[BUG] Complete Reaver-gun breakdown: It's worse than we thought

Oh ye of little understanding.

The funny part, is this PROVES convergence. If all the bullets are hitting the center of your screen exactly, then the bullets are converging on that spot. the fact that it doesn't hit the center of your reticule before 5m also proves convergence, it simply has not had time to "reach" the center of your reticule.

if there was no convergence, then your bullets would never hit the center of the reticule.

And YES, that would be a big improvement.

If they went straight they would hit under the crosshair. Compare where the bullets hit a wall in 3rd person and 1st person views. They go straight in 3rd person because your crosshair isn't there.

Kind of messed up, just look at this:



I realise now that this happens for the same reason the bullet convergence happens, they just aim themselves at whatever your crosshair is on.

Those are probably people who work at SOE, trying to ridicule facts and the proof they suck at doing things or they do them without thinking.

You really shouldn't bother unless you have a lesson plan on how to develop a game.

The OP is saying that, for the Reaver specifically, there are situations where the pilot can't possibly hit the target. If the enemy is close and descending (relative to the Reaver's vision), putting the crosshair on him causes the bullets to 'converge' over his head and aiming just below him causes the bullets to go far below him based on the position of the weapon on the Reaver model.

Maybe you think the Reaver is so OP that its pilots should face impossible firing solutions sometimes?

I don't think you understand the problem the OP has presented. All you keep doing is focusing on the fact that criticisms are being made and yelling them down without addressing what is actually being said.

This. The reaver shouldn't have a blindspot if the other two ESFs don't.

Blindspot ?

oops! I quoted the wrong post.

That's what I meant to quote.

The reaver is worse than the mosquito at pretty much everything, and has nothing to balance it out. You're saying this is okay because a good pilot will beat a bad pilot. How about two equally good pilots? The advantage goes to the mosquito, is this too much for your peanut sized brain to comprehend? You don't even understand OP's post.

Riight, I'm a newbie. Cool.

I couldn't understand the OP's argument at all until someone mentioned that a weapon's barrel will automatically line up to converge with whatever you're aiming at. Although I love the realism of how bullets actually come out of the gun, that is beyond stupid. The weapons should all have one of three things:

1. Constant convergence at infinity, ie, the camera and the weapon are always parallel.
2. Constant convergence at some reasonable value, ie, 100 meters.
3. User-adjusted convergence value, ie, a button to set convergence values in increments of 100 meters.

And this is all without discussing how it affects the Reaver most of all, which is, by almost all accounts, the weakest ESF in the game even without this problem.

No they are not balanced, you clown.

You wouldn't know balance if it were doing your girlfriend on your own bed as you shaved in the bathroom.

All 3 ESf have plus and minunes, it just so happens the reaver has all minuses and one pointless plus, allow me to cure your ignorance before you reply.

3 links in there for your to read, this is one of them.

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/...until-they-fix-the-reaver.80828/#post-1045277

Part of the problem is that infantry pretty much NEEDS convergence. if it did not, you would aim for the head, and the bullets would hit in the hip. (while hip fire) the mistake is they left convergence on for vehicles. hopefully it will be addressed

As a Mossie pilot, I feel the Reaver could use a little buff. Some point ago I consciously realized I prefer to fight Reavers because I seem to have a much easier time with them.

I realize a lot of what I'm about to say comes down to the pilots themselves, but I think this is in part due to the playstyle that each ESF encourages. I find when I dogfight Scythes, they just tend to slow to a hover and attempt to out-turn me, often successfully. A Reaver that tries this will be dead within seconds, so it is more of a dogfight in the traditional sense. I have to chase them to get my kill, but it's not often hard because they are a large, bulky target. I've only really met one Reaver pilot so far that could shake me off his tail (read below).

The other night I fought an amazing Reaver pilot. We went at it for a few minutes and unfortunately I never found out who he was as he hurt me quite badly, and I managed to get away, though just barely. He knew some pretty nifty tricks and I had to give it my all to even be a match for him. Had this been an amazing Scythe pilot instead, however, I have no doubts I would have been toast, and the dogfight would have been quite a bit shorter. I seem to get shot down more by average Scythe pilots than I do by awesome Reaver pilots.

Sorry to all you biased Mosquito pilots out there, but I will tell it how it is, and there is a balance issue here. I find fun in challenges, not piles of easy kills. It's more of an accomplishment that way.

A good point, and that probably would be the best solution for what's already in game.

But personally I would still like a game with bullets that come out of the gun and no convergence. It would be a great incentive to actually aim down sights. Currently you just get a stupidly big cone of random fire as an incentive, and for that very reason you can't regularly get headshots when hip-firing without some luck anyway. And making a game more reliant on skill than random luck is always good.

I think there would still be an issue with a lot of the first person view models essentially showing you in a shoulder-fire stance when you're actually hip-firing... but I'm also kind of tired of games showing you inaccurate first person models. But of course removing that leads to other complications, I'm sure.

All in all, I feel like it would be a good way to encourage people to use ADS for the same reason it's used in real life... to make your line of sight as close as possible to the weapon's barrel, eliminating the need to consider weird angles when firing.

Agreed. Even in a scythe battling head to head with another ESF I always aim above the enemy ESF by about 1-2 meters. If the reticle is dead on the rounds will go underneath most of the time because while they appear to be coming straight for you they are actually vectored slightly up for the speed boost.

Just like they do with a rifle, they zero it - at a fixed range, that's where the bullets will be on the sight. On AC such as WW2 planes, it might be as close as 100-200m (in PS2 I would say it should be about the same).

Ok, so I thought this argument was invalid as by shooting at walls it looked like the bullets were straight, and therefore the point of origin was different. I just tested and the point of origin is the same so believe u guys convergence is there.

Now this really only matters if your crosshairs are not on something at the same range as your target (vertically - this has no effect horizontally to the aircraft). That only really happens when leading an enemy in the air.

So what happens in practice?
A2G = nothing, the reaver is just as accurate as the cross-hair points on the same distance as the target.
A2A=
Level with the mozzie, reaver will hit it as you don't need to lead vertically
From above & behind the mozzie, reaver leads slightly less than a mosquito would
From below & behind the mozzie, reaver leads slightly more than a mosquito would

So how much difference is there?
OP claims 24 degrees at 5m, I can't see anything close to that in the videos, but using that:
At any range, the difference between the reavers gun and view point is less than the hitbox of a mozzie, so at any range there is no actual "blind spot" you may just need to aim towards the top or bottom of the model.
at about 200m (where most of my a2a engagements happen - just out of IR range) the reaver is about 0.3 degrees off where a mozzie would shoot
At 100m, the reaver would be about 1.2 deg off where a mozzie would shoot.

TLDR = When leading a small air target vertically, the reaver shoots slightly off where a mozzzie would, in some situations leading more, in some, less.
So yes there is an issue as this makes aiming in the reaver less predictable, and it's not really a balancing factor as far as we know.
The issue is on about the same scale as scythe a2g rockets twisting and separating at long range.

Thumbs up to a most awesome post.
I sense a B.Sci in Ballistics?
;-)

- The problem stems from the fact that the Reaver is clearly based on the design of an attack helicopter, not a fast jet.
(I.e: AH-64 Apaches don't engage in fast air dogfights.)

- A gun mounted on a jet, like on the Reaver, would have to hit targets in the pilot's reticule a number of ways:

1. The gun is just "zero'ed" at a set range.
This is old-fashioned but reliable.
E.g: at 100m the bullets will cross the reticule.
Under 100m they are low.
Over 100m they are high.
The skill of the pilot is required to judge the range and adjust on to the target.
In a high speed dogfight, even if you are the Red Baron, you will be struggling to do this consistently.
(Too many variables in too short a time frame)

2. The gun is left parallel to the pilots reticule view and the pilot adjusts to suit for the difference in distance between his crosshairs and the gun muzzle.
Essentially, you put the crosshairs on a target at any range, then adjust up a little bit or a lot depending on range, to bring the gun muzzle (and bullets) on to the target.
This again relies on pilot skill at judging distance, movement, speed, etc... in a very short time frame.

3. The weapon system uses a sophisticated 'gun radar' or 'range finder' to determine (every microsecond) the distance to the target in the reticule and then adjust the gun muzzle to suit.
E.g: the gun is effectively always "zero'ed" and "re-zero'ing".
This seems more likely given the gun on the Reaver can angle up and down (like an AH-64 Apache).
This would allow the computer to raise or lower the gun muzzle based on feedback sent from the rangefinder centred on the pilots reticule.

- The other detriment in the Reaver's case is the poor cockpit visibility for the pilot.

Turn in your black and red boxers soldier and defect already. You're not supposed to ask for buffs for your faction, and nerf all others into the ground. Hell, when there's evidence out there, look at your fellow soldier just telling people to deal with it and learn to play lol.

Sorry, just watched the video and the OP is talking crap.

Take the same video from a mosi with a rotary and you see EXACTLY the same fire-angle or at least so close its near impossible to tell the difference. I always have to aim for under the X-hair on my Mosi to score hits, exactly the same as the reaver in the video has to.

Also assuming the Reaver main cannon was less accurate for some reason, a full volley from a certed Reaver (Rotary) leaves a Mosi burning or likely dead..... If the Mosi's cannon could do that to a reaver... well

Different horses for different courses.

Double