40 replies to this topic

[Z0MBIE Y0SHI]

This is something I've always wanted.

The majority of Mechs I loved to pilot had a 360 torso twist. On of my favorite things to do was flee/run towards objectives while sill facing them blowing my LBX all over there torso.

....ahem... Anyway, I think it would be cool to have the option to attach a rear view camera on the rear torso (This would also make it damageable. Rear torso gone, no/staticy feed.)

Imagine doing this with ease on urban maps. Maneuvering through the streets while still facing that incoming Assault and popping shots at him. I'm sure those of us that multi-monitor games would love this.

[Grugore]

An image pops into my head of a cockpit with a rearview mirror and some fuzzy dice hanging from it.

Edited by Grugore, 30 June 2012 - 04:44 PM.

[Bloodweaver]

MW4 had a rear-view camera... and I believe MW2 did as well... neither of which I ever actually used. There was no point, since radar told you everything you needed to know. With targeting in MW:O being dependent on line-of-sight, then maybe it could be useful... but with the lack of rear-firing weapons, I doubt it.

[BlackAbbot]

The rear view camera was handy in something like a Thanatos when you did the charge in from between two buildings and fire, jump jet over and rotate 180 degrees and charge away while firing into their back trick if you wanted to quickly tap your hat switch and make sure you weren't running into a building or something.

[Agent CraZy DiP]

Can't you put Light MGs in the back of your legs? I sweat I remember doing this in the TT at some point in time.

[BlackAbbot]

This is not without risks:

[Adrienne Vorton]

naw, no need for that... you have your sensors, you have to be aware of enemy movement, and you have to rely on your lancemates.... i think thats way more interesting than having a rear (or off-mech) camera or something...

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 01 July 2012 - 10:09 AM.

[Future Perfect]

Adrienne Vorton, on 01 July 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

naw, no need for that... you have your sensors, you have to be aware of enemy movement, and you have to rely on your lancemates.... i think thats way more interesting than having a rear (or off-mech) camera or something...

You really are against change aren't you?

Tough luck.

[Mchawkeye]

Only issue I can see with a Rear view camera is that currently targeting information is line of sight; adding a rear cam would alter that dynamic.
maybe it's an upgrade module, maybe it would unbalance things.

[Bloodweaver]

"Line of sight" doesn't mean you have to actually be LOOKING at the enemy in order to target him. It just means that there cannot be any obstacles such as hills or buildings in the way. You would maintain targeting info on a Mech behind you so long as he wasn't hiding behind something.

[Agent CraZy DiP]

Future Perfect, on 01 July 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

You really are against change aren't you?

Tough luck.

I hear he's also against puppies.

[Mchawkeye]

line of sight maintains that you have to be able to see the mech you are targeting. You can't see behind you, normally, so you will not get any targeting information about that mech.

Unless of course, you have a team mate covering you. or one of the many other elements like a UAV can detect it.

or, if you have a rear view camera...

[Bloodweaver]

Mchawkeye, you're wrong. That's not what "line of sight" means. That's what "sight" means. If the two were the same thing, we wouldn't have two different terms.

[Agent CraZy DiP]

line of sight
n. pl. lines of sight
1. An imaginary line from the eye to a perceived object.
2. An unobstructed path between sending and receiving antennas.
line of sight
n
1. the straight line along which an observer looks or a beam of radiation travels
2. (Medicine) Ophthalmol another term for line of vision

line of vision
n
(Medicine) Ophthalmol a straight line extending from the fovea centralis of the eye to an object on which the eye is focused Also called line of sight

Means you can visually see it with your eye. Also... A rear-cam would give you LOS behind you.

Edited by Agent CraZy DiP, 01 July 2012 - 11:56 AM.

[Bloodweaver]

Again, no. Targeting is not dependent on your eyes. It's dependent on the Mech's sensors. And the sensors are not in the pilot's eyes, but in the Mech. It's irrelevant whether or not YOU can see the target - all that matters is whether or not the MECH can "see" it. Unless there's an obstruction, the Mech will have no problem targeting an enemy in front of, behind, or to the side of it.

[Agent CraZy DiP]

Bloodweaver, on 01 July 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

Mchawkeye, you're wrong. That's not what "line of sight" means. That's what "sight" means. If the two were the same thing, we wouldn't have two different terms.

I wasn't arguing with you about what a mech used to sense the enemy (radar), I was just stating a fact about the actual definition of the term LoS. I agree, a mech does use its radar and sensors to get the majority of its Info. However, there is a visual element that comes into play with "spotting". There are things that True LoS should be required for, such as; Critical Damage assessment, Weapon loadout, Enemy heading. There are somethings that Radar can't pick up. Keep in-mind Radar can really only tell you the enemy position.

Edited by Agent CraZy DiP, 01 July 2012 - 12:25 PM.

[Bloodweaver]

Yes, but the definition depends on the source. For example, if you're a fighter pilot, another plane several thousand feet below or behind you would still be in "your" line of sight, because it's understood that in such a case the "your" is really referring more to the plane to you yourself.

I don't think actual visual confirmation will be needed for the more specific information, although it will obviously be required for missile lock. The Devs have stated such information will come in sequentially, i.e. the longer you maintain target lock, the more info you'll get on the enemy's status. Not saying it should or shouldn't be that way, just saying I don't think it will based on the information we've been given.

Heading, however, should not be visual-dependent at all... It's just a calculation of the target's position and movement vector. Both are picked up by sensors. Frankly, it's not even necessary, since Mechwarrior sensor systems display target positions continually, rather than in pings. Torso direction, on the other hand, would make sense...

[Future Perfect]

Agent CraZy DiP, on 01 July 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

I wasn't arguing with you about what a mech used to sense the enemy (radar), I was just stating a fact about the actual definition of the term LoS. I agree, a mech does use its radar and sensors to get the majority of its Info. However, there is a visual element that comes into play with "spotting". There are things that True LoS should be required for, such as; Critical Damage assessment, Weapon loadout, Enemy heading. There are somethings that Radar can't pick up. Keep in-mind Radar can really only tell you the enemy position.

What Mchawkeye is your alt account?

Ah everything becomes clear now all those negative people it's just you and your many alt accounts.

How sad.

[Agent CraZy DiP]

Now you're trolling in other forum topics? Future Perfect, check your hurt feelings at the door or gtfo.

[Future Perfect]

Agent CraZy DiP, on 01 July 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

Now you're trolling in other forum topics? Future Perfect, check your hurt feelings at the door or gtfo.

I just got to say this, do you realise that your forum name will be your ingame name forever?