44 replies to this topic

[eZZip]

Frostiken, on 09 June 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

In just about every Mechwarrior game I can remember, stomping around did have small effects on your reticule by causing it to jump around.

I agree that the reticle shouldn't be so stable, but I don't remember a single MW game other than MWLL that shakes the reticule itself.

I'd like it if the reticule stayed at the centre (or wherever you moved it) but the actual location of the shot depended on how your mech was rocking, with the average height being where your reticule is actually accurate. There wouldn't be a whole lot of shake, but you could make long-range shots with some timing and skill.

Edited by eZZip, 09 June 2012 - 07:23 PM.

[Vilekon]

I think it all depends on where this reticule is really seen through, lets say its a HUD mounted on your helmet and projected into your eyes then there would be less movement, where as if it were a HUD displayed on the cockpit itself then the pilot movement from hits motion etc, would obviously have a bigger effect on where it's pointed.

[TwoFaced]

Agree should have movement while walking and even more when getting hit.

Just dont make it so bad you have to put a seizure warning while logging in due to the effects of the game, lol.

[Nintenja]

I could see adding a rocking motion once you reach a certain speed. It would make full speed shooting a little more challenging to time the firing with the sway.

[BenEEeees VAT GROWN BACON]

Dragon Lady, on 09 June 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

I'm also hoping from some reticule fading in and out due to the effects of heat buildup, to replicate the effects of heat in the Table Top games. The risk of shutdown should not be the only effect of overheating your 'Mech.

I loved that effect in Mech3, I hope it comes back.

[Torban]

The lack of any shaking on the UI has bothered me a lot but I was waiting until I actually got to play around with it before complaining. This appears to be the only mechwarrior game that you wont get shaken up or immersed at all. Of course it might just not be fully implemented yet, it might have been causing issues when the videos were taken for all we know.

Edited by Torban, 09 June 2012 - 09:11 PM.

[oohawkoo]

i can see why it might bother some ppl but personaly i dont see much problem with =/

if its in the HUD and not a fixed point on the window then the computor would be basicly makeing it float infront of ur eyes at what would bt the center of the veiw ..(and it would be a virtual representation of where your weapons are supposed to be tracking to..since this isnt always the case some misses are likely... that means it wouldnt move at all and would always be in that position the mech moveing around wouldnt make any differance to this since the recticule would really be in virtual space and not physical

tho i think effects of heat and impacts could be incorperated ... causeing fadeouts static etc .... be nice if ecm from other mechs had an impact too=3

thing from the lazers always hitting is prolly just from an earlier release and not current beta version after all its prolly allready getting dealt with..... but dont forget they are light weapons logicly it should hit as soon as you fire and if your torso weapons are mostly lazers then they will almost always hit when ur pointing towards ur target.... the arm mounts are harder to aim after all

Edited by oohawkoo, 09 June 2012 - 09:19 PM.

[Thomas Hogarth]

At the end of the day, the videos we have seen do not seem to take a 'Mechs movement into account where accuracy is concerned.

But we've also heard that convergence isn't fully integrated yet.

Do I hope that a 'Mechs movement will be taken into account where accuracy is concerned? Yes. At this point, it's quite premature to say that it won't be in the game if what we've seen doesn't even take convergence fully into account yet. The best anyone can hope to do is express that they'd like to see movement taken into account.

Outright saying that it won't be in the game because we haven't seen it yet is premature.

[ragnarawk]

isant the goal of all the big gyros and stableizer on a mech to keep things...stable? personaly ive always hated when ya have a hard mounted weapon on a stable object, you aim at something pull the trigger then *** the shot goes everywhere but where ya aim it. honestly i could do without a expanding/shakeing/bouncy reticle on a vehicle for a change. its a giant robot in the future not a 1916 MKI tank. also its not like lasers have much of a kick. maybe add some sway with the auto cannons i guess. ehh just my 2 bits.

[Smiffy]

I just posted about this like 5 minutes ago in a topic about laser boats. I to cannot put my head arround pinpoint accuracy of weapons located in in a torso that bobs up and down like a pomeranian in a water bed, nor weapons located in arms that swing back and forth like the tip of a retractable pen in the hands of a kid with ADHD. it just makes no sense.

[Skigress]

I find it interesting that no one has yet mentioned how the mech follows the mechwarrior's commands, the Diagnostic Interpretation computer controls most mech movement, it is basically like the primal part of your brain, it controls where the mech places its feet while walking, moving the arms out of the way of obsticals and monitors and controls the systems in a mech. However a battlemech is a war machine and is not allowedd to think for itself, while the DIC will try to keep its arms from hitting trees and buildings while walking when the pilot uses the control sticks to aim the riticule (wich up until now has been sitting paitiently in the center of the hud) it will blindly whip the arm up and through whatever is in its way to comply, be it building tree or other mech. Same with the feet, it will try not to step on trucks cars people etc. but if the mechwarrior slams the throttle full out it will stomp on whatever is in its way, it will not manuver arrond much following only the pilot's course no major side movements and what not, hell it'll even blindly leap off a lciff backwards with the trust in its mechwarrior having a damn good reason to do so. So to get back to the reticule bit, it isn't even remotly tied to the weapons unless the pilot meaningfully moves it, the mech through the use of a neuro helmet is able to get some feedback (mostly on balance like when to ride out a direct hit with a ppc or fight the shudder of a firing autocannon) and from this it can interperate "yes I am intentionally moving the controls" or "no you're throwing my backside arrond in here stop waving the reticule!" as well as "no, just wanna step over that car." from "that guy gonna go squish!"

I'm ssorry if this is a little long winded or confusing but I am tired and trying to put into somwhat simple terms what it says in the begining of the TechManual.

[Thomas Hogarth]

Well. On one hand, expecting perfect stability in the face of a machine running is asking a bit much. On the other hand, expecting zero stabilization is outrageous. I recall the effects that movement had on torso-mounted weapons in Assault Tech 1. It made torso weapons nearly unusable in that incarnation.

The vaunted fire control system on the M1 Abrams isn't up to the task of keeping a barrel in line with the target while undergoing the same movement a 'Mech would. Real life examples are a fallacy, I know. I put that there to forestall the "we can do this today!" crowd.

The HTAL armor setup of every mechwarrior to date is borrowed directly from the tabletop. This armor layout was balanced with the assumption that no one location would receive the majority of the weapons fire. Mechwarrior games to date have done a poor job of ensuring damage scattering. MW4 allowed huge amounts of armor to be fitted in an attempt to balance the scales, and this was only somewhat effective. Worse, it ruined immersion.

My thought is that anything that encourages inaccuracy is a good thing. We WANT a large percentage of shots to miss. We WANT damage to scatter all over the 'Mech. Personally, something other than a crude cone of fire would be nice, and movement sway seems to fit the bill.

[KageRyuu]

The reticle as well as the rest of the hud is on your neuro-helmet's visor. So unless your head and helmet can move independently, which generally shouldn't be the case with any helmet and is a sign of improper fit or wear, the reticle and the rest of the hud shouldn't move.

That aside, the accuracy of the weapon following that point of aim is generally higher than previous MechWarrior incarnations, specifically regarding such while in motion.

Having not played the beta and only with what videos I can find online to date, it is obvious that they should include less weapon accuracy at higher speeds, but as for the shaking and moving of the reticle and hud, again, as it is on your helmet's visor your helmet should not move independently from your head unless it is an improper fit or wear.

Edited by KageRyuu, 10 June 2012 - 01:40 AM.

[Frostiken]

Skigress, on 10 June 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

I find it interesting that no one has yet mentioned how the mech follows the mechwarrior's commands, the Diagnostic Interpretation computer controls most mech movement, it is basically like the primal part of your brain, it controls where the mech places its feet while walking, moving the arms out of the way of obsticals and monitors and controls the systems in a mech. However a battlemech is a war machine and is not allowedd to think for itself, while the DIC will try to keep its arms from hitting trees and buildings while walking when the pilot uses the control sticks to aim the riticule (wich up until now has been sitting paitiently in the center of the hud) it will blindly whip the arm up and through whatever is in its way to comply, be it building tree or other mech. Same with the feet, it will try not to step on trucks cars people etc. but if the mechwarrior slams the throttle full out it will stomp on whatever is in its way, it will not manuver arrond much following only the pilot's course no major side movements and what not, hell it'll even blindly leap off a lciff backwards with the trust in its mechwarrior having a damn good reason to do so. So to get back to the reticule bit, it isn't even remotly tied to the weapons unless the pilot meaningfully moves it, the mech through the use of a neuro helmet is able to get some feedback (mostly on balance like when to ride out a direct hit with a ppc or fight the shudder of a firing autocannon) and from this it can interperate "yes I am intentionally moving the controls" or "no you're throwing my backside arrond in here stop waving the reticule!" as well as "no, just wanna step over that car." from "that guy gonna go squish!"

I'm ssorry if this is a little long winded or confusing but I am tired and trying to put into somwhat simple terms what it says in the begining of the TechManual.

At the same time, only a total ***** would design a system like that that provided no feedback at all to the pilot. A mech has to have sensors all over it to determine its inertial position in space, in order to ensure that the arm is actually aiming at the reticule, and not half a milliradian to the side. Additionally, there's going to be cases where the arm is going to be damaged, limited in its movement, at the edge of its traverse, or otherwise unable to properly aim straight forward, and next thing you know, you've fired a PPC into the back of your lancemate.

I understand the reticule being a 'guide' for the mech's computers to follow, but nothing actually showing where the weapon is presently aiming, which is where you'd see your reticule bounce, is just silly. Something as simple as little crosses + + + would suffice in showing the aimpoints of weapons on the left arm, torso, and right arm. These bounce around and move independently of the actual aiming reticules, and only when they're lined up will you make a properly aimed shot.

Edited by Frostiken, 10 June 2012 - 01:26 AM.

[CCC Dober]

There could be a small dot (or a couple of them) dancing around the center of the crosshairs. You could fire your weapons with more confidence that way, if the majority of dots intersects with the center. Takes skill and good judgement without a doubt. Also, the motion sickness could be kept to a minimum. Added benefit so to say.

[Skigress]

Frostiken, on 10 June 2012 - 01:23 AM, said:

At the same time, only a total ***** would design a system like that that provided no feedback at all to the pilot. A mech has to have sensors all over it to determine its inertial position in space, in order to ensure that the arm is actually aiming at the reticule, and not half a milliradian to the side. Additionally, there's going to be cases where the arm is going to be damaged, limited in its movement, at the edge of its traverse, or otherwise unable to properly aim straight forward, and next thing you know, you've fired a PPC into the back of your lancemate.

I understand the reticule being a 'guide' for the mech's computers to follow, but nothing actually showing where the weapon is presently aiming, which is where you'd see your reticule bounce, is just silly. Something as simple as little crosses + + + would suffice in showing the aimpoints of weapons on the left arm, torso, and right arm. These bounce around and move independently of the actual aiming reticules, and only when they're lined up will you make a properly aimed shot.

The DIC also takes that feedback and displays it for the pilot, it monitors all things on the mech and can even get the weapon status of an autocannon that is in an arm attached by only a few strands of myomer fibers to thes shoulder, everything on the mech has sensors built in, if the weapon is not able to comply IT WILL NOT FIRE! the DIC makes the call that it is unable to point in that direction due to damage and therefore will not fire it if it cannot reach the reticule.

However I do like your idea of each arm and the torso weapons having their own indicators on the reticule, that is in keepoing with the lore in a way, though in the books a tone was all that indicated the mech had done its best and was aiming at the enemy not a friendly (waiting for the tone to fire in a sense) indicators for each arm and torso would allow you the option of "good enough" to fire in a despirate gamble, though not likely to be effective it does add a bit more personal experience and skill to aiming.

Also sorry if I come off a bit harsh or confrontational, I need to get to bed, still like your idea of indicators though.

Edited by Skigress, 10 June 2012 - 01:44 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I like Frostiken's idea (which has been mentioned before) of multiple little crosses, one for each weapon showing their alignment. Most people dont tend to have a massive number of weapons so it shouldn't be a great problem, Perhaps different colours for weapon types (energy, ballistics, missiles) with Xs for arm mounted. It could always be able to be turned off in the HUD for those who think it would be a distraction.

[Thomas Hogarth]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 10 June 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

I like Frostiken's idea (which has been mentioned before) of multiple little crosses, one for each weapon showing their alignment. Most people dont tend to have a massive number of weapons so it shouldn't be a great problem, Perhaps different colours for weapon types (energy, ballistics, missiles) with Xs for arm mounted. It could always be able to be turned off in the HUD for those who think it would be a distraction.

Yeah, I like this idea too. Especially if the crosses never fully converge.

[KageRyuu]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 10 June 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

I like Frostiken's idea (which has been mentioned before) of multiple little crosses, one for each weapon showing their alignment. Most people dont tend to have a massive number of weapons so it shouldn't be a great problem, Perhaps different colours for weapon types (energy, ballistics, missiles) with Xs for arm mounted. It could always be able to be turned off in the HUD for those who think it would be a distraction.

Until you jump into a Swayback, then you have 9. Or a Stalker and have 10.

They do however kinda do this. That little circle generally in the middle of your reticle shows you where your arm weapons are aimed more or less, which is little odd seeing as this means whenever your turning, your arms are aimed where your going before your torso so perhaps an attentive player could exploit this in telling what way a mech is gonna turn by the movement of their arms..

Edited by KageRyuu, 10 June 2012 - 02:25 AM.

[Coolhand]

Frostiken, on 10 June 2012 - 01:23 AM, said:

I understand the reticule being a 'guide' for the mech's computers to follow, but nothing actually showing where the weapon is presently aiming, which is where you'd see your reticule bounce, is just silly. Something as simple as little crosses + + + would suffice in showing the aimpoints of weapons on the left arm, torso, and right arm. These bounce around and move independently of the actual aiming reticules, and only when they're lined up will you make a properly aimed shot.

Which would then be called an CCIP, or Continously Computed Impact Point sight: it shows the gunner where the weapon(s) will impact if (s)he would press the trigger at that moment of time. This has the benefit of giving instant feedback as to what the current firing solution is. Of course, this is only a guestimation even with 5th generation fighters: a lot of parameter values like crosswind, air humiditiy or even the exact range (Radar/Lidar isn't all that accurate for a bunch of physical reasons) are subject to measurement errors or plainly not available.

Most if not all mentions of Mech targeting systems in the TT sourcebooks indicate that the standard 'Mech sight is indeed a CCIP. (to quote: "The Mech's weapons will hit whatever the pilot points the crosshairs at, be it rock, tree, or enemy 'Mech"). So by principle, a CCIP sight must bounce deliberately (moved by the computer) since 'Mech movement influences where weapons point at. Of course, as was mentioned, having a usable CCIP sight for 9, 10 or more independent weapons (and even different ballistics!) is a usability engineer's nightmare...

But, CCIP thus does not necessarily show you a valid firing solution. Leading a moving target is still the gunner's job, unless (s)he also has a LCOS (Lead Computed Optical Sight) at his/her disposal, which shows where the craft/weapon needs to be pointed in order to hit. To my understanding, that is what a dedicated targeting computer provides. Although "realistically", LCOS on ground vehicles would be hideously inaccurate due to ground clutter, multi-path propagation, beam scattering etc. going on with any sensor that could give you both range and speed of the target, which are absolutely needed for lead computations. Ever wondered why even the most advanced tanks in the world (Leopard 2, Abrams, T-90) still only use rangefinders + "Mk I Eyeball" for the most part? Also, a LCOS can't do magic: converenge of different weapons would still be a major headache.

Edited by Coolhand, 10 June 2012 - 03:04 AM.