12 replies to this topic

[Galil Nain]

I'd like to propose a possible control scheme using twin mice. The way I see it working would be with both mice having tilt-enabled scroll-wheels and set up as follows:

Left hand mouse:

Scroll-UP - Increase throttle percentage 10%

Scroll-DN - Decrease throttle percentage 10%

Scroll-LT - Steer mech left (i.e. movement, legs)

Scroll-RT - Steer mech right

Actual movement of the mouse itself controls a cross hair tied solely to the point of aim for the LEFT ARM weapons.

Right hand mouse:

Scroll-UP - Tilt torso up

Scroll-DN - Tilt torso down

Scroll-LT - Turn torso left

Scroll-RT - Turn torso right

Actual movement of the mouse itself controls a cross hair tied solely to the point of aim for the RIGHT ARM weapons.

NEITHER mouse influences the torso twist (other than the scroll wheel). Torso-mounted weapons retain their own cross hair, relative to the orientation of the torso.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Those who are keeping track will, by now, have counted THREE simultaneous cross hairs on my proposed HUD (if this is you, well done!). This is not a miscount. I am, indeed, suggesting that the two arms and torso should no longer automatically share the same point of aim.

It just doesn't make sense to me that a mech has two separate arms, and yet they cannot aim in opposite directions. There is ample lore referencing skilled pilots engaging multiple targets. I guess the only reason this hasn't been implemented in previous video games was the difficulty in coding for such. That being said, SDKs like Multipoint Mouse from Microsoft have been around long enough now (albeit with intentions for a very different use-case), that I'm surprised that integration into video games has yet to happen at any level that is noticeable. To my mind, it would certainly provide the most realistic mechanism for control of a mech achievable with current off-the-shelf tech.

This separation will also allow PGI greater flexibility in mech designs, as the degree to which a mechs arms are capable of articulating no longer has to be mirrored on both sides. Where a mech's geometry supports or requires it, under this proposed scheme, arms can now be granted differing degrees of articulation as each design requires it. I'm not saying that this will necessarily HAVE to be used, but I can't see granting the designers this freedom as being anything other than an additional means of bringing greater realism to the game (lets face it... with some of the asymmetrical designs in BT, expecting both arms to be capable of the same degree of articulation in all cases is farcical anyway!).

And from a balancing point of view... forcing the arms to move independently, and therefore meaning that they are never "perfectly" aligned, could help to reduce the issues with "pinpoint alphas" that people rave on and on about!

Also... as an additional bonus, twin mice are likely to be far less expensive than the high-end joysticks touted by many hereabouts...

This is, however, an idea that just came to me, so it is far from fully thought through... bearing this in mind, any refinements and feedback would be welcome, as would any possible pitfalls I might have failed to spot (although I would prefer if any critique was kept constructive!). That being said... to my mind "independently aimable arms are OP", whilst possibly accurate from a balancing perspective, fails (IMHO) to trump the improved immersion argument.

[Firewuff]

um..... no.

Or even better, you can have it and I'll see you on the field. see how long you last.

[DI3T3R]

Firewuff, on 20 October 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

Or even better, you can have it and I'll see you on the field. see how long you last.

We could sell tickets for this show!

[FinsT]

Ok, two mice. Guys are making fun, geez, it's just it's so unusual idea. Me, i am seriously curious how it could work (as an option, of course). Because if it culd work, then it'd one very unusual method to control in a PC game. Unusual is good - when _optional_, of course.

There is one serious problem with it, though. Assuming i am controlling right side of the mech with the "usual" right mouse, and left side of the mech with "additional" leftie's mouse, and assuming i have 4 primary mouse buttons (2 on each mouse) being assigned to weapon groups (i actually run with 6, but i could live with just 4), - there are still functions i need to be available rather "instantly": zoom, advanced zoom, target, override shutdown, night vision, thermal vision, ECM toggle, and push-to-talk button. That's absolute minimum.

I am not fancy to use dual 6-button mice (some buttons will inevitably be placed so awkwardly that pressing them would ruin my aim at the time). And i am definitely not fancy to use keyboard with my feet or my nose (since both hands are busy controlling a mouse each).

There is one more issue, though; i fear that my health could suffer if i'd play with two-mice aiming (separate points of aim for each arm) for any long time - i might be developing strabismus!

The last and the least, i have no space for an additional mouse of the left on my table. I am sure many people have the same problem.

Oh, i almost forgot. There is one more thing. Unfortunately, Microsoft decided to make their operational systems since windows 95 to be able to work with multiple pointing devices - but all such devices controlling very one and single pointer. So, if you just plug in two mice - you normally won't be able to control two hands of the mech separately. To achieve what you want, the only method i am aware of (it's used for real old games with 2-mice game modes, like Settlers 2, and afaik, in only one windows-compartible game - Serious Sam) - is to 1) modify MWO client itself to make it read mouse input directly from COM ports and have at least command line ("console") 2nd-mouse interface, and 2) run MWO client on a computer which has one of two mice connected to a hardware COM port. Much like it's done in Serious Sam. Unfortunately, modern personal computers do NOT have a hardware COM port (a.k.a. "serial port"). No wonder; it was a standard hardware port 20+ years ago, before Windows - in DOS times. Then in late 1990s, mice went to be plugged in then-new PS/2 port, and later via USB. Therefore, whomever would want to play the game mode you are suggeting, - would have to have (or, to get) rather old computer, perhaps ~10 years old, - on which MWO client would most likely run at very low frames per second (Cryo Engine 3 and all). Perhaps as low as 2...3 frames per second, - rendering game completely unplayable. If it'd run at all, that is - quite possibly, such an old computer would simply not pass system requirements check, which MWO probably does (does it?). Or it'd simply crash with some error upon launch.

All that said, i heartily congratulate you on one of some out-of-the-box-thinking ideas this forum has seen. It's too sad that this particular idea has microscopic chances to ever be implemented. Best of luck with your next idea!

o7

Edited by FinsT, 21 October 2013 - 05:38 AM.

[Alex Warden]

i´ll make it short.. overcomplicated, even if you have enough buttons on both mice it wouldn´t be intuitive enough

[Galil Nain]

FinsT, on 21 October 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

Oh, i almost forgot. There is one more thing. Unfortunately, Microsoft decided to make their operational systems since windows 95 to be able to work with multiple pointing devices - but all such devices controlling very one and single pointer. So, if you just plug in two mice - you normally won't be able to control two hands of the mech separately. To achieve what you want, the only method i am aware of (it's used for real old games with 2-mice game modes, like Settlers 2, and afaik, in only one windows-compartible game - Serious Sam) - is to 1) modify MWO client itself to make it read mouse input directly from COM ports and have at least command line ("console") 2nd-mouse interface, and 2) run MWO client on a computer which has one of two mice connected to a hardware COM port. Much like it's done in Serious Sam. Unfortunately, modern personal computers do NOT have a hardware COM port (a.k.a. "serial port"). No wonder; it was a standard hardware port 20+ years ago, before Windows - in DOS times. Then in late 1990s, mice went to be plugged in then-new PS/2 port, and later via USB. Therefore, whomever would want to play the game mode you are suggeting, - would have to have (or, to get) rather old computer, perhaps ~10 years old, - on which MWO client would most likely run at very low frames per second (Cryo Engine 3 and all). Perhaps as low as 2...3 frames per second, - rendering game completely unplayable. If it'd run at all, that is - quite possibly, such an old computer would simply not pass system requirements check, which MWO probably does (does it?). Or it'd simply crash with some error upon launch.

True, Microsoft has made the decision that the OS itself has the single pointer controlled by whichever pointing device happens to be in use at any given time, so multiples would fight for control. This is also standard behaviour for by far the majority of Windows software.

HOWEVER... it is not true that all software has to behave this way. Neither is it true that using antiquated hardware and wierd direct addressing mechanisms would be necessitated. Microsoft themselves have provided one such solution free of charge to developers in the form of the Windows MultiPoint Mouse SDK that allows up to 25 simultaneous separate pointers each controlled by its own pointing device (supports USB, PS/2, Bluetooth, trackpad, and wireless mouse devices. For wireless mouse devices, a frequency of 2.4 GHz is recommended, as 27 MHz mouse devices often interfere with each other in close proximity. Other HID devices (such as joysticks and game controllers) are not supported). Whilst it is intended for use in schools without large IT budgets so that multiple pupils can share the same PC, there is nothing I can see imediately leaping out at me in the documentation that would prevent it from being used for other things too.

The SDK does limit the languages and IDE that can be used to develop with it, but if Microsoft can get this sort of thing to work at the level suggested by their marketing for the SDK, I don't see why it would be impossible to roll-your-own (although this would take more effort).

That being said, your points about limited numbers of buttons and limited desk space are something I fully agree would mean that this would not be a control scheme for everyone. There are plenty of multi-button ambidextrous mice out there, and the number of buttons available on right-handers these days is bordering on the obscene, so for those comfortable with that degree of complexity and density of buttons, shortage of buttons for weapon groups / zoom / night-vision / thermal / jump-jets / etc. shouldn't be an insurmountable issue.

The suggestion was never that this should be the new, sole method of mech control, just that it would be an additional, potentially more immersive option that mechwarriors could choose to use, or not, based entirely on personal preferences.

As for the quip about strabismus, I assume you were either being facetious, or failed to see that the proposal does not require you to simultaneously FOCUS on 2+ targets. You could engage multiples in short / point-blank range without needing to focus on each individual target (after all... would you really expect to be doing so if you were in a street fight with a pistol in each hand?). It would also mean that after, for example, engaging a target on your left with your left arms weapons, you could glance across to your right and engage a second target with your right arms weapons without having to wait quite as long for the right arm to line up on the target as you would for the left arm to swing across (particularly if the left arm was at the extremes of it's potential movement arc). Granted, this potential advantage is almost completely eliminated at long / extreme ranges.

I also haven't thought out how things like advanced zoom would be handled short of employing some form of head/eye tracking hardware, but, again, this is more of an extreme-range issue.

Please don't get me wrong... this is not a direct attack on your criticisms, merely a demonstration that these issues are issues I had considered albeit, woefully failed to make as clear as I perhaps should have in my original post. In hindsight, I was more concerned with trying, again unsuccessfully, to keep the post from being overly long and in doing so, left out some points that I perhaps shouldn't have.

All this being said, many thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree that, short of a huge number of forum members picking up on this and advocating it, followed by something of a miracle, this will not see the light of day, but at the end of the day there is the old adage of "if you don't ask, the answer will almost definitely not be the one you want."

Edit: stripping out some incompatible formatting that hitched a ride with a small block of text copied from Microsoft's SDK documentation.

Edited by Galil Nain, 24 October 2013 - 08:50 PM.

[Sandpit]

not my personal cup of tea for a control scheme but as long as I'm not forced to use it I'm ok with it. Little things likes this (no I don't mean little as easy to code as I have no idea about how hard that one would be for this) just give something to a certain niche of players and increases their enjoyment of the game. +1 for the idea but not something I would ever use

[Kazairl]

Don't listen to the nay sayers Galil. It is your type of left wing thinking that lead to using mice in the first place.

[FinsT]

Geez, nobody's forced to use it, that's for sure. PGI won't ever do such a silly thing as to prohibit standard controls (the way we have it now, pretty much). So, no worries! Noone's going to kill MWO by making it mandatorily two-mice game.

Nor was i talking about anything but optional nature of the suggested feature, - quoting myself from above: " Because if it culd work, then it'd one very unusual method to control in a PC game. Unusual is good - when _optional_, of course. ". Geez, there's a typo there, too! %)

About Strabismus: ok, ok, it was kinda a joke, which i guess is sort of obvious looking at the pic provided up there. Angles are... Too extreme, you know. Playing two-mice MWO would never lead to eyes being THAT far apart, you know? Geez, i knew i had to put a smile next to it... Ok, better late than never. Here's the big smile:

Yeah, i heard few things about possibilities for poor-regions' schools to operate multiple mice on a single PC - obviously with multiple pointers, one per pupil. Don't remember details, but guys who tried to implement some most simple educational games with this tech, - didn't get any much success. Don't remember why or how. But, if there is an SDK, then things are probably not as hopeless as i thought it is. Still, i'd imagine this is significant alteration of Windows internals, which means possible bugs, troubles with installation (admin rights etc), device conflicts, etc, - since it's not any mainstream tech. But at least MWO could be run on modern systems with proposed two-mice controls. Well, theoretically. Neat!

Despite some risk of getting some Strabismus, i think i'd try two-mice controlling, - at very worst, i'm just curious to see how it'd be playing with two mice; perhaps i'd love it, who knows?

Best of luck with your idea!

Edited by FinsT, 25 October 2013 - 05:43 AM.

[skotsche]

O_O WHOA! This is so crazy it would be awesome!

It would definitely need some more work. But the idea is so ****** up, that it might be fun. And probably it would, like Dwarffortress, have a learning cliff until you can really use it.

But I think that the current controls would still be more efficient, as focusing fire on one mech is to be preferred generally over spreading you damage over multiple mechs.

Thumbs up for a really creative control suggestion!


EDIT: Just came to my mind: Ambidexter would be OP. They would need a nerf!

Edited by skotsche, 02 November 2013 - 03:37 AM.

[Enzane]

Wouldn't this mimic the Dual joystick controls of say... the Steel Battalion Controller?

[Narcissistic Martyr]

You need foot pedals for for the steering. Analog control over rate of turning is awesome.

Also I'd prefer mouse for the arms and joystick for torso twist, throttle controll and any torso mounted weapons. As for different degrees of arm movement PGI could just cut the main reticule in half and then turn a piece red if that arm can't turn any further.

Edited by Narcissistic Martyr, 02 November 2013 - 10:46 AM.

[Galil Nain]

Enzane, on 02 November 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

Wouldn't this mimic the Dual joystick controls of say... the Steel Battalion Controller?

I take your point in terms of what devices you use to actually do the controlling, but one of the core parts of the suggestion was a separation of the left and right arm reticles. No matter what controller(s) you plug in to use with MWO, unless the devs incorporate code to allow for separation of control of the reticles this core part of the suggestion has not been met.

To clarify (in case I hadn't made this as clear as I should have), the suggestion is mainly to address the following shortcoming, with the two-mouse suggestion being the first means to such an end that came to mind (twin zero-order joysticks and a set of pedals would be OK by me, although zero-order joysticks seem to be somewhat rare!):

• There are examples in lore of pilots (elite ones, granted) targeting using their arms in opposing directions.
  
• Mechs are (mostly) based on humanoid structures. Most of us can point our arms in opposing directions without excessive effort.
  
• MWO does not incorporate a mechanic for this to be possible in-game.

Edited by Galil Nain, 06 November 2013 - 01:56 PM.