Lt Bull Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 CMFB relevant discussion at CMBN forum: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122944-atgs-again/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted May 21, 2016 Share Posted May 21, 2016 (edited) AT guns rotate too slowly in CM: an ancient bone of contention. The complainers, including JasonC, are wrong. They ignore that the game incorporates, by necessity, target acquisition, the kind of detail that Battlefront would not get wrong. That adds additional seconds to the process. Edited May 21, 2016 by Childress 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shift8 Posted May 21, 2016 Share Posted May 21, 2016 20 minutes ago, Childress said: AT guns rotate too slowly in CM: an ancient bone of contention. The complainers, including JasonC, are wrong. They ignore that the game incorporates, by necessity, target acquisition, the kind of detail that Battlefront would not get wrong. That adds additional seconds to the process. Im not sure I see how the target acquisition has anything to do with the gun rotation speed. He isnt refering to traverse rate, but the time it takes to swivel the gun to a place needed outside of original traverse. Then the gun in CM, once in place, has to aim etc. So what does this have to do with target acquisition? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted May 21, 2016 Share Posted May 21, 2016 (edited) Because BF hasn't bothered to visually desegregate the swiveling time and TA process- it's a unitary event. The gunner hasn't finished just by traversing the barrel in the direction of the target. Edited May 21, 2016 by Childress 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shift8 Posted May 21, 2016 Share Posted May 21, 2016 40 minutes ago, Childress said: Because BF hasn't bothered to visually desegregate the swiveling time and TA process- it's a unitary event. The gunner hasn't finished just by traversing the barrel in the direction of the target. That seems like it would still create a problem though. Perhaps not when engaging a specific target, but how does that affect when rotating the gun when not in combat, or when simply wanting to change its sector of fire in a battle (again, without something to aim at.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 (edited) So... you're asking BF for two different modes: 1- Traversing the gun to acquire a target, requiring last second micro-adjustments 2- Re-orienting the facing of the gun to cover part of the map Shirley, you can't be serious. Edited May 22, 2016 by Childress 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shift8 Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 47 minutes ago, Childress said: So... you're asking BF for two different modes: 1- Traversing the gun to acquire a target 2- Re-orienting the facing of the gun to cover part of the map Shirley, you can't be serious. No I am not kidding. It seems like a bad system imo to lump the target acquisition period in with the AT guns general movement (outside the limits of its own traverse) because it creates a problem where the gun cannot be moved in a host of other circumstances because it has had this function linked to some other function that is not always relevant to the situation. I wouldn't describe this as two modes, since the mechanisms should have been separate in the first place. It seems to me that this is precisely what is being complained about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Well, BF could refine the process by unifying, i.e. accelerating, traverse speed across the board for a given gun. Then signifying 'acquiring' in the unit box when preparing to fire in the same way a MG or Mortar team is 'deploying'. Is it worth it? I have no idea how much coding work that would entail. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Tank rotation speed is also (deliberately) slower than in real life, so maybe they just wanted to balance things? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shift8 Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Childress said: Well, BF could refine the process by unifying, i.e. accelerating, traverse speed across the board for a given gun. Then signifying 'acquiring' in the unit box when preparing to fire in the same way a MG or Mortar team is 'deploying'. Is it worth it? I have no idea how much coding work that would entail. I would imagine not too much, since there are tons of other units in the game that have no associated rotation speed but do have target acquisition. Also I dont think we should discount a fix simply because it is hard to code. If BF shied away from complexity, combat mission wouldnt even exist. And if they coded something in a way that makes something unrealistic, it should still be fixed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 (edited) Perhaps they deem the extra coding it not worth it because the 'acquiring' part takes just a few seconds, varying according to the skill and experience of the gunner. This applies as well to slewing a tank's turret. Edited May 23, 2016 by Childress 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.