no... the whole point of the range finder is to find the range....
Its a tool to give a player extra data to improve their shooting. Not act as a goddamn blatant cheat tool.
Your whole spiel about assuming people should hit every shot is asinine. You don't plan for the ideal situation because the enemy is actively trying to not set up the ideal situation for you.
Hence you have to think about the ease of use of guns. Hence you use a gatling over a hades vs a squid. Its easier to hit with many factors adding to it.
Hades can cause fire, has higher dps per clip (and can break faster if it the hits were greater). But all that is useless if can't hit because its an arcing weapon that needs more than just pointing the reticle at the ship.
You ever wonder why the hades has obviously better hull break ability than a gatling? Because you clearly haven't considered it. And how you're asserting your point when you clearly haven't shown said consideration, makes it galling for me to read your spiel to justify your cheat tool.
I mean yeah you can use a hades to hit a squid but it won't be as reliable to hit than a gatling. But if you could. The hades would indeed break that hull faster than a gat, but thats a big gamble. Its a BIG IF.
And if there's one thing I teach and is definitely demonstrated by the countering picking fights with vets. You don't plan around ifs. Scrubs plan around ifs and they fly dumb crap like double flak.
You say the rangefinder is a tool to find range, but that's pointless. It already does that, and that's clearly not enough. Anyone could open up their map to get a reasonably accurate estimate of distance.
You say it's a tool to give people data to improve their shooting, and that's exactly what I'm suggesting it do.
You call it a "cheat tool" because it helps gunners figure out how to shoot. If we assumed that the circle thing wasn't vague and inaccurate, that's exactly what it already does. Even more because it's
supposed to tell people exactly how to lead.
You think it would imbalance the game because people would suddenly start landing their shots, and that's why I suggest it act like it already does and take up a pilot slot while requiring someone to stare at the target.
But clearly I didn't consider any of that. Honestly, I don't understand the aggression. I had an idea, people countered the idea, I defended the idea. So the cycle repeats. That's how intelligent debates work. Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps I didn't properly word my arguments. I'm not mad people disagree with me, but it's not like I'm just going to go "oh okay this Jazzhand guy is always right about everything. glad that idea's done for." I'm gonna try and defend my idea. If I'm reading too much into things then you can forget this whole paragraph, but trying to talk down on me saying things like I "clearly haven't considered it." Sounds like I hit a nerve somewhere. Did I offend you? I do sincerely apologize if I did because that was never my intention. That's an honest apology too. I know sarcasm or lack thereof can sometimes get misconstrued over the internet, but if I did actually hit a nerve I really am sorry. Or I'm thinking too much and this paragraph is pointless.