25 replies to this topic

[dolgar]

I've been thinking about the way knock down has been handled in past mechwarrior games and it has been fine for the most part because it wasn't common and the situations it usually occurred meant you were crippled.

But being fine is far from ideal.

I would like the devs to consider creating a graphical interface (an object with liquid inside) that represents your balance orientation. As you move about the liquid ebbs and flows representing how close you come to falling down from performing a tighter highspeed turn or from trying maneuver over very rough terrain or dealing with the knockdown potential of weapons fire.

To counteract this ebb and flow you perform movement actions that allow you to counteract against your momentum.


I think it's important to not just have these commands exist just to deal with the UI, their gameplay utility has to go beyond this. These commands could actually be used to allow mechs to juke and jive to better avoid weapons fire or dip and sway the angle of their body to get better shots.


My primary concern is about knock down but this idea is applicable to cone of fire as well. You could have both handled by the same UI yet I believe two separate distinct graphical objects for balance and aiming should be used.

The second graphical interface would be a re-imagination of the reticule as 2-4 glass *****.
Each glass ball is smaller than the other and all of them are inside the next largest ball. Each ball is filled with a liquid that sprays around as you fire weapons. This spray pattern allows you to predict where the next shot will spread to.
The largest ball roughly represents the weapons with the longest range brackets. Each of the smaller ***** represent a set of weapons within a similarly decreased range band.



My only misgiving about this type of mechanic is that it encourages playing the UI moreso than keeping your eyes over the more visually interesting things we could be looking at on the screen.

Edited by dolgar, 03 December 2011 - 07:14 AM.

[VYCanis]

i think that might be over complicating thngs.

if you want to have user control over the possibility of them getting knocked over.
It could be something as simple as prompting a situation where you get some kind of audio/visual warning that you are losing balance. and have it where you use your forward/reverse/turn keys to attempt to stabilize against the direction of the fall.

[Threat Doc]

Why not just use an attitude indicator, like aircraft use today to help pilots keep their machines upright and level with the ground? I don't know, with all of the gauges and what-not that show up in the recent cockpit art, there are certainly enough places. However, for game-play itself, I don't really think it's going to be all that necessary, unless the devs are going to make the game as physically correct as possible; otherwise, nothing needed.

[Cyttorak]

Let's make the game interface something like Dance Dance Revolution, so that tens of thousands of mechwarriors will be concentrating on keeping their mechs upright instead of shooting the enemy.

[Agasutin]

OR, have a higher piloting skill... > . >

[minobu tetsuharu]

VYCanis, on 03 December 2011 - 07:39 AM, said:

i think that might be over complicating thngs.

if you want to have user control over the possibility of them getting knocked over.
It could be something as simple as prompting a situation where you get some kind of audio/visual warning that you are losing balance. and have it where you use your forward/reverse/turn keys to attempt to stabilize against the direction of the fall.

Well having visual/audio queues is the sort of thing I would want to see implemented to avoid having players focused on the UI to avoid the misgiving I have. If you have a suggestion or two on specific ideas feel free to lay them out here.

Kay Wolf, on 03 December 2011 - 08:05 AM, said:

Why not just use an attitude indicator, like aircraft use today to help pilots keep their machines upright and level with the ground? I don't know, with all of the gauges and what-not that show up in the recent cockpit art, there are certainly enough places. However, for game-play itself, I don't really think it's going to be all that necessary, unless the devs are going to make the game as physically correct as possible; otherwise, nothing needed.

The game doesn't need to be physically correct. Did you play MW 3? Sometimes you fell down because you had been hit by weapons too hard.

In other FPS games you don't fall down randomly unless it incorporates RPG mechanics. In those cases the knock down skills have animations that tell you that you are going to be knocked down.

Wouldn't you like mechanisms in place to help you understand why a seemingly random even happens?

An altimeter would work but it is too simplistic since if I understand it correctly it only accounts for one axis, Z. You need to also account for X axis as well. I suggest the liquid method because it better represents the aggregate direction you are going in.

For example you make a sharp left turn after you are hit from behind on be energy weapons. Energy weapons melt away your body thus forcing you to pitch towards the direction you were attacked from. The sharp turn on the other hand involves your forward momentum.

In either case you could fall but the direction in which you fall is going to be different. If the energy weapon attack is to weak to make you fall but you couldn't handle the tight turn you made then you skid forward. If the turn was easy to manage but the energy weapon attack exceeded any normal threshold to absorb weapon damage then you fall flat on your ***.

Obviously a liquid doesn't have to be used but it gets across the point that some abstraction is needed.

Agasutin, on 03 December 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:

OR, have a higher piloting skill... > . >

Or have both. Since this game is going to incorporate RPG leveling traits then its possible to incorporate your idea with mine to just make the threshold at which the pilot has to be concerned about losing balance higher.




FYI - My secondary account is Dolgar. I accidentally used it as the OP because this website doesn't properly save cookies so I have to constantly relogin.

[verybad]

Here's how I see it.

Sure give it a Cone of Fire that reduces as you aim on a target (different weapons reduce their cone at different rates.

A Mechwwarriros skill will reduce the time it takes for those weapons to reduce their cone of accuracy depending on how he spends his skill points.

For instance, if you increas accuracy with LRMs then you get a faster lockon.

Different equipment can also affect that accuracy cone reduction. Targeting computers halve the time for direct fire weapons. Streak missiles remove lockon time for missiles, Artemis Systems reduce the overall size of the accuracy cone. NARC pods also remove the lockon time for missiles.

Being in range of an eney ECM bubble will remove osme of those bonuses, and perhaps even increase the time it takes to get a fullay accurate weapon overall (another bonus for scout mechs that can De-Buff enemies) High heat makes the pods wobble, as dose being his with lots of damage or having a damaged cockpit. Certain brands of weapons might have faster or slower accuracy cone reductions (eg a Low quality brand of LRM might be cheaper, but take longer to get a lockon- you get what you pay for.)

Being within a weapons minimum range would also increase the time for an accuracy cone to reduce in size. Weapons like Pulse Lasers would have extremely fast reductions, PPCs or Gauss weapons maybe would take quite a bit of time.

If accuracy cone are in the game, I don't want them to be all affecting. They should modify the shot, but not be ridiculous. If I aim at a mechs head, perhaps it will hit the torso, but probably not it's feet.

Finally, different mechs migfht have different speed modifiers for some placed weapons just to give them a little flavor.

[UncleKulikov]

VYCanis, on 03 December 2011 - 07:39 AM, said:

i think that might be over complicating thngs.

if you want to have user control over the possibility of them getting knocked over.
It could be something as simple as prompting a situation where you get some kind of audio/visual warning that you are losing balance. and have it where you use your forward/reverse/turn keys to attempt to stabilize against the direction of the fall.

like a missile lock warning button >.>

[Threat Doc]

minobu tetsuharu, on 03 December 2011 - 02:24 PM, said:

The game doesn't need to be physically correct. Did you play MW 3? Sometimes you fell down because you had been hit by weapons too hard.

In other FPS games you don't fall down randomly unless it incorporates RPG mechanics. In those cases the knock down skills have animations that tell you that you are going to be knocked down.

Wouldn't you like mechanisms in place to help you understand why a seemingly random even happens?

That's what I was saying, though... they're unnecessary in a computer game. Your avatar, if not you as the player, are automatically considered, in the game, to know what you're doing, as the pilot, already, and as such it's not something that is required. Keeping your 'Mech upright will, to the best of my knowledge, simply be a natural. Now, if you get knocked on your can, there's first nothing to understand, because you're on your can, period, so the only thing to understand, second, is that you need to get back up or some dishonorable cur is going to kill you while you're on the ground. If you can't get back up, there will likely be an indicator, on your left or right MFD, that you've lost a leg or, if our hosts become far more in-depth than has ever been done before, you might be missing your hips or the connectors that keep your legs functioning through some manner of box between the legs.

Quote

An altimeter would work but it is too simplistic since if I understand it correctly it only accounts for one axis, Z. You need to also account for X axis as well. I suggest the liquid method because it better represents the aggregate direction you are going in.

No it won't. A digital or mechanical altimeter and attitude reference will do the trick just fine. You know you're going uphill or downhill because you're in a walking beast on the ground, and it's unnecessary unless you have Jump Jets because you're not a aircraft. The attitude indicator is going to be useless, as well, because if you're not looking at your opponent and moving on the battlefield, then you're pretty obviously down. So, speed and torso indicators, and arm angle indicators, will be the only necessities to angle and direction on a 'Mech.

[mekabuser]

I like most of what OP says and the thinking that brought him to make the post.
I was thinking about the balance of mechs while walking down an incline with golf bags on my shoulders.
Up until now there is has been no mechanic in a mw game that would illustrate balance over rough terrain.
My thinking was if a mech is going down hill and then turns while still going down hill and THEN recieves fire from atop the hill. The mech receiving fire should be much much easier to knock over than one on level ground.

the op talked about a visual cue for the mw, I would be happy, ecstatic, with an internal gyro that just works , I dont need the cue, just knowing that its there and that the mech will react differently up and down inclines.

[minobu tetsuharu]

Kay Wolf, on 03 December 2011 - 05:10 PM, said:

That's what I was saying, though... they're unnecessary in a computer game.

Hardly unnecesasary. Cyttorak in his glib response was correct to compare my suggestion to rythm gaming because that is what my idea is when you want to compare it to existing games. I would prefer avoiding calling it rythm game mechanics because people will think of Parappa the Rapper more than Assassin's Creed's fight mechanics.


It conjures up unwanted images that detracts from trying to make this work in the context of a mechwarrior game.

Quote

Your avatar, if not you as the player, are automatically considered, in the game, to know what you're doing, as the pilot, already, and as such it's not something that is required. Keeping your 'Mech upright will, to the best of my knowledge, simply be a natural.

Having the avatar automatically dictate whether your fall or not is just asking for RNG to dictate your actions. As I said before I found it to be fine in the past and it would be OK if that was the case in this game but I see nothing wrong with re-looking at this mechanic and actually giving the player actual control of this situation instead of being at the mercy of the dice gods.

Quote

arm angle indicators, will be the only necessities to angle and direction on a 'Mech.

I really like this idea. On one hand it would be goofy if mech arms continued having the same animations in MW3 where the upper arm was locked in place and the lower arms moved around like turrets but it would be the type of thing that would allow you to naturally keep an eye on your balance without having to look at the GUI I was suggesting. It needs work but it's not a bad start.

verybad, on 03 December 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

Here's how I see it.

Sure give it a Cone of Fire that reduces as you aim on a target (different weapons reduce their cone at different rates.

A Mechwwarriros skill will reduce the time it takes for those weapons to reduce their cone of accuracy depending on how he spends his skill points.

For instance, if you increas accuracy with LRMs then you get a faster lockon.

Different equipment can also affect that accuracy cone reduction. Targeting computers halve the time for direct fire weapons. Streak missiles remove lockon time for missiles, Artemis Systems reduce the overall size of the accuracy cone. NARC pods also remove the lockon time for missiles.

Being in range of an eney ECM bubble will remove osme of those bonuses, and perhaps even increase the time it takes to get a fullay accurate weapon overall (another bonus for scout mechs that can De-Buff enemies) High heat makes the pods wobble, as dose being his with lots of damage or having a damaged cockpit. Certain brands of weapons might have faster or slower accuracy cone reductions (eg a Low quality brand of LRM might be cheaper, but take longer to get a lockon- you get what you pay for.)

Being within a weapons minimum range would also increase the time for an accuracy cone to reduce in size. Weapons like Pulse Lasers would have extremely fast reductions, PPCs or Gauss weapons maybe would take quite a bit of time.

If accuracy cone are in the game, I don't want them to be all affecting. They should modify the shot, but not be ridiculous. If I aim at a mechs head, perhaps it will hit the torso, but probably not it's feet.

Finally, different mechs migfht have different speed modifiers for some placed weapons just to give them a little flavor.

Where you the same verybad on the Drophshipcommand forums?

Back to your post.


Your idea is ok but it seems to defeat the purpose of the cone if I'm reading this correctly. Having the cone of fire shrink over time like that is just begging for players to shoot their weapons at anything at the optimal range they want to use their weapons at (before the actual fight starts) and once their cone penalty has been wiped away they can use their weapons with pinpoint accuracy at the optimal range they trained their weapons to fight at.


The way cone of fire works in other games is that your accuracy drops the longer you shoot at the target or it is a RNG that dictates how your shot drifts.

I think having the cone reduced in some manner would be nice but having the cone automatically reduced without any effort other then having the patience to wait isn't the right way to go about it.

[Cyttorak]

I don't know if it was ever brought up in the other super-long threads about cone of fire, but there is a compromise between randomness and pinpoint accuracy: randomly drifting reticle. As I stated once before, in the original Deus Ex the reticle was pinpoint accurate but drifted randomly quite alot. This gave you the realistic hit location IF you pulled the trigger at the right moment.
In a fast-paced game like MWO will probably be, it would be highly inconvenient to wait for the reticle to be "just right" before you pulled the trigger, so the result would be de-facto weapons spread. Even snipers would have to level up their pilots considerably before achieving high accuracy.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I've said this before, but I have the nerve to say it again: I think aiming accuracy should be related to both your weapon and your pilot's experience (read XP).

This can be accomplished with 1.) reticule bloom that represents the accuracy of the weapon based on it's base traits and your current state-of-balance (ex. a large-diameter reticule while running or dealing with recoil, but a smaller-diameter reticule while your Mech is stationary and/or equipped with advanced gyros) and 2.) an inherent "inaccuracy" value due to your pilot's lack of perfect "oneness" with the machine; that means your pilot may eventually achieve "true, 100% accuracy" after leveling-up for a long time, but [even then] you have to deal with the physical forces that cause inaccuracy and make your reticule bloom.

Also, the bond your pilot makes with the Mech via Neurohelmet should also be an experience-driven interaction where dumping time and energy into piloting Mechs at high speed or over rough terrain should give you XP and make your balance inherently better. Let's say some stat-tracking odometer can give you XP as you put more miles down on a given Mech, and you so become more in tune with that particular Mech model and gain a better balance.

That's a way to use the RPG elements of this game for putting more skill [pts.] into mitigating knock down and cone of fire. I do not, however, want to rapidly press one of the arrow keys in a panic suddenly when a warning light flashes in order to avert a fall...


... oh, and I think the reticule should represent a 90% hit-probability zone...

Edited by Prosperity Park, 03 December 2011 - 06:59 PM.

[CeeKay Boques]

I hate the entire idea of XP based accuracy and CoF. Oh well! I like the other, more sim related firing solutions. However, back to you thread of what if....

[Felicitatem Parco]

I'm only suggesting this because it's what I envision based on the Dev's posts and articles.

[diana]

But you don't control a mechwarrior, YOU are the mechwarrior. And you become better the more you play, not with artificial means like pilot skills improving the dice rolls.

[Zakatak]

Rather then some fluid or an attitude indicator, have a gyroscopic indicator on the HUD like the AH-64 Apache.

There are 2 bars. One shows the current center of gravity, the other shows which way the gyro is moving (should generally be in opposite). A circle surrounding the indicator shows the "tipping point", and if the C of G leaves that circle, you fall. The instrument might only take up 2cm on your HUD, and shouldn't clutter anything up.

[Pht]

How about they just put the newbie pilots through a training area where they're taught what will make their 'Mechs fall over?

If you're taught to not run on slick surfaces and try to execute a turn, and you're silly enough to try it otherwise and hope to not fall... when you've been taught otherwise... you deserve to wonder what's going on!

[Cyttorak]

Diana, on 04 December 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:

But you don't control a mechwarrior, YOU are the mechwarrior. And you become better the more you play, not with artificial means like pilot skills improving the dice rolls.

This is EXACTLY the opposite of what the devs have stated: that YOU are not the mechwarrior, you CONTROL a mechwarrior.

[diana]

Cyttorak, on 04 December 2011 - 11:11 AM, said:

This is EXACTLY the opposite of what the devs have stated: that YOU are not the mechwarrior, you CONTROL a mechwarrior.

Care to give a link to where they said that?