the exterior model anyway). This is a matter of elementary fairness and not a discussion of balance.
    • Up x 39
  2. Ah, so this is why we aim on top of the target AND on "top" we have nasty bullet drop and deviation.

    Nice catch but working as intended, NC must be 100% broken for balance.
  3. I was not expecting all of that when i clicked the thread. Interesting.
    • Up x 2
  4. My thoughts exactly. Good to see someone who instead of ranting and raving, simple states a problem, shows evidence and a tangible solution. Unfortunately that is a rare quality on these forums.

    Back to the topic, it does seem to be a very valid concern that hopefully should be easily and quickly addressed. After all the Reaver needs all the help it can get!
    • Up x 6
  5. Well that explains it... Always having to aim well above a target that I am tailing nearly point blank...
    Never actually thought about it though so great work is all I can say and yes this need to be adjusted somehow and soon...
    • Up x 2
  6. Just to clarify, the blue circle is where the pilot's camera view is when flying in first-person, and the red circle is the point of origin for the bullets. The Mosquito's first-person camera view is all the way in the front, and the bullets come from the tip of the gun; on the Reaver, the viewpoint is much higher, and the bullets come out from the back of the gun.
  7. working as intended
    • Up x 1
  8. Seeing that the bullets come from the back of the gun makes me wonder if they intended to shift the viewpoint and point of origin but just forgot
  9. Thank you for this investigation. That does explain why i have to aim in a very weird way in Reaver
    • Up x 1
  10. The gun isn't misaligned; try firing it when you aren't moving. The problem seems to be that the bullets are slow enough that whilst flying you actually leave them behind slightly. o_O
    • Up x 1
  11. A screenshot of sights/guns doesn't tell us what actually happens to the bullets in flight. I'm not really sure this is much of a problem as I can line up the Reaver's gun and fire on target as easily as when I line it up on the Mosquito. The biggest problem though, is getting the gun sights where you want them, which is entirely due to the flying brick characteristics of the Reaver.

    Its a fixed mount... thus the ability to easily line up your targets is determined by the flight characteristics.

    Not saying this is not a problem, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree? In either case, a screenshot like this doesn't tell us anything... its not a scientific test of what actually happens with the guns while flying.
  12. +1 for actual constructive criticism. I support this suggestion.
  13. I think your reasoning is flawed - Edvard Munch painted the scream ;).

    Otherwise, well researched :).
    • Up x 4
  14. mosquito suffers from the same problem, scythe is the only one were the bullets land on the reticule
  15. Really? It ... seems like such a Picasso thing. I am terrible at art.

    Frame-by-frame video analysis to quantify the roll/yaw/pitch characteristics of the Reaver versus other craft is actually next on my list. It's just an AHK script that executes a command for a set period of time, then I go back and count frames. But this seemed urgent and less subject to balance debate.
    • Up x 3
  16. Try it on different speeds.
  17. Mossies has it only slightly lower and the fast bullets really do not make it that much more different.
  18. Completely agree.
  19. The main reason I believe the NC doesn't have constant air support from ESF and libs is the fact that the fight is over before it started with the reaver. So many great forums show how disadvantaged the reaver is compared to the others with hitbox, stock overall agility, slow speed, and this with aim discrepancies.

    As it stands the reaver is better in no area other then AB speed but even then the fuel tank got nerfed http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/...reaver-ab-changes-an-unexpected-change.78781/

    This Crusade against the reaver from the devs need to stop. We are not asking for the ability to dominate, just a chance to hold our own 1 on 1 with our strengths and advantages that we are supposed to have ("More" armor im looking at you).

    Inertia and deceleration from the update is nice but its still way to quick so it might as well be instant still once the AB is gone, we need a way to outrun our enemies and until they get it right with how our plane should function it wont ever be on fair terms.
    • Up x 3
  20. Kicking this up there for the sake of visibility.

Share This Page