Locking the arms to the torso is not an 'i win button', it has both advantages and disadvantages
The arms have much faster target acquisition time, for moving targets and close in fighting you will need the ability to move those arms! But if you want to strike with an arm-mounted PPC or laser and a torso mounted one, you'll want those reticules to line up before you fire. A toggle would be helpful for those ranges, but useless in close where it would remove your faster weapon seek from the more mobile arms.
4
A button to toggle forced arm/torso-reticule-convergence for Snipers
Started by Prosperity Park, May 11 2012 12:47 PM
117 replies to this topic
#22
-
- Legendary Founder
-
- 2265 posts
Member
- LocationHypothetical Warrior
Posted 12 May 2012 - 08:48 AM
Let's take a look at the 'Skill' arguement.
First; it's a fallacy. I'm just stating this right here and now. Skill is based on using what the game gives you - if you have an arm locking function, skill develops around using it where it is applicable. If you don't, then it doesn't, you develop other skills elsewhere.
Second; it seems motivated out of a desire to prevent sniping from being an effective weapons tactic. If your torso (a significant bay for weapons) can't effectively be coordinated with your arms, distant, fast moving, or cover using enemies can pop out and run circles around you and your team as LRM boats fire on you with near impunity. I understand as much as anybody that focused high power weapons fire is not fun to encounter everywhere, but it serves a purpose in mechwarrior. Open field fights will be dominated by long range missile salvos instead. You get the same thing, but just with missiles, therefore you gain nothing except to drive the high powered weapons platforms into head to head fights in more compact areas where LRM's are less of a threat, but still have to be dealt with as they can fire indirectly. This is exactly the opposite of the intended function - direct fire weapons are supposed to dominate in open areas. LRM's are supposed to dominate with indirect fire while being functional in open engagements, and people are supposed to seek cover and navigate the map to ambush and destroy eachother without falling prey to these powerful weapon systems.
Gentlemen and women, THAT is mechwarrior. It always has been, and it always will be. MW4 made some wonky decisions about how weapons could be loaded that made the game heavily biased toward long range engagement, but we as a community are smart enough (I hope) to realize that the devs are aiming to balance the game so every role counts.
This is why an arm lock feature is important - you need to be able to keep your torso tracking with full weapons convergence on a target that is moving at 400 meters at least SOME of the time if you are going to engage at long range. This means your torso has to be on top of the enemy until your weapons are converged. If you have lag time between arm and torso reticle, which videos indicate we do even at very low movement speeds, then you basically can never converge unless your target is sitting perfectly still, moving directly towards you, or directly away from you. Another possible remedy is to have torso weapon convergence calibrate based on your arm's aimpoint, allowing you to fire accurately once the torso catches up, but it would probably just be simpler to put in a button and be done with it. I'd be happy with either way though.
First; it's a fallacy. I'm just stating this right here and now. Skill is based on using what the game gives you - if you have an arm locking function, skill develops around using it where it is applicable. If you don't, then it doesn't, you develop other skills elsewhere.
Second; it seems motivated out of a desire to prevent sniping from being an effective weapons tactic. If your torso (a significant bay for weapons) can't effectively be coordinated with your arms, distant, fast moving, or cover using enemies can pop out and run circles around you and your team as LRM boats fire on you with near impunity. I understand as much as anybody that focused high power weapons fire is not fun to encounter everywhere, but it serves a purpose in mechwarrior. Open field fights will be dominated by long range missile salvos instead. You get the same thing, but just with missiles, therefore you gain nothing except to drive the high powered weapons platforms into head to head fights in more compact areas where LRM's are less of a threat, but still have to be dealt with as they can fire indirectly. This is exactly the opposite of the intended function - direct fire weapons are supposed to dominate in open areas. LRM's are supposed to dominate with indirect fire while being functional in open engagements, and people are supposed to seek cover and navigate the map to ambush and destroy eachother without falling prey to these powerful weapon systems.
Gentlemen and women, THAT is mechwarrior. It always has been, and it always will be. MW4 made some wonky decisions about how weapons could be loaded that made the game heavily biased toward long range engagement, but we as a community are smart enough (I hope) to realize that the devs are aiming to balance the game so every role counts.
This is why an arm lock feature is important - you need to be able to keep your torso tracking with full weapons convergence on a target that is moving at 400 meters at least SOME of the time if you are going to engage at long range. This means your torso has to be on top of the enemy until your weapons are converged. If you have lag time between arm and torso reticle, which videos indicate we do even at very low movement speeds, then you basically can never converge unless your target is sitting perfectly still, moving directly towards you, or directly away from you. Another possible remedy is to have torso weapon convergence calibrate based on your arm's aimpoint, allowing you to fire accurately once the torso catches up, but it would probably just be simpler to put in a button and be done with it. I'd be happy with either way though.
#23
-
- Legendary Founder
-
- 2265 posts
Member
- LocationHypothetical Warrior
Posted 12 May 2012 - 09:13 AM
That actually brings up an interesting point - what are the convergence times for a torso weapon, and what does it base it's aimpoint off of, the torso reticle or the arm reticle? My gut instinct is torso reticle (they are torso weapons after all), but it would be handy to know for sure on both of these points.
#24
-
- Legendary Founder
-
- 2172 posts
Member
- LocationMaryland, USA
Posted 12 May 2012 - 10:54 AM
Did you not hear, no snipers, just guys in mechs.
#25
-
- Elite Founder
-
- 1415 posts
Member
- LocationBrisbane, Australia
Posted 12 May 2012 - 04:33 PM
There's actually two ways the desync mechanic can be implemented. I don't know which one's in the game, but someone could probably work it out from the videos if they were keen.
1) torso speed varies based on separation between cursors
2) torso always attempts to follow the arms at its maximum speed
There's an important difference that's very relevant here.
Option 1) gives the most fluid, "rubbery" feel, where the torso elastic-bands towards the cursor if it's moved away quickly. However, it has the side effect of always keeping the reticules separated, because if the cursor is moved slowly across the screen the torso will move even more slowly behind it. Here, a lock would be of value. I would expect in this case that both torso and arms would converge on the arm cursor.
If 2) was used, there would be no need for a lock. Here, if the arms were moved slowly (ie. within the torso's maximum rate), the cursors would stay dead on top of each other, and would only separate when the player's mouse-speed exceeded the turn rate. However, it sacrifices smooth elasticity and would take some getting used to. Here, you could probably have torso and arms converge separately.
I would vastly prefer the second. It would let a player keep everything together by controlling their mouse speed, while still allowing snap-shots with the arms. I'd value effectiveness over the "feel" of a rubber reticule any day.
1) torso speed varies based on separation between cursors
2) torso always attempts to follow the arms at its maximum speed
There's an important difference that's very relevant here.
Option 1) gives the most fluid, "rubbery" feel, where the torso elastic-bands towards the cursor if it's moved away quickly. However, it has the side effect of always keeping the reticules separated, because if the cursor is moved slowly across the screen the torso will move even more slowly behind it. Here, a lock would be of value. I would expect in this case that both torso and arms would converge on the arm cursor.
If 2) was used, there would be no need for a lock. Here, if the arms were moved slowly (ie. within the torso's maximum rate), the cursors would stay dead on top of each other, and would only separate when the player's mouse-speed exceeded the turn rate. However, it sacrifices smooth elasticity and would take some getting used to. Here, you could probably have torso and arms converge separately.
I would vastly prefer the second. It would let a player keep everything together by controlling their mouse speed, while still allowing snap-shots with the arms. I'd value effectiveness over the "feel" of a rubber reticule any day.
Edited by Belisarius†, 12 May 2012 - 04:42 PM.
#26
-
- Members
-
- 160 posts
Member
Posted 12 May 2012 - 04:46 PM
monky, on 11 May 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:
IIRC, even moving the arms slowly in the vids has torso lag. Can any of the devs confirm?
If the torso always moves at max speed then yeah, it would be moot once you got familiar with your mech, but I don't recall that being the case.
If the torso always moves at max speed then yeah, it would be moot once you got familiar with your mech, but I don't recall that being the case.
I would probably not mind a terrible lot even in the worst case of "bungee cord" link and no lock option; it would be inconvenient to have to drag your arm cursor really far to pull the torso cursor on-target, then return your arm cursor there, but it would introduce a potentially interesting skill requirement and really not be much different from old-school joystick-controlled shooters like I grew up with. (N64 era) A better feel for the bungee effect would give an advantage in being able to pull harder without overcompensating, allowing developed personal skill to translate into bringing weapons to bear faster.
P.S.
I hope SRMs are geared toward IDF as well, it would help make them more interestingly distinct from the other weapons of similar range bands.
The ideal case re: two cursors might be to have all 3 described modes be options available, but I am more worried about whether you'll be forced to define extra weapon groups to fire just the arm- or just the torso-mounted weapons or whether there will be other options. Some 'mechs just need a lot of weapons groups to handle properly, so could be at a disadvantage re: controlling arm and torso weapons independently if another mechanic isn't available to handle that, like separate "fire" commands that only affect weapons currently aiming at a particular cursor.
Edited by Owl Cutter, 12 May 2012 - 05:05 PM.
#27
-
- Elite Founder
-
- 1415 posts
Member
- LocationBrisbane, Australia
Posted 12 May 2012 - 05:11 PM
monky, on 11 May 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:
IIRC, even moving the arms slowly in the vids has torso lag. Can any of the devs confirm?
If the torso always moves at max speed then yeah, it would be moot once you got familiar with your mech, but I don't recall that being the case.
If the torso always moves at max speed then yeah, it would be moot once you got familiar with your mech, but I don't recall that being the case.
monky, on 12 May 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:
If you have lag time between arm and torso reticle, which videos indicate we do even at very low movement speeds, then you basically can never converge unless your target is sitting perfectly still, moving directly towards you, or directly away from you. Another possible remedy is to have torso weapon convergence calibrate based on your arm's aimpoint, allowing you to fire accurately once the torso catches up, but it would probably just be simpler to put in a button and be done with it. I'd be happy with either way though.
Just realised I more or less repeated what you'd already said. That'll teach me for skipping stuff. If the videos suggest they're using the rubberised version then yeah, we're in trouble.
I really think we should try and get them to consider a constant torso turn rate instead of a lock button. An elastic reticule would pretty much suck.
Edited by Belisarius†, 12 May 2012 - 05:14 PM.
#28
-
- Legendary Founder
-
- 424 posts
Member
- LocationPerth, Australia
Posted 12 May 2012 - 05:25 PM
I don't really see why this needs to be necessary.
1) Ranges are going to be up to around 600 - 700 m, for max effective targetting. Mechs are going to appear bigger and easier to hit compared to what you will remember from MW4. Chances are they're probably engaging in someone else, or don't spot you at that distance, so they won't really be dodging your attacks anyway.
2) If a fast target is running transverse across your screen, you know, it SHOULD be hard to hit them. You can still lead your target and let them run into your converged crosshairs, anyway.
3) There are two forms of convergence. Axial, in that the weapons must change convergent distance from x m to whatever distance the enemy is, and secondly transverse, being the movement of the arms vs the torso. Having a button to basically ignore one facet of the aiming skill game will encourage more long distance sniping, which I think the devs want to reduce.
4) Unlike the direct energy and ballistic weapons, missiles are far easier to outmaneouvre. You see the Jenner constantly outrunning the missiles fired at it in the videos. They also act more as AOE weapons than the energy or ballistic weapons, so shifting bias towards missiles doesn't necessarily overpower them.
5) There is an added skill dimension to further weed out the good from the great - knowing your convergence limits, and playing around those limitations. Skill is skill, and being able to compensate for the torso not following the arms is going to be one aspect that shouldn't be removed at the touch of a button.
1) Ranges are going to be up to around 600 - 700 m, for max effective targetting. Mechs are going to appear bigger and easier to hit compared to what you will remember from MW4. Chances are they're probably engaging in someone else, or don't spot you at that distance, so they won't really be dodging your attacks anyway.
2) If a fast target is running transverse across your screen, you know, it SHOULD be hard to hit them. You can still lead your target and let them run into your converged crosshairs, anyway.
3) There are two forms of convergence. Axial, in that the weapons must change convergent distance from x m to whatever distance the enemy is, and secondly transverse, being the movement of the arms vs the torso. Having a button to basically ignore one facet of the aiming skill game will encourage more long distance sniping, which I think the devs want to reduce.
4) Unlike the direct energy and ballistic weapons, missiles are far easier to outmaneouvre. You see the Jenner constantly outrunning the missiles fired at it in the videos. They also act more as AOE weapons than the energy or ballistic weapons, so shifting bias towards missiles doesn't necessarily overpower them.
5) There is an added skill dimension to further weed out the good from the great - knowing your convergence limits, and playing around those limitations. Skill is skill, and being able to compensate for the torso not following the arms is going to be one aspect that shouldn't be removed at the touch of a button.
Edited by autogyro, 12 May 2012 - 05:26 PM.
#29
-
- Legendary Founder
-
- 1999 posts
Member
- LocationToronto
Posted 12 May 2012 - 07:49 PM
Belisarius†, on 12 May 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:
There's actually two ways the desync mechanic can be implemented. I don't know which one's in the game, but someone could probably work it out from the videos if they were keen.
1) torso speed varies based on separation between cursors
2) torso always attempts to follow the arms at its maximum speed
There's an important difference that's very relevant here.
Option 1) gives the most fluid, "rubbery" feel, where the torso elastic-bands towards the cursor if it's moved away quickly. However, it has the side effect of always keeping the reticules separated, because if the cursor is moved slowly across the screen the torso will move even more slowly behind it. Here, a lock would be of value. I would expect in this case that both torso and arms would converge on the arm cursor.
If 2) was used, there would be no need for a lock. Here, if the arms were moved slowly (ie. within the torso's maximum rate), the cursors would stay dead on top of each other, and would only separate when the player's mouse-speed exceeded the turn rate. However, it sacrifices smooth elasticity and would take some getting used to. Here, you could probably have torso and arms converge separately.
I would vastly prefer the second. It would let a player keep everything together by controlling their mouse speed, while still allowing snap-shots with the arms. I'd value effectiveness over the "feel" of a rubber reticule any day.
1) torso speed varies based on separation between cursors
2) torso always attempts to follow the arms at its maximum speed
There's an important difference that's very relevant here.
Option 1) gives the most fluid, "rubbery" feel, where the torso elastic-bands towards the cursor if it's moved away quickly. However, it has the side effect of always keeping the reticules separated, because if the cursor is moved slowly across the screen the torso will move even more slowly behind it. Here, a lock would be of value. I would expect in this case that both torso and arms would converge on the arm cursor.
If 2) was used, there would be no need for a lock. Here, if the arms were moved slowly (ie. within the torso's maximum rate), the cursors would stay dead on top of each other, and would only separate when the player's mouse-speed exceeded the turn rate. However, it sacrifices smooth elasticity and would take some getting used to. Here, you could probably have torso and arms converge separately.
I would vastly prefer the second. It would let a player keep everything together by controlling their mouse speed, while still allowing snap-shots with the arms. I'd value effectiveness over the "feel" of a rubber reticule any day.
Once again, and unsurprisingly, I find myself in total agreement with what you've said. At this point, I'm wondered how dramatic (in theory) the difference would be between option 2 as you outlined, where your arm crosshair CAN outrun your torso crosshair, so you would have to concious of how quickly you're aiming, and a lock button, which means your crosshair will only move as fast as your torso can move. In the case of scenario two as you outlined, do you think there should be a 'speed indicator' of sorts to indicate when your arm crosshair is about to outrun your torso crosshairs? Just throwing out thoughts a this point.
#30
-
- Members
-
- 160 posts
Member
Posted 12 May 2012 - 08:42 PM
I would like to have three different "combat stances" cycled through with a couple of keys, as an extra mechanic for players to learn to master:
Unlocked arms (no torso movement without "push" at edge of arm range) would be handy for swatting at a passing scout with minimal interruption of whatever else you're doing, if it's just a keypress away and just as easy to switch back from. OTOH, the locked mode where you just move the torso and the arms go with it might be better for focusing on a single target as described in the opening post, except not just for ...long-ranged fire.
Either having torso following arms at max. rate or "bungeed" torso would be a neutral stance; it looks to me like the difference between those neutral options is almost entirely just different tradeoffs between the attributes of the two extremes, since I think my own preference between them would vary by 'mech and role. I would probably just stay in neutral almost all of the time, while others might develop and leverage skill at switching to enjoy the strengths of each.
Unlocked arms (no torso movement without "push" at edge of arm range) would be handy for swatting at a passing scout with minimal interruption of whatever else you're doing, if it's just a keypress away and just as easy to switch back from. OTOH, the locked mode where you just move the torso and the arms go with it might be better for focusing on a single target as described in the opening post, except not just for ...long-ranged fire.
Either having torso following arms at max. rate or "bungeed" torso would be a neutral stance; it looks to me like the difference between those neutral options is almost entirely just different tradeoffs between the attributes of the two extremes, since I think my own preference between them would vary by 'mech and role. I would probably just stay in neutral almost all of the time, while others might develop and leverage skill at switching to enjoy the strengths of each.
#31
-
- Elite Founder
-
- 1415 posts
Member
- LocationBrisbane, Australia
Posted 12 May 2012 - 09:55 PM
GaussDragon, on 12 May 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:
Once again, and unsurprisingly, I find myself in total agreement with what you've said. At this point, I'm wondered how dramatic (in theory) the difference would be between option 2 as you outlined, where your arm crosshair CAN outrun your torso crosshair, so you would have to concious of how quickly you're aiming, and a lock button, which means your crosshair will only move as fast as your torso can move. In the case of scenario two as you outlined, do you think there should be a 'speed indicator' of sorts to indicate when your arm crosshair is about to outrun your torso crosshairs? Just throwing out thoughts a this point.
I think the only thing we disagree on is 3pv.
I don't really think an indicator would be necessary so long as there were two crosshairs. You'd see them begin to separate straight away if you tracked too fast, and could just adjust your mousespeed momentarily to let the torso catch up.
Owl Cutter, on 12 May 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:
Either having torso following arms at max. rate or "bungeed" torso would be a neutral stance; it looks to me like the difference between those neutral options is almost entirely just different tradeoffs between the attributes of the two extremes, since I think my own preference between them would vary by 'mech and role. I would probably just stay in neutral almost all of the time, while others might develop and leverage skill at switching to enjoy the strengths of each.
There's no practical advantage to the bungee method, though. The torso responds more slowly in all cases and the arms behave the same. The only thing you gain is a more "natural" feel, which just isn't enough.
If torso always moves at max, you don't need stances.
Edited by Belisarius†, 12 May 2012 - 10:10 PM.
#32
-
- Legendary Founder
-
- 1999 posts
Member
- LocationToronto
Posted 12 May 2012 - 09:58 PM
Belisarius†, on 12 May 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:
I think the only thing we disagree on is 3pv.
I won't even miss it that much TBH.
Belisarius†, on 12 May 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:
I don't really think an indicator would be necessary so long as there were two crosshairs. You'd see them begin to separate straight away if you tracked too fast, and could just adjust your mousespeed momentarily to let the torso catch up.
Word.
#33
-
- Members
-
- 160 posts
Member
Posted 12 May 2012 - 11:36 PM
Quote
There's no practical advantage to the bungee method, though. The torso responds more slowly in all cases and the arms behave the same. The only thing you gain is a more "natural" feel, which just isn't enough.
Edited by Owl Cutter, 12 May 2012 - 11:39 PM.
#34
-
- Legendary Founder
-
- 1999 posts
Member
- LocationToronto
Posted 12 May 2012 - 11:44 PM
Owl Cutter, on 12 May 2012 - 11:36 PM, said:
As I said, they are different balances between the extremes; "the bungee" would allow you to swat something with arm weapons with less disruption of your torso heading, which is a situational tradeoff. I never meant to imply that multiple options is necessary, just that it would be nice to have because they all have different situational benefits. They are small, but existent, so mastery of such a tool would be another place to invest skill development to gain an advantage that is probably not game-breaking. Actually, though, precisely _because_ the difference is not going to be huge in terms of effectiveness, I think it would be nice to offer such options for the sake of "more natural feel" so as to make the game just that much more friendly to a wider audience since "feel" is often subjective and, even though "bungee" would probably be best for that, there are also gonna be people irritated by the small handicap of having to "pull" further to bring the torso to bear in the same time. I'm sure this whole notion is only sane for an update after launch, due to the trouble it would be to implement relative to its actual importance, at least in my probably ignorant estimation.
You bring up a lot of good points and I agree with your bottom line; all those things are scrutinizing at such a detailed level that it'd be hard to really debate their merits without any of us having played the game.
#35
-
- Members
-
- 160 posts
Member
Posted 12 May 2012 - 11:54 PM
I didn't mean that, but I agree; good point. The point I _meant_ to emphasise is that letting players tailor the interface to their own preference and ability is very unlikely to become a game-breaking über-noob-toob and fairly likely to be beneficial and interesting.
#36
-
- Legendary Founder
-
- 190 posts
Member
Posted 13 May 2012 - 04:39 AM
I agree with the OP, having the arms swing freely all the time is going to hamper certain types of combat unnecessarily. A toggle or other solution is a good item to have.
#37
-
- Members
-
- 2289 posts
Member
- LocationPittsburgh, PA
Posted 13 May 2012 - 06:55 AM
autogyro, on 12 May 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:
3) There are two forms of convergence. Axial, in that the weapons must change convergent distance from x m to whatever distance the enemy is, and secondly transverse, being the movement of the arms vs the torso. Having a button to basically ignore one facet of the aiming skill game will encourage more long distance sniping, which I think the devs want to reduce.
This, I feel, is one of the most crucial points made thus far.
Especially in light of the Devs' own statements.
From Dev Blog 05:
Quote
In the center of the HUD there are two aiming reticles, a circle and a cross. The circle represents where weapons mounted on the arms will fire while the cross represents where all other weapons will fire. When the ’Mech’s torso is not currently rotating, the two reticles will align over top of each other and all weapons will fire on the same point. When the player rotates the torso’s pitch or twist, the ’Mech’s arms and their reticle lead the rotation while the slower torso follows. This decouples the two reticles, allowing the arm mounted weapons to fire at a different location than the ones in the torso, head, and legs. While separated, a line is drawn between the two reticles, so they can each easily be found. When the rotation finishes, the torso will eventually catch up to the arms and they will be aligned once again.
The player can separate the reticles without having to move his ’Mech’s torso by activating pilot look. As the MechWarrior looks around, inside the cockpit, the reticle for the arms will follow where he is looking. When the player finishes pilot looking, the view and reticle will automatically return to face forward.
The player can separate the reticles without having to move his ’Mech’s torso by activating pilot look. As the MechWarrior looks around, inside the cockpit, the reticle for the arms will follow where he is looking. When the player finishes pilot looking, the view and reticle will automatically return to face forward.
And from Dev Q&A 05:
Quote
What, if any, mechanic will be in place to prevent a large group of single-type weapons from devastating a single location, a problem that has plagued just about every incarnation of MW to date? –Thomas Hogarth
[DAVID] We’ve got a few systems in place to handle that problem. One is having weapons such as lasers do damage over time so that, in order to deliver full damage to a single location, you have to hold your fire on the location, which can be difficult when you and/or your target are moving.
Another consideration is the separate arm and torso aim reticles. They will naturally line up with each other but, whenever you aim, you’ll lead with your arms while the torso catches up. This means that, if you want weapons in both locations to hit the same spot, you’ll have to hold your shot until they all aim at the same point.
An additional aspect of our aiming system is weapon convergence. I touched on this in a post I made in reply to Dev Blog 5, but some of you may have missed it so I’ll copy it over here:
Basically, your targeting systems are always trying to adjust the angle of your weapons so that they converge or focus at a distance of whatever your aiming reticles are pointing at. So, if you fire at a target very far away, your lasers (or whatever else) may fire nearly parallel to each other; firing at a target up close will angle the shots inwards. However, the adjustment of these angles is not instant.
For instance, if you were facing a building, while taking cover right up against it, your convergence would adjust to hit just a short distance in front of you (the distance to the building). When you step out from around that building and fire on an enemy in the distance, your convergence point would automatically begin to adjust, but not instantly. If you shoot too soon, your first shots may converge and cross a short distance in front of you and completely miss the enemy as they pass on either side of him. Or perhaps you were aiming for the centre torso and hit his arms instead, as your aim adjusts towards his centre.
[DAVID] We’ve got a few systems in place to handle that problem. One is having weapons such as lasers do damage over time so that, in order to deliver full damage to a single location, you have to hold your fire on the location, which can be difficult when you and/or your target are moving.
Another consideration is the separate arm and torso aim reticles. They will naturally line up with each other but, whenever you aim, you’ll lead with your arms while the torso catches up. This means that, if you want weapons in both locations to hit the same spot, you’ll have to hold your shot until they all aim at the same point.
An additional aspect of our aiming system is weapon convergence. I touched on this in a post I made in reply to Dev Blog 5, but some of you may have missed it so I’ll copy it over here:
Basically, your targeting systems are always trying to adjust the angle of your weapons so that they converge or focus at a distance of whatever your aiming reticles are pointing at. So, if you fire at a target very far away, your lasers (or whatever else) may fire nearly parallel to each other; firing at a target up close will angle the shots inwards. However, the adjustment of these angles is not instant.
For instance, if you were facing a building, while taking cover right up against it, your convergence would adjust to hit just a short distance in front of you (the distance to the building). When you step out from around that building and fire on an enemy in the distance, your convergence point would automatically begin to adjust, but not instantly. If you shoot too soon, your first shots may converge and cross a short distance in front of you and completely miss the enemy as they pass on either side of him. Or perhaps you were aiming for the centre torso and hit his arms instead, as your aim adjusts towards his centre.
The Devs seem to very much mean for both (axial) convergence and differential tracking ("transverse convergence") between the arm-mounted weapons and torso-mounted weapons to be a substantial part of the game, and that one of the major roles of that system is to reduce (to a reasonable degree) the ability to instantly concentrate damage on a single location.
As such, being able to simply "turn off" the differential tracking while retaining the convergence seems antithetical to the Devs' apparent goals.
As an alternative: Dev Blog 05 does mention being able to use "pilot look" to be able to completely decouple the arm reticle from the movement controls.
Perhaps one could activate "pilot look" and stare at the torso reticle?
Depending on the precise workings of "pilot look", this might achieve (at least to a degree) the effect the OP is looking for, but with fairly significant downsides - most prominently (IMO), limiting the tracking speed to that of the torso and enforcing tunnel vision that would allow such a player to be much more easily flanked...
Your thoughts?
#38
-
- Legendary Founder
-
- 1999 posts
Member
- LocationToronto
Posted 13 May 2012 - 11:38 AM
Strum Wealh, on 13 May 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:
As such, being able to simply "turn off" the differential tracking while retaining the convergence seems antithetical to the Devs' apparent goals.
As an alternative: Dev Blog 05 does mention being able to use "pilot look" to be able to completely decouple the arm reticle from the movement controls.
Perhaps one could activate "pilot look" and stare at the torso reticle?
Depending on the precise workings of "pilot look", this might achieve (at least to a degree) the effect the OP is looking for, but with fairly significant downsides - most prominently (IMO), limiting the tracking speed to that of the torso and enforcing tunnel vision that would allow such a player to be much more easily flanked...
Your thoughts?
As an alternative: Dev Blog 05 does mention being able to use "pilot look" to be able to completely decouple the arm reticle from the movement controls.
Perhaps one could activate "pilot look" and stare at the torso reticle?
Depending on the precise workings of "pilot look", this might achieve (at least to a degree) the effect the OP is looking for, but with fairly significant downsides - most prominently (IMO), limiting the tracking speed to that of the torso and enforcing tunnel vision that would allow such a player to be much more easily flanked...
Your thoughts?
I see the argument you're making, however I would be inclined to agree with your statement that "being able to "turn off".. ... seems antithetical to the Devs' apparent goals" however in another thread, I remember Paul saying that you can indeed lock your arms to your torso. He went on to state, though, that generally you wouldn't want to.
Here's what I infer from all this (the best that I can given what we know)
The separate reticles IS intended to prevent alpha-strike roflstomp to some degree. Specifically, I think it is mostly intended to prevent assaults from demolishing lights as easily as they could in other iterations. We know that assaults have the slowest torso movement. With the current rubberband system in place, it's a pain to line up a long-range shot. Say you're in an assault and a light is strafing at 800m out, at that distance, tracking with torso speed is (conceivably) fine since at 800m, his later movement is only so many radians/sec. When a light is circling you at 50m, that speed is obviously much higher. The best I can tell is that this system puts some of the power back in the hands of the a light mech when circling an assault because for the assault, trying to manage to reticles and one of them that tracks slowly and clumsily at such a close distance means it would (conceivably) be a lot harder to alpha a light mech repeatedly in the same spot. I think what this does is that the assault will end up spreading.
Now with that same scenario, even with torso/arm lock, alpha-striking a light in the same place twice is still very difficult because the slow tracking speed of the torso would make it very difficult to 'line up' a shot against the light; you'd have a very small window to make your crosshair move over the spot you want and to time the shot so that it lands where you want it to. This way, I think lights would have more longevity against an assault when they're harassing them, which I think is a good thing since it makes lights more useful in the game and keeps the level of variety higher.
Now, it stands to reason that as the mechs get smaller, locking the arms to the torso is less and less detrimental since we know torso rotation speeds get higher as the mech gets smaller. Therefore, locking arms to torso isn't as bad on a heavy as it is on assault, and not as bad as medium as it is on a heavy and so on. I think this is a critical advantage for smaller mechs and it more naturally confines sniping roles to medium and small mechs, which I'm somewhat in favour of. In fact, I think this would go a long way to maintaining weight class variety. Though, remember, the longer the distance, the less an assault would have to worry about its torso tracking speed since geometry it is a matter of geometry. However, as a mech gets closer to a sniping assault, it becomes harder to hit him because (conceivably) the radial speed of a smaller mech starts to overwhelm the assault mechs torso tracking speed. In MW4, an assault generally had just as easy of a time hitting an incoming mech at 800, 600, 400 and 200m. With this system, the closer a smaller mech gets, the more the advantage is in his favour. In the past, most attacking mechs would be, quite literally, two thirds (most alpha mechs only need 3 salvos) of the way to dead by the time they got in knife fight range of the sniper... often, they never even made it that far.
#39
-
- Legendary Founder
-
- 616 posts
Member
- LocationThe Duke's Archives, Lordran
Posted 13 May 2012 - 11:44 AM
A "workaround" would be to use two weapon groups... Line up your torso reticle, fire. Quickly line up your arm reticle, fire. At long range you should have more than enough time to fire both groups easily enough.
#40
-
- Legendary Founder
-
- 1999 posts
Member
- LocationToronto
Posted 13 May 2012 - 11:48 AM
Psydotek, on 13 May 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:
A "workaround" would be to use two weapon groups... Line up your torso reticle, fire. Quickly line up your arm reticle, fire. At long range you should have more than enough time to fire both groups easily enough.
Yes but under the current system (and not using arm/torso lock) you actually have to aim your torso by 'dragging' it with your arm reticle, and it adjusts speed to how fast your arm reticle is moving (I.E., the aforementioned "rubberband" style)... this makes aiming the torso crosshair independently a lot harder than it sounds.
Edited by GaussDragon, 13 May 2012 - 11:49 AM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
