78 replies to this topic

[Chavette]

Syllogy, on 19 June 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

I just move my mouse opposite of the direction I rotate. I don't have any problems hitting my targets while running around.

Pull back your tongue, the devs are married.

[Alistair Winter]

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:

I honestly don't get why, wanting this more simlike, you want the player to need to exert less influence over the mech. As a (primerily) light mech pilot part of the skill involved in piloting said mech is keeping my aim on target while twisting and jinking every which way over rough ground. I like that difficulty. I don't want the mech to do that for me any more than I want it to stop firing my weapons when there's no mech under the reticule, or start when there is. If the torso is so stabilised I'm essentially rolling along on an ice rink then there's nothing to aiming except pointing and clicking. Pointing and clicking is easy. A huge part of the reason for the current dominance of huge-alpha ranged boats is exactly that. All they need to do is point and click. The skill ceiling for effective sniping in MW:O is incredibly low. I want that skill ceiling raised, not mine lowered.
In other news, definately needs more Wolfenstien. Specifically Mecha {Godwin's Law}. Yeah I know it's bleeped. You know who I mean.

I sure do. Don't remember her in Wolfenstein though...

As I said earlier, I used to be a gunner on a tank, so that's why I have a certain affection for realism. With modern targeting equipment, hitting a slow target at less than 1000 meters doesn't require too much skill, I'll grant you that. But a tank isn't just a gunner, it's also a tank commander and a driver and sometimes a loader. When you have to do the piloting, the shooting and the many tasks of a tank commander (communicating with the squad, maintaining overview of the battle, etc) it doesn't really matter to me that aiming is easier.

When you're running through an urban area in a 35 ton light mech going 150 kph, or even an assault mech going 60 kph and turning slower than a crippled WW2 battleship, piloting in itself is quite a challenge, if you introduce knockdowns and collisions. Right now, the only thing you're risking if you run face first into a 10,000 ton building is losing speed, if you hit it at a direct angle. Same as running into a wall in Wolfenstein. Imagine hitting a wall in real life, going 150 kph in a 35 ton vehicle. Some people don't want that kind of realism though. That's fine. Realistic computer games aren't for everyone.

And furthermore, right now, any 5 year old can grasp the tactics in this game. "Role warfare" is abandoned, we're left with Rock 'Em Sock 'Em robots marching forward and shooting each other in the face. Scouting, information warfare, advanced tactics, crossfire, forget all that. Just shoot them in the face. But if this game actually encouraged more advanced tactics, if we actually had role warfare and people were rewarded for using a combination of scouts, support mechs and front line mechs, under the direction of a dedicated commander... then there would be other challenges beyond what you have in a standard FPS game. Although some FPS games actually have more role warfare than MW:O.

Others have commented "Yeah, but this game is already so unrealistic. An Atlas can fall 200 meters and not take any damage." I agree. But that doesn't mean I want it to be even less realistic. The closer this game moves to an actual realistic warfare sim, the happier I am.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

why are you using a joystick

[Gaan Cathal]

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

As I said earlier, I used to be a gunner on a tank, so that's why I have a certain affection for realism. With modern targeting equipment, hitting a slow target at less than 1000 meters doesn't require too much skill, I'll grant you that. But a tank isn't just a gunner, it's also a tank commander and a driver and sometimes a loader. When you have to do the piloting, the shooting and the many tasks of a tank commander (communicating with the squad, maintaining overview of the battle, etc) it doesn't really matter to me that aiming is easier.

When you're running through an urban area in a 35 ton light mech going 150 kph, or even an assault mech going 60 kph and turning slower than a crippled WW2 battleship, piloting in itself is quite a challenge, if you introduce knockdowns and collisions. Right now, the only thing you're risking if you run face first into a 10,000 ton building is losing speed, if you hit it at a direct angle. Same as running into a wall in Wolfenstein. Imagine hitting a wall in real life, going 150 kph in a 35 ton vehicle. Some people don't want that kind of realism though. That's fine. Realistic computer games aren't for everyone.

A modern self-stablising MBT would rip an Atlas apart in seconds. 31st century battletech equipment is stone age compared with WW2 military technology (in spaaaaaaaaaaaace!), never mind modern gear.

This isn't just a 'realism checkbox' deal either. If this checkbox comes in that turns my Raven's rocky road into an icerink then I don't have an option. I have to check it, even though it'll ruin the skill. Why? Because if the other guy has the "make it ten times easier" box ticked and I don't, I loose. This sort of thing would have a massive knock on consequence.

As for the buildings? Bring on collisions. I want collisions back in (just not derpy knockdowns). Why? It'll raise the skill floor. Piloting skill and aiming skill aren't mutually exclusive, and they're neither of them mutually exclusive with tactical skill either. You don't need to icerink the movement for lazymode aiming (which it would be) in order to add tactical depth. It'll remove tactical depth in all likelyhood because any ***** will be able to blow off a Spider's leg no matter if it's jinking at full speed because they won't need to account for their own motion. It's easy enough as it is.

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

And furthermore, right now, any 5 year old can grasp the tactics in this game. "Role warfare" is abandoned, we're left with Rock 'Em Sock 'Em robots marching forward and shooting each other in the face. Scouting, information warfare, advanced tactics, crossfire, forget all that. Just shoot them in the face. But if this game actually encouraged more advanced tactics, if we actually had role warfare and people were rewarded for using a combination of scouts, support mechs and front line mechs, under the direction of a dedicated commander... then there would be other challenges beyond what you have in a standard FPS game. Although some FPS games actually have more role warfare than MW:O.

Try Conquest mode. It helps. It's not a revolution, but it helps. (caveat: in my Elo bracket at least, whatever that is)

[Alistair Winter]

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

A modern self-stablising MBT would rip an Atlas apart in seconds. 31st century battletech equipment is stone age compared with WW2 military technology (in spaaaaaaaaaaaace!), never mind modern gear.

Well, it's useful to differentiate between quantitative and qualitative differences. I have no idea how an ER PCC compares to a 120 mm smoothbore cannon, but I'm assuming the ER PPC is better, just for the sake of my own sanity. I also like to pretend that the 270 meter max range on an AC20 shell is just for the sake of this game, as I can't imagine any cannon firing a projectile with such a low range, unless the projectile is an unfolded umbrella.

I would like battlemechs to share a lot of qualitative similarities with modern technology, if not quantitative similarities. In other words, I don't expect their cannons to reload with the same speed as the automatically reloading cannons found on some modern tanks. But I do expect them to have that ability.

But then again, I'm an ignoramus who never played the TT. I'm sure there's some paragraph on lostech explaining how windshield wipers disappeared in some nuclear war and are now restricted to the Clans

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

This isn't just a 'realism checkbox' deal either. If this checkbox comes in that turns my Raven's rocky road into an icerink then I don't have an option. I have to check it, even though it'll ruin the skill. Why? Because if the other guy has the "make it ten times easier" box ticked and I don't, I loose. This sort of thing would have a massive knock on consequence.

I agree, that's definitely a valid argument.

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

As for the buildings? Bring on collisions. I want collisions back in (just not derpy knockdowns). Why? It'll raise the skill floor. Piloting skill and aiming skill aren't mutually exclusive, and they're neither of them mutually exclusive with tactical skill either. You don't need to icerink the movement for lazymode aiming (which it would be) in order to add tactical depth. It'll remove tactical depth in all likelyhood because any ***** will be able to blow off a Spider's leg no matter if it's jinking at full speed because they won't need to account for their own motion. It's easy enough as it is.

The balance between assault and light mechs is another valid argument. Although as I've said in another thread, I don't like how fragile mechs are right now anyway. And I'm not sure how it would pan out, exactly, because it works both ways. Are you able to consistently concentrate fire on a single spot when your Spider 5V is firing its ER Large laser from 800 meters, while zig-zagging and jumping from hill to hill? I'm not. And so you see a lot of light mech snipers slow down or even stop to use their weapons (granted, none of the good ones)

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

Try Conquest mode. It helps. It's not a revolution, but it helps. (caveat: in my Elo bracket at least, whatever that is)

Aye, I do play more Conquest mode. It's not quite as monotonous as Assault. But my biggest hope for my long term interest in this game is the assymmetrical game modes, especially if they have multiple stages (e.g. fight your way to enemy base, then return to your own base with lostech waffle iron). It's one of my most favourite aspects of good FPS multiplayer games, like Counter Strike.

[TOGSolid]

Quote

I have no idea how an ER PCC compares to a 120 mm smoothbore cannon, but I'm assuming the ER PPC is better, just for the sake of my own sanity.

Modern tank equipment is mentioned in the rules.

Specifically under the spot where it mentions that these weapons do a fuckload of nothing to Battlemech armor.

[RiceyFighter]

No because I don't want MWO easy mode

[XSerjo]

It's because devs don't like brawlers: they love giant walking turrets!

This feature won't buff assault mechs, but it will make light/medium mechs more effective. I'll be happy to see this as option (we have option for giant alphastrikers: arm lock, so we have to get option for brawlers).

Edited by XSerjo, 19 June 2013 - 05:50 PM.

[Shalune]

This sounds like it would be a really nice option to have in game, though I don't think it's really broken without it either. The controls for MWO are actually a huge step up in user friendliness from previous MechWarrior games' defaults.

[Mercules]

madMAx666, on 19 June 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

The problem is the beginning and the end of the turning movement: it happens instantly (no rotational inertia). To compensate for that you would need to accelerate your mouse with infinite intensitiy. Can you do that? I don't think so. With lower FPS it also gets harder to compensate since your input lags behind (Does anyone get over 30fps?).

An easy fix would be to make turning have inertia so that you can't change your rotational velocity instantly (which would hurt lights i know). But it actually would be more realistic since a XX ton mech certanly has some rotational inertia.

EDIT: velocity vs. acceleration: http://lmgtfy.com/?q...vs+acceleration

So would crashing through buildings when I slam into them.

BTW, I constantly get 40+ FPS often over 50. This could explain our difference in opinion as to how easy it is as I know I can start a turn and keep my reticle on a target as big as an average mech at 600 meters. I frequently pot shot Atlas at 1k while turning to go around obstacles. I'm not claiming I hit CT but I get a red flash after I fire. I do this in a Commando with an ERPPC on the arm. It's not hard, but I suppose if you had a crappy machine juking around like a drunken frat boy on you you might need an aiming aid.

Skyfaller, on 19 June 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

There is some misunderstanding here.

If your legs and torso are both aligned and looking ahead..and you are moving.. the moment you tap.. just TAP the A or S key to turn the legs left or right...

the game does a snap, abrupt turn of the legs. It is not the same smooth movement as it would be if it was a mouse.

Therefore, when you are moving and trying to keep your aim on a target and you have to turn the legs a bit.. that abrupt movement will swing your mouse off the target before you can even counter the movement with the mouse.

What I'm asking for is that the torso not be moved when the legs are moved UNLESS the torso reaches its max left/right turn limit.

aka, if I aim the torso at one point I dont want the leg movement moving the aimpoint from that very point.

Mechs have a gyro in the CT section. Gyros are supossed to stabilize a platform on the move.. not just from up/down movement but also left/right movement. Right now it only does up/down apparently.

1. That "snap" is a fraction of a second. When weapons have more than a second for recharge it is NOT hard to compensate for a microsecond "snap". Lasers in the middle of their beam might dance to the edge of the target but can be back centered in on the target in a fraction of a second delivering nearly all their damage to 1 to 2 areas.

2. I already pointed out the Gyro is not there for torso orientation but keeps those often top heavy mechs upright. It barely does that in the fiction and TT. These are not tanks with a wide and solid base, these are biomorphic war machines on two legs. That Gyro helps orientate them vertically, not keep their torso pointing in one direction.

How much have you worked/played with Gryoscopes? If I have one spinning horizontally I can easily spin the internal structure clockwise and counter clockwise when looking down on it. Tipping it over is difficult though. This is the direction the Gyros are in Battlemechs. To use it the other way the gyroscope would be on it's side and spin up over around and down then back up, which would not make it able to stabilize a mech for standing.

3. This game needs LESS accuracy not more. Pinpoint accuracy is one of the major balance issues in this game.

[Alistair Winter]

TOGSolid, on 19 June 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

Modern tank equipment is mentioned in the rules.
Specifically under the spot where it mentions that these weapons do a fuckload of nothing to Battlemech armor.

Is that a direct quote?

[Lightfoot]

True, if you use a Joystick the legs (Mech Turn) jerk the torso and knocks your aim off. I know it's analog now, but it needs to match the Twist and Tilt axii in Sensitivity or it's impossible to come up with a controller profile. I have fiddled endlessly with combinations of the CFG file and my Joystick's profiler, but it just gets more skewed one way or the other.

Seems like the independent leg movement would be a new control Toggle. Could be interesting to try it out.

[Alex Warden]

Zerberus, on 19 June 2013 - 07:11 AM, said:

Seriously, in every FPS game ever, when you move your legs, your aim moves with it... why make this one "the FPS for Deer Hunter players" by not even having that modicum of skill involved but making it "point that way, move as much as you want, only touch mouse to aim"?

[Eggs Mayhem]

I wouldn't mind seeing this as a toggle-able option. Though if it does arm aim would need to not be thrown off while compensating during leg turning. Basically the distance your arms are separated from your torso while trying to remain facing forward while turning needs to be dependent on your angular speed relative to the ground, not your legs. That way people that want to stay with the current scheme (like myself) will not be at a disadvantage.

Or the other way around, throw the arms off for people who don't want to have to compensate. As long as it's the same for both.

[Lugh]

Fabe, on 19 June 2013 - 05:38 AM, said:

Is moving the mouse to keep your torso facing one way while you're turning really that hard?

Yes apparently it is and the majority would prefer to remain mouth breathers.

[Shae Starfyre]

My 21st century camera has anti-shake technology, surly my 26th century mech can!!!!!

This is a ploy from the pin-point accuracy dealers to have more accuracy; what a load.

For that matter, let's just have hover mechs that have terrain control such that we are floating blissfully over the battle field throwing our flowers of discord against the enemy!

Really, people? REALLY?

Edited by Aphoticus, 20 June 2013 - 09:37 AM.

[Mechteric]

If they want to add the option then thats fine, who knows maybe I'd even use it for even smoother shooting while on the move... but I have a feeling that new players using it would be very lost because they'd probably have no concept of where their mech is moving if their view didn't turn with the chassis.

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 20 June 2013 - 10:01 AM.

[McBrahman]

Skyfaller, on 19 June 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

There is some misunderstanding here.

If your legs and torso are both aligned and looking ahead..and you are moving.. the moment you tap.. just TAP the A or S key to turn the legs left or right...

the game does a snap, abrupt turn of the legs. It is not the same smooth movement as it would be if it was a mouse.

Therefore, when you are moving and trying to keep your aim on a target and you have to turn the legs a bit.. that abrupt movement will swing your mouse off the target before you can even counter the movement with the mouse.

What I'm asking for is that the torso not be moved when the legs are moved UNLESS the torso reaches its max left/right turn limit.

aka, if I aim the torso at one point I dont want the leg movement moving the aimpoint from that very point.

This is absolutely the point and a very good description.


If we would get a solution for THIS problem we would also get a better balance in Pin-Point vs Lasers!!!!

So i dont understand, why people dont want it - unless they use PPC....


If not setting the torso free, we should at least give the mechs a bigger inertia torque at the very first seconds of turning. (give me a change to counter abrupt turn by skill)

Ps: of course this will help the medium class more than the stand and straight fighting assoults - just to mention it.

Edited by McBrahman, 20 June 2013 - 09:45 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

McBrahman, on 20 June 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

If not setting the torso free, we should at least give the mechs a bigger inertia torque at the very first seconds of turning. (give me a change to counter abrupt turn by skill)

Ps: of course this will help the medium class more than the stand and straight fighting assoults - just to mention it.

See this, this is a good idea. Removing half the aiming input for high-speed pilots is not. Make a new poll for this one.