115 replies to this topic

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I agree with what Pht says. I think one of the problems that has regularly been occurring on this (and many previous) board is a conceptual and semantic disconnect. To ecpand, when you are physically holding a weapon such as a rifle etc in RL then you are aiming in the sense most people mean. In a mech, and even in an Abrams (given the extensive reliance on the targeting computer) you are acting as a target designator. You then, based on a number of cues, decided when & what to fire, after manouvering if necessary. My suggestion was a possible way in which arm based weapons could be utilised, given the physical limitations of controling them real time in a game while still manouvering the mech. With regard to the fixed (MW4) or free floating (MW3) main (or only) reticule, I an ambivalent as I can see pro's & con;s for both. At the moment I am tending towards a fixed reticule (at least for torso weapons).From the poll results the people that have voted are also split fairly evenly. To be honest I am surprised that as many people voted for my suggestion as did.

[Barsov]

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.

World of Tanks could be a good example of the "auto-aiming" method that I'm talking about. In MWO it can be as a default aiming method with additional manual aiming method which helps to aim immobile (sniper shot) and close range targets. Easy switch between auto and manual any time you want. I don’t see a big problem here.
Such system more close to the canon combat between Mechs that described in the CBT game rules.

[Dashermkii]

I strongly disagree with automatic aiming systems as it would take most of the skill and fast pace out of the game.
I do understand how people say that in the future we would be able to have fully automatic Aiming but this is a game and in the future i doubt we will really be using mechs. that and a EMP would fry the targeting computer and HUD.
Giving people auto aim would effect the game in a bad way as it would remove the skill of having to aim.....
If people really want a auto aim Maybe make a good auto aim that's a second or two behind the enemy and even that i would dislike.


sorry if im confusing im not very good at putting ideas into words.


Btw hi I'm new to the forums and look forward to this gaming coming out.

[Blastcaps]

with the multi rectile idea, for people using mouse and keyboard I'd suggest the targeting rectile move with the mouse so the arm mounted weapons track via the mouse and the torso possibley roatates/follows/auto centers on where players currently have the targeting recticle having a seperate center reticle to indicate torso weapons alignment, and the default behaviour being that torso weapons dont fire until very close to the arm reticle, unless players toggle it themselfs, i'd also have both a hot key as well as a menu option to allow players to prevent the torso reticle from tracking/aligning towards the arm targeting to allow players to be able to split fire as they desire/are/get proficent to keep torso targeting on one target while allowing arm weapons to be focused on another target as well as allowing seperate torso rotation etc.

basicly the ideas to make the inital targeting easy for anyone to start playing with but allow for more flexability with regards to firing behaviour for people who will at some stage have been playing for a while.

Edited by Blastcaps, 14 December 2011 - 10:51 PM.

[RGD2]

I like the multiple cursors scheme, but i'd also like to be able to use mouse or POV hat to freelook - independently of the point of aim cursors for the arms AND the torso-aligned weapons reticle. Think, like looking about from a cockpit in an aircraft - not just locked to the 90 degree arc in which the torso happens to point, although that could be default.

I would expect a head-mounted HUD reticle like they do for modern heli gunners / F-35 pilots - would be the mouse cursor, with the angle of view moving with it up to the extents of the angle visible from the cockpit. I think having many different things moving independently adds more coordination skill to the game - much harder to hit a moving target on reflex this way. OTOH, be set up and zoomed in covering a particular area, and quick and accurate aiming is easier - maybe focus the screens view in on a cockpit mounted monitor showing the zoomed in view aligned with the cockpit. POV blur the rest of the view out, but leave a little peripheral blurred vision through the cockpit window - just enough to be able to notice obvious motion, as if from the corner of one's eye.

In MW3 it was always most accurate to lock the mouse to the torso movement for long range aimed fire - made it easier to line up those tricky cockpit shots. The cursor expanding to show the zoomed view was nice, but I think perhaps more a clan thing than IS, which is why I'd prefer an in cockpit monitor, which could always show that view regardless of whether the player is leaning forward to focus on it exclusively - think more the monitor for the bomb sight from the F/A-18 in the BF3 single player campaign, except more like the scopes in RedOrchestra2 - not completely obscuring peripheral vision, but ensuring that it is out of focus.

Anyway, just some suggestions. Perhaps make the 'scope optional depending on weapon? Could show UAV or Artemis LRM POV as well... Really only makes sense on weapons with the range to reach out and touch... maybe zoom depending on that too - really high 12x for gauss / Large ER Lasers, 6x for AC2's 4x for AC5's. I'd like to see a CCIP indicator in the scope on the ballistic ones - controls move the whole torso, with gun, so the computer can only overlay a reticle showing where it thinks the locked target will be when the round arrives there, and the impact point will change depending on range and angle.

Such aimed fire ought be be only really doable when stopped - sway would probably be too much for the zoom otherwise, although leaving it visible all the time at reduced resolution as part of the cockpit may allow a skilled player a chance to slightly adjust aim quickly.

Ideas, ideas, I have many, I have strongly desired a well-executed 'mech game for a long time, pretty much since MW3 got dated. (still annoyed at the over-consolization that was MW4, I consider it a big step back from MW3. If you've gotta consolize - fine. Maybe make the more advanced tricks learnable skills?

[RJF Falconer]

I prefer the system used in MW2 or MPBT

[Gunman5000]

Other

I voted other because I think it should be a sort of combination of the options.

I always liked Steel Battalion's aiming system. You have a fixed or floating reticule (it was floating in SB if I recall) that represents where you are currently aimed. Then you have a separate reticule that indicates where the weapon(s) is actually tracking at any given time. If you place your "main" reticule over a target, you would have to wait a certain amount of time (depending on the weapon) for the secondary reticule to track to that location.

From the OP, I would like to possibly see the option of selecting any combination of torso, left or right arm reticules at any time. Either through weapon groups (easiest way, and its already implemented) or using the suggested icons in a toggle mode, clicking turns it on or off, with an additional one to represent torso aiming.

The multi-circle reticule would be great to represent limited tracking of torso weapons and the extended tracking of arm weapons while still keeping the HUD uncluttered by using a singular reticule instead of a separate one for each gun.

Combining that with the multiple reticule option from the OP and the multi-circle reticule suggested by ManDaisy, you could have a system similar to the following;

Let's say our 'mech has 4 medium lasers, 1 in each arm (left and right) and 2 in the torso. Our weapon group (or above selection of "reticules") has all 4 weapons in it. If I'm aiming directly ahead, all 4 weapons can hit, no issue. If I change my aim to the left, but within the confines of the inner circle (representing torso range/tracking) suggested by ManDaisy, all 4 weapons can still hit but there is a slight delay while the weapons track to the new target. If I move further left until the reticule is outside the inner circle, but within the outer circle, the torso weapons will track as far as possible but cannot reach it. The arms however will track to it with no issue, just the delay while tracking. Finally if I move the reticule even further left, outside of the outer circle, the right arm will track as far as possible but can't reach it either just like the torso weapons before, left arm can reach no problem.

As a 'mech moves around the tracking wouldn't be 100% so there would be some drift around the reticule, also heat would increase this "drift" as well. Depending how in depth you would want the system to be, each weapon could have its own drift, or simply have the torso, left and right arm as having their own drift regardless of weapons installed. When not actually aimed on target a second "ghost" reticule could easily be displayed to indicate the location the weapon is aiming towards. If aimed outside of a weapons tracking range it would remain along the closest edge to where your trying to aim so that you always know where the weapons are aimed. This drift could be modified slightly from 'mech to 'mech, by "upgrading" the fire control system (if possible), through pilot skills (learned abilities to help minimize), or in the advent of targetting computers (which I believe don't exist until AFTER the Clan Invasion if I remember correctly).

[Orayn]

Personally, I'd want something that resembles MW4 in terms of basic functionality, in that your 'Mech's weapons would be harmonized to the center of your current viewpoint by default. What I would add to that would be the ability to move that reticle about the screen, albeit within limits established by the currently selected group. That is to say, the group could only aim together along angles that each of its constituent weapons could be pointed. The allowable area for aiming the group could be represented by a bounding box whose size and shape would correspond to the active weapon group. Bear in mind that when I say "active," I only mean it for purposes of a reticle - You would also have the option of a generic reticle that would always remain centered.

[Dlardrageth]

Barsov, on 14 December 2011 - 04:08 AM, said:

World of Tanks could be a good example of the "auto-aiming" method that I'm talking about. In MWO it can be as a default aiming method with additional manual aiming method which helps to aim immobile (sniper shot) and close range targets. Easy switch between auto and manual any time you want. I don’t see a big problem here.
Such system more close to the canon combat between Mechs that described in the CBT game rules.

The problem there would again be the "lag factor". I'm sure you know that a lot of people in WoT use the "workaround" actually requesting the "server reticule" to be shown instead of the normal one? Let me tell you, with pings of regularily 400+ (downunder for example) you don't want to rely on what the game shows you for autoaiming. It would just hand a major advantage to anyone with a better connection at a given time on a silver platter. and I'd rather not have the randomness of internet connections decide on how well I can perform in MWO. I'd rather have skill determine that.

That'S the same reason why too complicated aiming systems are a bad choice IMHO. The more complicated it gets, trhe more vulnerable to lag issues you become. I'm not a big fan of the over-simplification MW4 performed in some parts, but one has to admit that, as opposed to MW2 and MW3, the multiplayer aspect worked relatively smooth there. And that's really the core issue here... any game mechanics that will give too much of an advantage to people who happen to have a better internet connection on a given day will set up MWO to fail. Because most people won't bother to even try competing when the chances are rigged at start already.

[Dredger]

IMHO, simpler is usually better. This holds doubly true as this company is new to this franchise (no offense to the geeks on the dev team). Therefore I selected single fixed reticule.

[Blastcaps]

Dlardrageth, on 15 December 2011 - 11:50 PM, said:

The problem there would again be the "lag factor". I'm sure you know that a lot of people in WoT use the "workaround" actually requesting the "server reticule" to be shown instead of the normal one? Let me tell you, with pings of regularily 400+ (downunder for example) you don't want to rely on what the game shows you for autoaiming. It would just hand a major advantage to anyone with a better connection at a given time on a silver platter. and I'd rather not have the randomness of internet connections decide on how well I can perform in MWO. I'd rather have skill determine that.

That'S the same reason why too complicated aiming systems are a bad choice IMHO. The more complicated it gets, trhe more vulnerable to lag issues you become. I'm not a big fan of the over-simplification MW4 performed in some parts, but one has to admit that, as opposed to MW2 and MW3, the multiplayer aspect worked relatively smooth there. And that's really the core issue here... any game mechanics that will give too much of an advantage to people who happen to have a better internet connection on a given day will set up MWO to fail. Because most people won't bother to even try competing when the chances are rigged at start already.

which is why the default one should be simple as possible, but still allow players in options etc to adjust it, allowing players to choose how complex they want the targetting/tracking to be, sometimes being able to split fire if you choose is good, but keeping the default option one simple allows peeps starting the game the option to just start and go from there, where as some stage some are going to have played for a long time and want the option of shooting torso weapons one way at one target while shooting at a second one in a diff direction. basicly what saying here is giving the players the choice of how they want it to respond, each person likes having their controls setup in a way they've picked to match the way they play.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

It's why I started this - give people options rather than limit them. Not all mechs have weapons that are arm mounted so for them it couldn't be used anyway.I like the Hunchback for example but also like the Warhammer.

[Mordhar]

I like system used in AT1:BT – 2 reticules, one in center of the screen (fixed weapons) and other is moving (arms/non-fixed weapons).
It gives enough control of targeting without making things too complicated. And allows to avoid unrealistic behavior of weapons like in MW3, when guns/lasers fixed in mech’s torso can fire at strange angle to the barrel.

About MW4-style: I like to pretend this “masterpiece of mech-simulation games” never existed.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Wouldn't a reticle system really be dependant on what kind of setup you have in terms of keyboard/ mouse? It's been a while since I played keyboard shooters, so if I'm wrong please understand. (WASD) was for movement via feet. and mouse was for your head. So in a traditional shooter your feet and head would move pretty simply. But now you're talking about a 3 story mech that has NO neck, therefore in order to traverse correctly you'd have to assign additional buttons to rotate the torso like C and V for left right motion. Otherwise you'd need either an additional scroll button on your mouse for left and right rotation.

Since I'm going off the fact that only the WASD and mouse are being used you could not link torso and arm weapons in a group effectively. You'd either have to run the risk of additional heat from the torso weapons firing at thin air. Or not being able to actually fire with the torso weapons until the hard reticle was active by identifying that a mech was within it's field of vision.

Your arm mounted weapons cannot go beyond your mech's field of vision. So unless you move your mouse all the way to the left or right indicating that you are moving your torso in that direction you'd loose tracking with your weapons?? Help me understand.

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 21 January 2012 - 10:31 AM.

[Dlardrageth]

KuruptU4Fun, on 21 January 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

Wouldn't a reticle system really be dependant on what kind of setup you have in terms of keyboard/ mouse? It's been a while since I played keyboard shooters, so if I'm wrong please understand. (WASD) was for movement via feet. and mouse was for your head. So in a traditional shooter your feet and head would move pretty simply. But now you're talking about a 3 story mech that has NO neck, therefore in order to traverse correctly you'd have to assign additional buttons to rotate the torso like C and V for left right motion. Otherwise you'd need either an additional scroll button on your mouse for left and right rotation.

What makes you think MWO will become a "keyboard shooter"?

And nice thread necro, Mordhar...

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I use a joystick to control the mech in conjunction with a programable controller and mouse, there again I'm ambidextrous. Many people use keyboard and mouse - there are a lot of keys to learn. Maybe they will have clickable buttons in the cockpit.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Dlardrageth, on 21 January 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

What makes you think MWO will become a "keyboard shooter"? And nice thread necro, Mordhar...

Because most people will not go out and buy elaborate joystick systems to play a game. (by elaborate I mean bundles like joysitck, throttle, and foot pedals) to play a game.

[Dlardrageth]

KuruptU4Fun, on 21 January 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

Because most people will not go out and buy elaborate joystick systems to play a game. (by elaborate I mean bundles like joysitck, throttle, and foot pedals) to play a game.

Okay, maybe not "elaborate" ones, but a mere joystick? I hear many people buy way more expensive consoles and/or additional controllers for those, what is the price tag there compared to a simple joystick?

[KuruptU4Fun]

Dlardrageth, on 21 January 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

Okay, maybe not "elaborate" ones, but a mere joystick? I hear many people buy way more expensive consoles and/or additional controllers for those, what is the price tag there compared to a simple joystick?

Because most people (general public), are not comfortable buying a joysick because the concept of using it to move is foreign to them. Keyboards, mice, controllers for consoles are easy to use. I bought a driving wheel for my Xbox360 and all it really does is collect dust.

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 21 January 2012 - 11:18 AM.

[DEVASTATOR]

Only read the first few posts so maybe this has been suggested but....

Instead of 3 reticles how about one larger reticle that would look like a rectangle. Inside the rectangle would be several "Dots" that would correspond to the different weapon "locations". 2 arm dots and a dot for all torso mounted weapons spaced slightly apart. That would give "weapons spread" (still not my favorite idea) but not make it arbitrary. You'd still hit what you were aiming at in a sense. You could get elaborate and have one of the dots light up brighter/larger when you select only the arm weapons in chain fire - all of them to light up when you've selected all weapons.

Of course, you still have an issue with people saying that the arms move and can converge on a single point - which they wouldn't be doing necessarily with this kind of system. And, if you had missiles across the torso and arms they'd be hard to lock on if the dots would never line up over the target. Basically its like straight ahead shooting as though you were in a fighter plane and have to aim the plane to hit your target.

Of course, you could induce a "reticle lag" system to overcome that problem. In other words, as you move the torso around the 3 dots separate and once you've stopped the torso turn they slowly begin to converge. Think about playing a FPS where when you are running and shooting the reticle is very large and the shots are sprayed. When you stop movement the reticle closes in and becomes more accurate.

Edited by DEVASTATOR, 21 January 2012 - 03:30 PM.