189 replies to this topic

[CDLord HHGD]

himself, on 12 January 2016 - 11:59 AM, said:

Must be hard living with whatever you have.

Try not to bring it into discussions, please.

You must waste a lot of money.

No, no rearview camera. We've asked for it before. The answer was a limitation of Cryengine and too much programming work to switch view. Your whining isn't gonna change that any time soon. Please spare us the drone of your squeaky wheelin. You've proven to me your inability to accept knowledge so I will not waste any more time on you.

[Roadkill]

himself, on 12 January 2016 - 11:21 AM, said:

And...?

And you said it couldn't. You're wrong.

Quote

In a light? It takes a second to turn around. I'd be find with a 1 second "activation" to circumvent this issue.

At least. And another second to turn back to face front. So at least twice as long as just using a hat switch to toggle back and forth, and the comparison is only that close in Light Mechs. Any other weight class and a rear-view toggle is significantly better.

Furthermore, a hat switch doesn't impact your forward targeting nearly as much as turning around. It's dramatically more useful and easier to use, so would get used more, thus impacting stealth.

Quote

Suggest yourself some reading comprehension, I never said such a thing.

Suggest yourself some reading comprehension. I never said you did. You did, however, suggest/imply it.

Quote

A mech you can't buy with c-bills that has the firepower of a mech twice it's weight? Yeah, pay 2 win. Not necessarily broken, but Jenner IIC is very powerful for it's weight.

And? What's your point?

I pointed out that I was able to sneak up on another Mech and destroy it by using stealth. You seem to be claiming that a rear view toggle wouldn't affect stealth, but it's perfectly obvious that it would. Whether or not the Jenner IIC is OP/P2W is completely irrelevant, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

What exactly is your point, anyway? You seem to be arguing both sides of the issue, so I really have no idea what you're trying to accomplish.

[himself]

cdlord, on 12 January 2016 - 12:03 PM, said:

You must waste a lot of money.

No, no rearview camera. We've asked for it before. The answer was a limitation of Cryengine and too much programming work to switch view. Your whining isn't gonna change that any time soon. Please spare us the drone of your squeaky wheelin. You've proven to me your inability to accept knowledge so I will not waste any more time on you.

Good, don't let the airlock hit you on the way out.

It's already been established that it isn't a limitation in CryEngine several times now, but I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge that. Much like I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge that you were overthinking a simple analogy.

[himself]

Roadkill, on 12 January 2016 - 12:23 PM, said:

What exactly is your point, anyway? You seem to be arguing both sides of the issue, so I really have no idea what you're trying to accomplish.

You are some kind of dense. I could melt you down for radioactive shielding.

Yes, I am arguing for both sides. I think lights need to be rewarded for something other than "stealth" (lol, I snuck behind someone so clever) and wolf-packs.

I also think Assaults/Heavies shouldn't get royally screwed by being blind to what is immediately behind them.

You're a pack of negative nancies with knee-jerk reactions worse than a parent-teacher meeting.

"Rear-view Cameras? HE MUST WANT THE iWIN BUTTON! I BET HE WANTS THE CAMERA TO SPOT PEOPLE FROM 2km+ OUT AND FIRE LASERS AND CORE PEOPLE JUST BY LOOKING AT THEM!"

[Roadkill]

himself, on 12 January 2016 - 12:32 PM, said:

You're a pack of negative nancies with knee-jerk reactions worse than a parent-teacher meeting.

Uh huh. Your reading comprehension is terrible.

I've said two things:

1) a rear-view toggle is technologically feasible using CryEngine even if a rear-view picture-in-picture camera is not.

2) implementing a rear-view toggle would impact stealth in the game, but whether or not that is desirable is a separate question.

That's not negative. That's not knee-jerk. Those are simply facts.

[himself]

Roadkill, on 12 January 2016 - 12:37 PM, said:

Uh huh. Your reading comprehension is terrible.

I've said two things:

1) a rear-view toggle is technologically feasible using CryEngine even if a rear-view picture-in-picture camera is not.

2) implementing a rear-view toggle would impact stealth in the game, but whether or not that is desirable is a separate question.

That's not negative. That's not knee-jerk. Those are simply facts.

I really have to see what you call, "stealth". Do you spend 5 minutes along the map border to get behind someone? Because that's the only way I can see a rear-view camera working against you, and in that case I would have to laugh in your face at how idiotic of a strategy that is.

Scenario 1: You're a long range mech, you shoot someone in the back and they know you are there because of damage indicators.

Scenario 2: You're a short range mech and you're likely going to spend 80-90% of your time to the side of the mech you are going after as you try to approach him. With the remaining percentage spending your time unloading on his back armor.

Scenario 3 (Idiotic): You spend 5 minutes trying to get behind some poor sod in your short range mech then make a mad dash for a few hundred meters until you reach optimal range.

Edited by himself, 12 January 2016 - 12:50 PM.

[Captain Stiffy]

himself, on 12 January 2016 - 12:45 PM, said:

I really have to see what you call, "stealth". Do you spend 5 minutes along the map border to get behind someone? Because that's the only way I can see a rear-view camera working against you, and in that case I would have to laugh in your face at how idiotic of a strategy that is.

[Wintersdark]

Captain Stiffy, on 12 January 2016 - 10:54 AM, said:

I refuse to accept that the normal camera cannot be instantly pivoted 180 and back.

If you read any of my other posts in this thread, I've had to repeat in nearly every single one that you COULD have a full screen toggle. In addition, I think the ability to have one that's angled downwards to show what's immediately behind you and by your heels would even be pretty valuable without impacting the game design in the ways that a full rear view certainly would.

Basically, this is where we are.

A full rear view would change the game. Maybe you feel it's in a good way, or maybe you don't. But it WOULD change how the game plays. And this change would specifically help heavies and assaults, while being effectively irrelevant to a light or medium (both of which can twist far and fast, so they're mostly able to simply look without cost).

So, I'd argue, there's basically three camps here:

1) I don't want rear view at all, because I don't want the gameplay change.

2) I hate backing into allies or walking over things, but like how the gameplay is relative to this.

3) I want full rear view, with the changes it would bring (which I either feel are irrelevant or good; it doesn't matter)

PGI's view is clear, and they've stuck to it strongly over the last 3 years. They may suddenly feel That Was Their View At The Time, but thus far PGI is firmly in Camp 1.

Camp 1 and 2 can be appeased easily with a downward angled rearcam. It doesn't have any gameplay change, and covers rearward maneuvering.

Adding a downward angled camera then doesn't alienate anyone - easy to support this.

Not adding a rear camera at all, or a downward angled one doesn't leave anybody worse off. It's just maintaining the status quo, the game as it stands, while a downward one is making an apparently fairly large set of players happy. Good stuff, everybody wins (or at least doesn't lose anything).

Adding a full rear cam, however, doesn't have this. It's going to make some people happy, but it's going to really piss off other people.

From PGI's perspective, why would they do that? Why should they? When they can either leave things as are, or make some people happy at no "overall happiness" cost.

[himself]

Captain Stiffy, on 12 January 2016 - 12:46 PM, said:

I love his videos. Hardly applies though.

[Captain Stiffy]

Saying that you don't want a rear camera so that people can be sneaky is like saying that baseball should be played in the dark so that it is harder. It's just all around fail.

I think the only reason this wasn't already in the game was that in beta when the design was written and the tracker stories created for the initial build there were technical challenges and the team was young. I don't think there's any reason a front/rear toggle shouldn't be in the game.

This is also a good time to bring up REAR MOUNTED WEAPONS!

Because it's cannon and all that. Donchaknow.

himself, on 12 January 2016 - 12:55 PM, said:

I love his videos. Hardly applies though.

No it totally does because he does exactly what you said in that video - spends 5 minutes going around to sneak up on people.

I'm all for rear camera in some form and I think it's stupid that anyone would make a 100 ton war machine that can't see behind itself. But totally it was applicable 100%.

[Wintersdark]

Captain Stiffy, on 12 January 2016 - 12:46 PM, said:

hah I love TheBeefs's stealth videos His DropBear is hilarious too.

But the underlying principles work, and it's a pretty damn good toolbox to have. When to hold your fire is critical - you want to wait till they're well engaged, or at least have fired a few times to push their heat up, and where you're in a position to do critical damage quickly. The impatient sneaky player just wastes an alpha stripping rear armor from a mech that can turn and fight safely - then the sneaky player effectively enters the duel at a heat penalty rather than vice versa.

[Captain Stiffy]

Wintersdark, on 12 January 2016 - 12:58 PM, said:

hah I love TheBeefs's stealth videos His DropBear is hilarious too.

But the underlying principles work, and it's a pretty damn good toolbox to have. When to hold your fire is critical - you want to wait till they're well engaged, or at least have fired a few times to push their heat up, and where you're in a position to do critical damage quickly. The impatient sneaky player just wastes an alpha stripping rear armor from a mech that can turn and fight safely - then the sneaky player effectively enters the duel at a heat penalty rather than vice versa.

The best is the 7 ERPPC one. "You might think this build is awful but it's not about being good. It's about sending a message!"

edit: found it

Edited by Captain Stiffy, 12 January 2016 - 01:08 PM.

[himself]

Captain Stiffy, on 12 January 2016 - 12:57 PM, said:

Saying that you don't want a rear camera so that people can be sneaky is like saying that baseball should be played in the dark so that it is harder. It's just all around fail.

I think the only reason this wasn't already in the game was that in beta when the design was written and the tracker stories created for the initial build there were technical challenges and the team was young. I don't think there's any reason a front/rear toggle shouldn't be in the game.

This is also a good time to bring up REAR MOUNTED WEAPONS!

Because it's cannon and all that. Donchaknow.



No it totally does because he does exactly what you said in that video - spends 5 minutes going around to sneak up on people.

I'm all for rear camera in some form and I think it's stupid that anyone would make a 100 ton war machine that can't see behind itself. But totally it was applicable 100%.

No, it isn't.

His videos and usually satire and at no point indicative of viable builds or gameplay styles. If you think he didn't have to spend HOURS playing to get a few good minutes of footage, you are lying to yourself.

Wintersdark, on 12 January 2016 - 12:58 PM, said:

hah I love TheBeefs's stealth videos His DropBear is hilarious too.

But the underlying principles work, and it's a pretty damn good toolbox to have. When to hold your fire is critical - you want to wait till they're well engaged, or at least have fired a few times to push their heat up, and where you're in a position to do critical damage quickly. The impatient sneaky player just wastes an alpha stripping rear armor from a mech that can turn and fight safely - then the sneaky player effectively enters the duel at a heat penalty rather than vice versa.

So what you are saying is, the smart sneaky player waits until the enemy is too busy and focused forward to be concerned about his back.

I'd be find with the camera being destructible and attached to the Back CT Armor. It would give people a reason to not Front Load, specially on bigger mechs.

Edited by himself, 12 January 2016 - 01:16 PM.

[Captain Stiffy]

himself, on 12 January 2016 - 01:06 PM, said:

No, it isn't.

His videos and usually satire and at no point indicative of viable builds or gameplay styles. If you think he didn't have to spend HOURS playing to get a few good minutes of footage, you are lying to yourself.

You said **** about spending 5 minutes going around the enemy. thebeef does that in that video. That counts as applicable. It doesn't prove a point and wasn't meant to. Calm the **** down son!

[himself]

Captain Stiffy, on 12 January 2016 - 01:15 PM, said:

You said **** about spending 5 minutes going around the enemy. thebeef does that in that video. That counts as applicable. It doesn't prove a point and wasn't meant to. Calm the **** down son!

Whoah, buddy. I'm just pointing out that you're wrong. Quit projecting, just because you're angry doesn't mean I am too, lol.

[Captain Stiffy]

himself, on 12 January 2016 - 01:21 PM, said:

Whoah, buddy. I'm just pointing out that you're wrong. Quit projecting, just because you're angry doesn't mean I am too, lol.

The most plain and basic facts of reality state that a video about people sneaking around behind people is related to sneaking around behind people.

Wait or am I somehow in universe E again? That happens sometimes

[himself]

Captain Stiffy, on 12 January 2016 - 01:26 PM, said:

The most plain and basic facts of reality state that a video about people sneaking around behind people is related to sneaking around behind people.

Wait or am I somehow in universe E again? That happens sometimes

The point is, anyone pulling that off in an Atlas would get laughed at.

Specially when the Jenner IIC can pull off a similar strategy going way faster and taking up less time standing behind or getting up to the enemy.

Edited by himself, 12 January 2016 - 01:34 PM.

[Cancer Warrior]

dario03, on 12 January 2016 - 11:09 AM, said:

Well if you cant do anything about them then why do you need a high quality full view behind you?

To know when to let the beans out!

[MechWarrior5152251]

Many of the comments really show how lacking in skill most players are. A rear view would help light pilots infinitely more than assaults because lights have to run away and would be greatly helped seeing behind them so they can break line of sight and keep their legs from being exposed to those chasing....

[Roadkill]

himself, on 12 January 2016 - 12:45 PM, said:

I really have to see what you call, "stealth".

Your scenarios all assume that I want to attack. What if I just want to keep LOS so that my teammates can use that information?

What if I just want to Tag the target? The instant the target starts to turn, I stop tagging so he never sees the beam and has no idea where I might be (if he even realizes that I am there in the first place). With a rear-view toggle, I never know he's looking and he can easily figure out where I am and then use that knowledge against me.

In the time it takes the target to turn around to look for me, I can duck out of sight behind cover. I can't do that if he has a rear-view camera.

Flanking maneuvers rely on stealth. A lance of Lights or Mediums can often flank an enemy in plain sight because most people aren't willing to turn to look behind them. It takes too long/too much effort. With a rear-view toggle, it's basically instantaneous and simple. Flanking would become much more difficult without complete cover.

A rear-view toggle gives you greatly improved situational awareness. Call it stealth, or not, as you see fit. It very clearly would change the game; whether it would change it for good or not is a different discussion.