"Confirmation" crosshair/circle

[FIREk]

Simple - do you want to see "confirmation" crosshairs or circles in PS2?

This can only be undesirable if PlanetSide 2 doesn't show a crosshair for weapons fired from the hip, forcing you to use the iron sights.
With "confirmation" crosshair, you get "free" aim assist if you happen to hit someone, letting you aim the rest of your shots better. It's kind of cheating, if there is no crosshair by default.

It could also be used to pinpoint enemies hiding in foliage or smoke, which is kind of lame.

On the other hand, it helps people learn how to use their weapons at range, especially since bullets don't hit instantly and fall over distance. This is extra-relevant for snipers.

Any thoughts? Most of you would probably want this, since it was present in PS1, I suppose. Personally, I dunno which I find more desirable.

[DviddLeff]

I selected no.

Why? Simply because it promotes spamming area of effect weapons like grenades and tank shells.

[Valdae]

I think something like this depends on whether or not the game is ported for console

[Bags]

I voted yes, but only for direct fire weapons. I like knowing my shots registered.

I selected no.

Why? Simply because it promotes spamming area of effect weapons like grenades and tank shells.

leff Y U USE THUMPER?

[Raymac]

Like a hit marker? Hell yes we should have it. I don't think we need to worry about some goober just running around spamming some aoe just to find people. He'd be an easy target, and eyeballs work pretty well at seeing things.

As for throwing a grenade around a corner to see if someone is there, I call that good tactics. You can waste a nade to check if someone is there, or you can take the risk as you poke your head around the corner real fast. Each has their own risk/reward.

Also, a hit marker is not aim assist. You still have to aim yourself.

[JanitOr KanOs]

Kinda hard to know if I hit anything when high-level bombing if I don't see any kills on my screen. That's a yes from me.

[Vancha]

I think it should definitely depend on the weapon. I agree it should be removed thumpers (and any other spammable indirect fire weapons), but for sniping it was much appreciated in both PS and BF2142.

It could probably be removed for shotguns as well, maybe lashers too? I could certainly see the use of it for MCGs and rifles though.

Kinda hard to know if I hit anything when high-level bombing if I don't see any kills on my screen. That's a yes from me.
Isn't the killspam enough?

[JanitOr KanOs]

if I don't see any kills on my screen.

:cool:

[Vancha]

Edit: No, wait...I read you right the first time. You realize he's not proposing removing the killspam, right Kanos?

[JanitOr KanOs]

Edit: No, wait...I read you right the first time. You realize he's not proposing removing the killspam, right Kanos?

I realize that. Sometimes you don't kill things on a bombing run, there's not always a lot of radar coverage of enemy troops. I'd just like to know if I'm hitting anything at all or if I'm like the bombers in WWII bombing fields of cows instead of enemy targets.

[Raymac]

I think it should definitely depend on the weapon. I agree it should be removed thumpers (and any other spammable indirect fire weapons), but for sniping it was much appreciated in both PS and BF2142.

It could probably be removed for shotguns as well, maybe lashers too? I could certainly see the use of it for MCGs and rifles though.

Why start cherry picking which weapons get a hit marker?

While I can see the logic of not having it on something like a thumper, in practice, do you see people doing this in PS1 now? I don't think I've ever seen anyone just running around outside, spamming a thumper all over looking for badguys. That gun can draw so much attention, if you tried that tactic, you'd get taken out pretty quickly.

The only time I think I've seen anything even remotely like that is when somebody is camping stairs in a tower, and even then it's more to get kills than find bad guys.

[Death2All]

Yes, but only for precision weapons. You shouldn't get a "hit marker" if you're spamming a Thumper like someone said earlier.

[Rbstr]

Definitely need to have some kind of confirmation.

Even in situations w/o imaginary cross-hairs it's good to have. Yeah there are a few tricky things that could be done, but it's far more important to have the feedback. People spamming corners or whatever to see if there is a cloaker don't need the confirmation feedback anyway, You can see the burning or bullet hit.

Make it only happen when looking down the sight, if it's that troublesome.

[Vancha]

Why start cherry picking which weapons get a hit marker?

The only time I think I've seen anything even remotely like that is when somebody is camping stairs in a tower, and even then it's more to get kills than find bad guys.
Right, I'm thinking of people who spam thumpers all day indoors, though there could be a better solution to that.

Like someone said higher up, hit indicators could be considered an aiming aid as much as anything useful. I suppose it depends how hard it is to lead targets in PS2...

I realize that. Sometimes you don't kill things on a bombing run, there's not always a lot of radar coverage of enemy troops. I'd just like to know if I'm hitting anything at all or if I'm like the bombers in WWII bombing fields of cows instead of enemy targets.

Ah I see, I completely misunderstood your problem. Still, isn't that what the the gunner cam is for? So you can see what your bomber's hitting?

[Raymac]

Right, I'm thinking of people who spam thumpers all day indoors, though there could be a better solution to that.



I don't think hit markers will make much of a difference for those people. Plus, thats like trying to cure a runny nose by putting a cast on your wrist. Sure it's a cure, but not for that problem.

[JanitOr KanOs]

Still, isn't that what the the gunner cam is for? So you can see what your bomber's hitting?

Generally speaking it's a bad idea to stop and look down when enemy AA is most likely about to start shooting you the second you drop your bombs. I also don't only do high-level stuff, sometimes I race around at tree and wall height dropping where the enemy should be. Like if we can see vehicles rolling out of a base but don't know how many people are at the vehicle pad.

*Shrug* I don't really care if it's not in there, it'd just be nice to know if I'm wasting my time in one area or another.

[Sirisian]

I really like this feature. Helped when you were leading a target with your sniper and the travel time was a few seconds for the round.

[PsychoXR-20]

PlanetSide is the first game I know of that had the confirmation "crosshair", and since then it's become pretty much standard in FPS's. I see no reason why PS2 shouldn't have them.

I do like what CoD did with adding audio feedback as well, makes the weapons feel like they have a little more "umph" when you hear that the round has connected.

Fun fact!

The orange circle was not the original design, it was originally going to look like a weird "shield"/shimmer on the player model when you hit them.

[waldizzo]

I'd rather just have the audio noise. I find the visual marker to be distracting sometimes. But, yeah it's nice to know if my stuff hits things.

[captainkapautz]

Definitely Yes to hit-indicators, I can't even begin to understand why anyone would be against it.

[Talek Krell]

I liked these. Doesn't have to take the same form or anything, but some confirmation that I'm dealing damage.

[Valdae]

how about blood sprays EVERYWHERE when you hit someone.

(i dont think it'll happen)
:(

[MgFalcon]

Simple: this game is not supposed to be 100% reality based. Tell me if I hit the douche bag I'm shooting at or not. :)

[Bruttal]

I said no only because i dont want any aim assist in Planetside. though a red dot sight (not aim assist) though some skill tree would be cool. and maybe have like 30 or 40 types of red dots to chose from. yes yes i know its kinda COD:Blackops rip but i loved having a skull as my red dot =)

[Redshift]

This can only be undesirable if PlanetSide 2 doesn't show a crosshair for weapons fired from the hip, forcing you to use the iron sights.

I really hope they don't do this :/ sticking your own dot on the monitor is annoying -_-

[exLupo]

When I first read the thread I thought it meant the red-green friend/foe color change. Hit confirmation I like. Target team confirmation I'm iffy about but only for the previously mentioned bush-radar. Makes life unnecessarily harder for non-cloaked but still sneaky players. Sure you'd get more friendly fire deaths but, as they say, war is hell.

[Azren]

No for any aim assists. Color change is OK though, how else will you tell if you are attacking an enemy or friendly common pool craft? (sure you can tell from close, but not from far away)

[Aractain]

No IFF unless detected by some other means.
No hit confirmation on interface, instead have a differant partical effect when hitting a player (blood or sparks or whatever).

Thats what I want.

[Masahiko]

I think you remove it from inside buildings if you can. Since outdoors will need it more for the range unless we get range indication. As long as its not a noise.

[millo]

Voted yes, it's a feature i always liked in the original Planetside, and has since become pretty much a standard in every modern FPS.
Also, it's more or less mandatory for using some kind of weapons (think about flak based AA for example).

[wildcat140679]

I selected no.

Why? Simply because it promotes spamming area of effect weapons like grenades and tank shells.

I agree,
It screwed up stealth some what for me. When I used a splash weapon and got a hit notification but could not see any enemies or possible devices I hit, I would very likely fire a few more shots and see if I hit again. Only because of the hit indication have I been able to find hidden devices or enemies hiding behind an object or even an cloaked enemy.

[Sinj]

I vote yes for hit indication on all weapons unless the target is cloaked and remains cloaked after being hit.

I also vote yes for IFF through your reticule, especially if the game sports an anti-grief system, which seems likely.

[Redshift]

I also vote yes for IFF through your reticule, especially if the game sports an anti-grief system, which seems likely.

IFF is only useful in planes tbh, you can tell all the other vehicles and troops apart in without looking at the colour of the crosshair at any distance

[Raymac]

While I most definitely want hit markers, I really really really DON'T want IFF. It adds to the suspense of the game. Identifying a target adds a little risk, and alot of fun. As a pilot, getting a positive ID is very much part of the battle. Granted I've used Advanced Targeting ever since I was able to get implants, but that still has a range to it and thats about as close as I'd want to get to having an IFF system.

[Talek Krell]

Yes please, let's have an IFF system. It's not like we don't have enough friendly fire already. >.>

Something occurs to me though, depending on exactly how pronounced the bullet physics are it might actually be kind of misleading to have a reticle in the middle of the screen. Thoughts?

[CutterJohn]

I agree,
It screwed up stealth some what for me. When I used a splash weapon and got a hit notification but could not see any enemies or possible devices I hit, I would very likely fire a few more shots and see if I hit again. Only because of the hit indication have I been able to find hidden devices or enemies hiding behind an object or even an cloaked enemy.

Such a stoic cloaker, sitting there silent when being pummeled with shrapnel. And probably bleeding.

Also a very impressive stealth suit that doesn't flicker or disrupt at all when surrounded by an explosion.

[exLupo]

I'm not a huge fan of indirect weapons providing hit markers. It's just free intel. Not that I don't use grenades as radar enhancers in PS1 but I would like that "feature" to not persist into PS2.

[RED]

Yes! Might be a fanboi opinion but I want it because it was like that in PS1 and I liked it... Don't change a winning concept and streamline it to a MW copy with just more players. Make it an enhanced PS1 experience plz =)

[Raymac]

I'm not a huge fan of indirect weapons providing hit markers. It's just free intel. Not that I don't use grenades as radar enhancers in PS1 but I would like that "feature" to not persist into PS2.

But it's not "free intel".

1) You give away your position.
2) You waste ammo.
3) You run the risk of friendly fire.

Granted the price is not high, but there is a price. Plus, if you give away your position with a Thumper, you have a pretty good chance of being taken out, especially by players that hate Thumpers.

[Sovereign]

I'd say have it in the form of a sound for hit confirmation.

The crosshair should be limited except for the obvious exception being the sniper using the scopes designations.

[Baneblade]

As for throwing a grenade around a corner to see if someone is there, I call that good tactics.

friendlies be damned, eh?

[PsychoXR-20]

friendlies be damned, eh?

Jammer?

[Raymac]

friendlies be damned, eh?

You probably should have read what was posted 2 posts above you, then take a look at my sig. :p

[exLupo]

But it's not "free intel".

1) You give away your position.
2) You waste ammo.
3) You run the risk of friendly fire.

And 4) You gain the ability to see around corners. T is being removed for a reason.

Perhaps not free intel. Replace it with "excessive and easily obtained intel". As far as your bullet points, only the first means much. You only waste ammo if you don't hit someone so using grenades as radar pings is something that experience tempers. However, running the risk of friendly fire implies that the user can't read their mini-map and, at that point, using aoe weapons at all is enough of a danger.

However, you've essentially argued in favor of removing the hit flash. You are of the opinion that using it for intel is inefficient and dangerous. Even without the intel argument, if your points actually are of merit then having the flash accomplishes little so removing it would have little benefit. If the intel argument holds water then removing the flash has great benefit. Removing it is a win/win regardless of which argument is best. Or both!

[Vancha]

And 4) You gain the ability to see around corners. T is being removed for a reason.
T?


If you are in weather effects.
If you are throwing grenades around a corner.
I'd count those as reasons not to have a hit confirmation.

[exLupo]

T?

Default bind for 3pv.

[Raymac]

And 4) You gain the ability to see around corners. T is being removed for a reason.

Perhaps not free intel. Replace it with "excessive and easily obtained intel". As far as your bullet points, only the first means much. You only waste ammo if you don't hit someone so using grenades as radar pings is something that experience tempers. However, running the risk of friendly fire implies that the user can't read their mini-map and, at that point, using aoe weapons at all is enough of a danger.

However, you've essentially argued in favor of removing the hit flash. You are of the opinion that using it for intel is inefficient and dangerous. Even without the intel argument, if your points actually are of merit then having the flash accomplishes little so removing it would have little benefit. If the intel argument holds water then removing the flash has great benefit. Removing it is a win/win regardless of which argument is best. Or both!

Getting a hit marker =\= 3rd person wall humping

I'm sorry, you just can't equivicate the 2.

Also, while you were observant that I was conceding the risks of using it for intel, you misunderstood my point. Essentially, the choice to throw a grenade around a corner is a risk/reward calculation. Throwing a grenade contains certain risks and rewards, while NOT throwing a grenade and poking around the corner first ALSO carry certain risks and rewards.

Frankly, whether you get a hit marker or not, people will still make that risk / reward calculation of whether or not to throw a grenade (or maybe a jammer or flashbang) around a blind corner. My preference is for hit markers on all weapons without cherry picking.

[TerminatorUK]

The hit marker was done very well in PS1 & is fairly integral in a modern fps. I think it's important in order to counter any network lag and to confirm what you thought was really was or not in the game.

[Quovatis]

I never liked it and don't really want it. That's provided there is enough feedback on the target to give you the same information (i.e. blood splatter for infantry or sparks/smoke for a vehicle). PS1 didn't have enough cues and the crosshair indicator was needed.

[Sovereign]

Well I cant think of a modeled fps out there that doesn't have a confirmation system to some extent via crosshairs etc...

Especially not in the case of your instance with splatter which the last game didn't have and lets say that if its the case that its predecessor wont have any gore either then how do you go about making a coherent fps experience?

[Kechiro]

Voted yes. Mainly because it worked fine in PS1 and I don't like how gaming companies continuously fix things that aren't broken to begin with. SOE is really REALLY good at that. Leave everything that made PS1 epic at the start in PS2, polish it up, and then add the new concepts.

Hit markers were great in PS1. They weren't game changing, everyone could use them as creatively as possible (throwing nades a round a corner to see if people were there is an annoying but ok tactic to use) and it never condemned you to certain doom just because someone got a hit marker on you.

I can understand and respect the arguments to remove them, but since they were a double edged sword to everyone (meaning you benefited from them just as much as the enemy) it doesn't really need to be changed.

Isn't broken, don't fix it.

[Raymac]

I never liked it and don't really want it. That's provided there is enough feedback on the target to give you the same information (i.e. blood splatter for infantry or sparks/smoke for a vehicle). PS1 didn't have enough cues and the crosshair indicator was needed.

I've read this 10 times and it still looks like the 1st sentence is a 100% contradiction of the last sentence. Admittedly my reading comprehension skills are perfect, so I need someone to explain this to me. :doh:

[Vancha]

I've read this 10 times and it still looks like the 1st sentence is a 100% contradiction of the last sentence. Admittedly my reading comprehension skills are perfect, so I need someone to explain this to me. :doh:

He's saying that the reason the orange circle was needed was because we couldn't otherwise tell that we'd hit our targets, but if there was some confirmation of a hit in the form of blood spatter/vehicle sparks, then a confirmation circle wouldn't be needed.

Personally, I imagine it'd look a little silly seeing blood spatter for every bullet shot.