Auto-tracking reticule (with target "marking") would make combat about as challenging and involved as MS paint.
"Can you click the huge shape in the background? Congratulations! Now let the computer take care of things, while you can alt-tab and watch some youtube. Wait! New radar contact, click it too! Aren't you great, look at the explosions! And click this one! Awesome job, you sure clicked this one hard!" ...is this kindergarten? Provided you have enough weapons and no tonnage disadvantage, you would be able to easily play a big battle with one hand, while eating a sandwich.
Mechwarrior 3's system wasn't much better, since mechs were very clumsy and prone to falling, and the free reticule with all your weapons firing with pinpoint accuracy (barring the recoil from some) made it into a point-and-click adventure game. "Shoot unavoidable lasers, the enemy moved? No problem, mouse sensitivity is faster than a mech moving on the screen". MW4 system, while not perfect, at least imposed some chassis limitations to the aiming (torso twist and twist speed), rather than making mech combat an exchange of potshots, pistol duel-style.
Free reticule could work if the arms take some time to follow (and for arm-mounted weapons/missile lock only).
Edited by Alex Wolfe, 08 December 2011 - 03:20 AM.
Seriously… I prefer AUTOaiming method.
Got clear LOS to object, lock it as a target, and then choose the weapon to hit the target that being locked. Electronics will make all job, mechwarrior just need to keep the target in the correct weapon ark, hold the distance and spam the weapon groups buttons. Off cause you cannot hit locations you want. To do that you need to have a Targeting Computer . You want aim more then one target per time? No problem! Go and buy a Multi Tracking targeting system and install it on your Mech (good for fire support LRM armed units) for example.
With all respect previous MWs games aiming and targeting system was bull***t. Manual aiming by using mouse axes and joystick it’s for FPS. In my opinion to allow such manual aiming only when Mech’s targeting and tracking system was destroyed during the combat. In that case manual aiming going to be really difficult. You must at last slow down or even stop your Mech to do that.
I see you have a sense of humor. This thread needed a laugh, or two.
Well, now I know that not only Aidan Pryde prefer to fight being blinded. With all my respect, Alex did Kael Pershaw helped you? And now could you read my post once again please. And after that could you make your next arguments based not only on your own imagination. Thanks.
Indeed. Thank you.
But this is not only joke. Just imagine how difficult to control tones of biped metal; manage Info Tech during the fight etc… Do you really think that human can manually aim weapons in such high technology combat? Check the real life targeting ant tracking systems.
Can you guys just forget about MW-2,-3 and -4? Those games do never exist anymore. Just like non named Wolverine Clan. It is over. We got a RE-BO-O-T-IN-G of the universe. Or you just want MW4 with new graphics and engine + online? Me - not.
Well, now I know that not only Aidan Pryde prefer to fight being blinded. With all my respect, Alex did Kael Pershaw helped you? And now could you read my post once again please. And after that could you make your next arguments based not only on your own imagination. Thanks.
I like books too, thanks. Since we're digressing, ever read "The War of the Worlds"? Amazing stuff, hard to believe it was pretty much the first Science-Fiction novel. My recommendation. Let's review your post though, since you insist. Call it a Trial of Refusal, should it strike your fancy.
Barsov, on 08 December 2011 - 02:41 AM, said:
Seriously… I prefer AUTOaiming method.
Auto aiming, hmm? Interesting. What do you think that means?
Barsov, on 08 December 2011 - 02:41 AM, said:
Got clear LOS to object, lock it as a target, and then choose the weapon to hit the target that being locked. Electronics will make all job, mechwarrior just need to keep the target in the correct weapon ark, hold the distance and spam the weapon groups buttons.
Ah, but what you describe isn't auto aiming, it's heavily assisted aiming, pointing at a target for an aimbot, imperfect or otherwise. I'll have you know that at least one mainstream game has the desired system in place already: Team Fortress 2, with "the wrangler". Just by keeping the crosshair on the target you make the targetting computer land all its shots on it, with it doing all the calculations. It aims on the center of gravity, just with you "marking" any part - as you describe - and the shooter chooses whether to use guns or rockets (basically "spamming the weapon groups"), like you describe. Please tell me if I missed anything, but it seems exactly what you propose. For your convenience, here's the demonstration.
Now, you should know that the Wrangler turned out to be the most universally reviled, overpowered thing in the whole game - precisely because of the aiming system. It is literally point and click, the computer will do the rest. Assisted aimbot. Uninvolved and skill-less.
I'll pass on that in Mechwarrior.
Barsov, on 08 December 2011 - 02:41 AM, said:
Off cause you cannot hit locations you want. To do that you need to have a Targeting Computer . You want aim more then one target per time? No problem! Go and buy a Multi Tracking targeting system and install it on your Mech (good for fire support LRM armed units) for example.
Oh, so if you have more money to burn (credits?), you can upgrade your assisted aimbot to assist you even better, while the skill requirement is still the same (get in the clear, click)? Excellent. That's what we need - same or less work, for better results, with the tactical decision being made in a store. What can go wrong?
Barsov, on 08 December 2011 - 02:41 AM, said:
But this is not only joke. Just imagine how difficult to control tones of biped metal; manage Info Tech during the fight etc… Do you really think that human can manually aim weapons in such high technology combat? Check the real life targeting ant tracking systems.
Real life targetting systems? I always love it when self-styled military buffs come to science-fiction thread and say "this should work like the real life system XYZ". This game isn't supposed to be iterating on military combat, or the engagements would be done with tiny drones at a hundred kilometer range, and you would never even see the enemy. If you want a semi-realistic (for the times) representation of what an actual vehicular future combat may look like, I heartily recommend "Forever War" by Joe Haldeman. Hint: there are no mechs as we know them. Hint 2: the combatants are too far away to see each other. Sounds familiar so far?
This isn't supposed to be "evolution of the modern military", because modern weapons only get smaller, not bigger, and distances get longer, not shorter. This is, at its core, science-fiction point-blank range jousting with walking tanks. The game is supposed to represent the romanticism of face-to-face jousting with walking tanks. That's where tiny ranges, manual aiming, prominent decals and an actual live pilot inside (rather than remote control) come from. That's why Clan honor, Zellbringen, why Solaris Arena exists. It's not supposed to be the modern, faceless fire-and-forget on legs.
Barsov, on 08 December 2011 - 02:41 AM, said:
Can you guys just forget about MW-2,-3 and -4? Those games do never exist anymore. Just like non named Wolverine Clan. It is over. We got a RE-BO-O-T-IN-G of the universe. Or you just want MW4 with new graphics and engine + online? Me - not.
Sure, we can - that's why I mentioned a game with your idea already in place. The game is great, the idea sucks. Do you want this game to suck? Me - not.
Edited by Alex Wolfe, 08 December 2011 - 04:47 AM.
Ah, but what you describe isn't auto aiming, it's heavily assisted aiming, pointing at a target for an aimbot, imperfect or otherwise. I'll have you know that at least one mainstream game has the desired system in place already: Team Fortress 2, with "the wrangler". Just by keeping the crosshair on the target you make the targetting computer land all its shots on it, with it doing all the calculations. It aims on the center of gravity, just with you "marking" any part - as you describe - and the shooter chooses whether to use guns or rockets (basically "spamming the weapon groups"), like you describe. Please tell me if I missed anything, but it seems exactly what you propose. For your convenience, here's the demonstration.
Now, you should know that the Wrangler turned out to be the most universally reviled, overpowered thing in the whole game - precisely because of the aiming system. It is literally point and click, the computer will do the rest. Assisted aimbot. Uninvolved and skill-less.
I'll pass on that in Mechwarrior.
Just because its automatic doesn't mean it has to be good. Ever use auto aim in WoT? It sucks. You get far better results by aiming. It doesn't mean that you can't have both. You just have to tune the target lock so the average player is better off using it rather than the auto-aim.
I'm not a huge fan of such thing, but it does open the game up to people who who like the world, but might have medical issues preventing them from playing twitch type games.
TheRulesLawyer, on 08 December 2011 - 10:34 AM, said:
Just because its automatic doesn't mean it has to be good. Ever use auto aim in WoT? It sucks. You get far better results by aiming. It doesn't mean that you can't have both. You just have to tune the target lock so the average player is better off using it rather than the auto-aim.
I'm not a huge fan of such thing, but it does open the game up to people who who like the world, but might have medical issues preventing them from playing twitch type games.
This sounds reasonable, I haven't played WoT, but I could agree with the "semi-autopilot", as long as a moderately competent manual player would still have an advantage.
I don't want the torso sniping of MW4 to return any more than I want the free point-and-click of MW3 back (although with smaller torso hitboxes, MW4 is still preferable to me - at least it has some "machine lag" due to chassis constrains, rather than your mouse sensitivity being the only factor), but locking with a click, then mashing fire is no answer either. I agree that this game needs a compromise, still - the skill factor should be important in the end ("the person with a more souped-up targetting computer wins", is hardly involved combat).
Edited by Alex Wolfe, 08 December 2011 - 11:01 AM.
Auto-tracking reticule (with target "marking") would make combat about as challenging and involved as MS paint.
"Can you click the huge shape in the background? Congratulations! Now let the computer take care of things, while you can alt-tab and watch some youtube. Wait! New radar contact, click it too! Aren't you great, look at the explosions! And click this one! Awesome job, you sure clicked this one hard!" ...is this kindergarten? Provided you have enough weapons and no tonnage disadvantage, you would be able to easily play a big battle with one hand, while eating a sandwich.
Mechwarrior 3's system wasn't much better, since mechs were very clumsy and prone to falling, and the free reticule with all your weapons firing with pinpoint accuracy (barring the recoil from some) made it into a point-and-click adventure game. "Shoot unavoidable lasers, the enemy moved? No problem, mouse sensitivity is faster than a mech moving on the screen". MW4 system, while not perfect, at least imposed some chassis limitations to the aiming (torso twist and twist speed), rather than making mech combat an exchange of potshots, pistol duel-style.
Free reticule could work if the arms take some time to follow (and for arm-mounted weapons/missile lock only).
It was intended that the arms would take time to track. I assumed that accuracy would be reduced, especially at range, although this was not stated in the original post. It's because I couldn't come up with any easy way of manually controlling the arms and the mech that would be useable by everyone.This would make the arms a more viable location for weapons, especially given how many stock mechs mount arm weapons. What I didnt want was a MW3 point and click freefloating reticule for all weapons. It's your job to pilot the mech so that your torso weapons come to bear.
I see torso-mounted weapons as being inherently more stable, thus able to attain greater accuracy, but more affected (negatively) by battlemech movement. Arm mounted weapons would be the opposite, less affected by movement, but also generally less accurate.
I see them all tied to one reticule, with a built in margin of error like a certain other f2p game Perhaps your torso and arm weapons have different colored margins of error to differentiate?
As a side note here, I'm assuming there will be skills to train up for your pilot. Piloting skill that would reduce the chance of falls happening, and gunnery skills that reduce the negative effects of movement and speed.
One thing I'd love to see would be a target lead indicator to the HUD. It's very basic equipment on modern vehicle-mounted targeting systems and there's no reason it wouldn't exist in the 31st century.
Personally, I see myself playing the game with my joystick, mouse and throttle. It makes you have to physically choose to control motive or weapons systems, but still giving you moderate control over both.
2 Alex Wolfe
Ok. Looks like I found the seed of misunderstanding between you and me. Reading your posts I can make the conclusion that you are experienced PC gamer. But unfortunately your experience is limited by the PC games and some number of sci-fi fictions only.
Well the Mechwarrior video games and novels actually only part of the huge BattleTech universe. This universe based on the classical board game about BattleMechs (and not only BattleMeches). The board game rules, books and dozens of tech manuals (readouts) are the main source that describing to us all mechanics, physics (in mathematical dimension), economics and even philosophy of the BattleMeches combat, etc.
Learn more about the canon of the BT universe and perhaps you will able to see the objects from the new different angles. After that maybe we will continue our interesting conversation. Good luck.
P.S.: Talking about “auto-aiming, auto-targeting” idea: this idea is not belongs to me, it becomes reality many yeas ago and successfully using by military. So if you want say “sucks”, say it to A-10 and helo pilots who serving in Afghanistan right now.
…Just try to see the life not only as PC gamer. Nothing personnel, buddy.
er. But unfortunately your experience is limited by the PC games and some number of sci-fi fictions only.
Well the Mechwarrior video games and novels actually only part of the huge BattleTech universe. This universe based on the classical board game about BattleMechs (and not only BattleMeches). The board game rules, books and dozens of tech manuals (readouts) are the main source that describing to us all mechanics, physics (in mathematical dimension), economics and even philosophy of the BattleMeches combat, etc.
Uh... okay? You know, that's just an introduction to an argument, but... you're not making any point here, so... all that could answer to that, until you could come up with some concrete, compelling support to your theory or decent logic, is "yeah, I've read what you wrote".
Barsov, on 09 December 2011 - 02:42 PM, said:
Nothing personnel, buddy.
Well, sure.
Barsov, on 09 December 2011 - 02:42 PM, said:
P.S.: Talking about “auto-aiming, auto-targeting” idea: this idea is not belongs to me, it becomes reality many yeas ago and successfully using by military. So if you want say “sucks”, say it to A-10 and helo pilots who serving in Afghanistan right now.
…Just try to see the life on only as PC gamer.
Ok, wh... wait WHAT?
You didn't just try to patrio-patronize me, did you? If I were a bald eagle, I would cry. Not cool, bro. Not cool.
I think you're making those pilots a disservice by bringing it up in a thread about a game. I'm saying it sucks for a game. Hello? You sure we're at the same page? As entertainment. Guns and military gear, while they may have their "enthusiasts" (I wouldn't know why), are - to my best knoledge - made to be effective, not entertaining. Games, on the contrary, are made to be entertaining, with "efficiency" as the absolutely last concern. I came here to talk about a game, if I wanted a healthy serving of military pathos, I'd go visit a museum of military history, or something.
Are you sure you wouldn't prefer that battles in MWO were done by "surgical strikes" with unmanned flying drones, or inter-continental missiles? I heard the military, you know, the real military, the one that has nothing to do whatsoever with a Science Fiction Game About Fantasy Giant Robots, is quite fond of them.
First you bring up some book characters, and then telling us to think what's good for a game, and now... implying that I am somehow unpatriotic by not supporting your idea about aimbots? I... have no words. Not cool.
Edited by Alex Wolfe, 09 December 2011 - 03:14 PM.
Now with that out of the way if we were to follow the canon and lore for the battletech universe (not the mechwarrior computer games) a battlemechs targeting controls include:
1 or 2 joysticks that move a targeting reticule indicator this could be a ring 0 an X a + or similar when the pilot gets the indicator over a "target" and designates it the mechs weapons track to line up on that "target point" (this is NOT an instant process) the pilot's joystick typically has at least 1 trigger button at least 1 "hat" some number of "thumb buttons" etc
lets say for instance you are piloting a panther, it has 1 joystick, the trigger button fires the ppc, and the 1 thumb button triggers the srm 4 (in the default control setup)
if you were piloting a warhammer, it has 2 joysticks the right joystick controls: the right ppc, the right torso weapons, srm6, medium laser machine gun small laser etc. the left joystick controls the weapons mounted on the left side of the mech ppc, medium laser, small laser, machine gun. the finger triggers left and right, fire the ppc's then there are 3 additional buttons (on the left) joystick, and 4 on the right that trigger additional weapons.
now frankly a setup like that is unwieldy or impractical for most people to fully impliment.
but what I believe could be done is to put in the designator pointer and the individual weapons trackers along with the "click fire" aspect
thing is if you have it as how your all talking about then, wont it just turn into an Armoured Core with the auto aim/lock on, to me thats boring.
I would prefer it if it was like MW4 because then it'll be more involved and then you'd have reason to use the torso twist aswell
or maybe something like your talking about BUT thats another function where you have to press a button and fills up part of the screen acting as the camera on the arm guns?
Edited by Nitsua Asuka, 10 December 2011 - 08:09 AM.
I would also go with two aiming circles, in this way you need more skill to play and it makes it much more fun. One for arm and one for Torso weapons unless they are in the same weapon group, up to the moment, that the second arm can't fire on the target anymore. This weapon could be centered on the Torso mark to fire if you want to perform an Alphastrike and is otherwise deactivated.
Or you take every weapon group as aiming circles. Would get quite complex then.
But for sure two circles.
Additionally, I would enjoy a not 100% hit in the center of the aiming circle. Everyone who read BT knows that the systems are not that correct and it would also be a good point for character development to make it part by pert more exact :-)
Nitsua Asuka, on 10 December 2011 - 08:06 AM, said:
thing is if you have it as how your all talking about then, wont it just turn into an Armoured Core with the auto aim/lock on, to me thats boring.
I would prefer it if it was like MW4 because then it'll be more involved and then you'd have reason to use the torso twist aswell
or maybe something like your talking about BUT thats another function where you have to press a button and fills up part of the screen acting as the camera on the arm guns?
if you were replying to me, then no thats not what I was thinking would match the "lore"
to match the lore there would be:
1 or 2 "targeting" pointers that you as the player (pilot) control.
example I am piloting a panther, it only has 2 weapons I do not DIRECTLY control the aim of the weapon instaid I move a pointer, as I move this pointer the mechs weapons try to track it, however they may take anywhere between 1 and say 5 seconds to "track" to my aimpoint, additionally each weapon on my mech tracks individually NOT as a group if I put my aimpoint over the end of the barrel on a locust both my ppc and srm 4 will attempt to track in so that those weapons will hit that spot, but ~1 second after I "designate" that target point the ppc aimpoint is "on top of the locust" after ~ 1.5 seconds it is on top of the locusts hip after ~ 2 seconds it should hit the center torso or the head, after ~2.5 seconds it should hit the laser turret (or the laser) after ~3-3.5 seconds if I fire it I should hit the laser
the srm pack should have similar tracking however I would say the missiles should have semi-guided / semi "random" flight paths and flight patterns. lets say the srm missiles fly in a spiral sorta like a dna helix the srm2 would be a "double" helis, srm 4 a quad helix and a srm 6 a hex helix
basically the blue-green spiral would be the flight path of the missiles (although not necessarally as "tight of a spiral"
lrms could also do that but I think a salvo flight path kinda like the ship that starts off on the right in this video altho not necessarally as pronounced mabie more like http://www.youtube.c...xnC6jkJyEM&NR=1
where the missiles launch then head away from each other before trying to converge (in groups of up to 5) on the target would be fairly true to the lore
Well I know its not really the best example, but I must say I love the Aiming in the MW:LL mod.
I mean at first time I played it, I was like: "Aww damn... I cant hit a anything with my Lasers"
But then I realized it was great to feel like play the Novels. I mean spread laser fire over a mech
and damaging multiple areas in a single sweep, aiming at specific mech parts to see them blow up.
(yeah vulture cockpit... maybe you know what I mean.)
but to balance it a bit more this should also be affected by different torso/arm twist speed,
I mean in relation to actuator power, engeryoutput and mass.
With a modern engine this should be possible, and also give you the optiopn to tune
and personalize your owned mechs to a degree you like, and your playstile.
But one thing I hate in MW:LL... you cant move out your arm when your torsotwist ends.
I mean beeing circled by a light mech and he can fool you just by keeping behind you.
With some moving arms I could at least hit him, not with all my firepower but doing damage.
And I also need freeaiming like MW3 (but with some serious overhaul and balancing).
Because with a free aim it would be more like the novels.
Hmm but fixed torso is also crap, and multiple axis to steer everything... with keyboard and mouse only?
Maybe a standart fixed center position as you start, with normal torso twist included, but with a hotkey
to switch to free Aim (by keep holding that key) and in free aim you can move out the "frontalframe"
into you left and right supportcamera screens (I mean those seen in the Hunchback concept art)
to use your arms in a circle of death.
So you could lie that hotkey on your mouse buttons to make it easier to access in stressed
actual combat situations. (you know you get nervous when the Adrenalin starts to kick in)
But all those things have the actual Mech in mind, and there is no unified torso/arm speed
so everyone can use it as they want without drawbacks.
hmm and as I thinkabout it, MW3 had also some kind of "dynamic" weapon grouping.
Means you can only Fire those weapons your crosshair is aiming at, and not wasting ammo
or increasing Heat just because you fire all weapons in that group, if needed or not.
really, this is a multiplayer game first and foremost, unless we are talking about projectiles that actually have tracking ala missiles, autoaim or aim assist really has no purpose being here. Doesn't matter how accurate it is to the fluff.
I would like to see a helmet mounted hud reticle so your mouse or joystick controls your head movement. this could control the arm mounted weapons and a fixed reticle on your forward view port and have your torso mounted weapons aimed by this. also have the MW3 reticle zoom noise
Seriously… I prefer AUTOaiming method.
Got clear LOS to object, lock it as a target, and then choose the weapon to hit the target that being locked. Electronics will make all job, mechwarrior just need to keep the target in the correct weapon ark, hold the distance and spam the weapon groups buttons. Off cause you cannot hit locations you want. To do that you need to have a Targeting Computer . You want aim more then one target per time? No problem! Go and buy a Multi Tracking targeting system and install it on your Mech (good for fire support LRM armed units) for example.
Yowch.
Not MW. Not MW ... at ... all.
I don't think that even MA got it this wrong...
The 'mechs T&T system does not auto aim. That's completely taboo and forbidden to 'mechs. They are simply too destructive to even be allowed to choose targets and track them with weapons!
The "tracking" part of a 'mechs computers and sensors has the job of tracking ... what the pilot is indicating with its weapons; and nothing else.
6
. You want aim more then one target per time? No problem! Go and buy a Multi Tracking targeting system and install it on your Mech (good for fire support LRM armed units) for example.
Perhaps your torso and arm weapons have different colored margins of error to differentiate?
