115 replies to this topic

[Tristan Winter]

Mister Blastman, on 10 April 2016 - 06:57 AM, said:

From a gameplay perspective it needs to stay as it is. Dumbing it down even further would be a detriment, not a benefit.

This is all academic, because the chances of PGI tinkering with core mechanics at this point are about as likely as the chances of Aerotech being included in the game.

Here's my counter-argument: having manual controls doesn't necessarily mean you're making the game a "thinking man's shooter".

Ever played QWOP? You have to manually manipulate your hip joints and knee joints to make the guy run forward. In MWO we don't have to do that, but the game hasn't been "dumbed down". In fact, not having to spend all our mental capacity on moving our legs means that we're able to think about more advanced things, like tactics and strategy on an individual and team level.

I do think multi-tasking is an important element in MWO and all Mechwarrior games, but I prefer the multitasking to be more about operating weapons, targeting system, sensors / radar, ECM, etc. If we had to operate passive / active radar, if we had different targeting buttons, if we had a command wheel (I know it's coming), if we had the ability to adjust night vision and heat vision, then the game would still have a lot of multitasking. But it would be the right sort of multitasking, in my opinion. Not QWOP multitasking.

[thehiddenedge]

The reason I don't like the idea is that the crosshair has literally no inertia to it as it is currently. Making it even more stable, would just be spoon feeding people who can't keep the mouse on target already.

We already have people who can't use more than one weapon group. I think they have it easy enough already.

[Romeo Deluxe]

Afuldan McKronik, on 10 April 2016 - 02:48 PM, said:

You want you have your crosshairs stabilized while turning. This will slow down your torso twisting, getting you cored. If you have your sensitivity set so high that you cant compensate for the legs turning, try turning it down. I bet you cant hit a target while running either because you cant compensate for your mech moving in a straight line, let alone running and turning.

You want easier mode than we already have.

You do not understand what is being suggested. There are two things your are confounding:
Turning Behavior
Target Aim Locking

Also you clearly didn't read my reply. If anything the current system is easier because it adds torso twisting with simple turning where you are driving.

Also per my reply above, which you obviously didn't read, some people would find this change harder, while others would like it. Some people I bet wouldn't even notice a change. Hence, per my reply above, add it as an option. This has very little to do with the ability to run & gun. Which after 3 years of playing lights about 95% of the time I personally have no problems with circle strafing, jousting, figure 8's and shooting from distance or close range, while trying to outguess someones torso twisting or movement direction at 140 kph.

The OP's post wasn't written the clearest but I knew what he was talking about anyways. So I can understand some people reading it and confusing the two very different items of Turning Behavior and Target Aim Locking. Either the current turning behavior and the one suggested requires active aiming by players. They would both require adjusting to how they work. They are different in behavior and equal in skill requirement.

Edited by Romeo Deluxe, 10 April 2016 - 03:27 PM.

[Romeo Deluxe]

thehiddenedge, on 10 April 2016 - 03:21 PM, said:

The reason I don't like the idea is that the crosshair has literally no inertia to it as it is currently. Making it even more stable, would just be spoon feeding people who can't keep the mouse on target already.

We already have people who can't use more than one weapon group. I think they have it easy enough already.

This has nothing to do with keeping the mouse on target. See reply above.

[Afuldan McKronik]

eminus, on 09 April 2016 - 08:30 PM, said:

is there a plan to enable this? just like in tanks when you change your direction your aim will stay and not turn with your torso.

has this feature been implemented before? if not was there any talks/request to add this?

right now if you change your direction you need to counter it to stay where you are pointing before and it would greatly help those you are in close range brawling.

Sooo exactly what I was saying. Can't compensate/over compensates for the crosshair moving when the legs turn.

You want easier aiming then we have now. At least WoT has CoF. No no and no again.

[Romeo Deluxe]

Tristan Winter, on 10 April 2016 - 03:10 PM, said:

This is all academic, because the chances of PGI tinkering with core mechanics at this point are about as likely as the chances of Aerotech being included in the game.

Here's my counter-argument: having manual controls doesn't necessarily mean you're making the game a "thinking man's shooter".

Ever played QWOP? You have to manually manipulate your hip joints and knee joints to make the guy run forward. In MWO we don't have to do that, but the game hasn't been "dumbed down". In fact, not having to spend all our mental capacity on moving our legs means that we're able to think about more advanced things, like tactics and strategy on an individual and team level.

I do think multi-tasking is an important element in MWO and all Mechwarrior games, but I prefer the multitasking to be more about operating weapons, targeting system, sensors / radar, ECM, etc. If we had to operate passive / active radar, if we had different targeting buttons, if we had a command wheel (I know it's coming), if we had the ability to adjust night vision and heat vision, then the game would still have a lot of multitasking. But it would be the right sort of multitasking, in my opinion. Not QWOP multitasking.

You as well are not clearly understanding what is being suggested. There is no major change to core mechanics or adding in Target Aim Locking. This is a request for the turning behavior to be changed. The current system and the suggested one can exist side by side. They are equal in skill but different.

Unless you are talking about Target Aim Locking, that is a different can of worms.

Afuldan McKronik, on 10 April 2016 - 03:31 PM, said:

Sooo exactly what I was saying. Can't compensate/over compensates for the crosshair moving when the legs turn.

You want easier aiming then we have now. At least WoT has CoF. No no and no again.

Are you ignoring me? The current and suggested system both require you to compensate for your mechs movement.

[Afuldan McKronik]

No, you want easier aiming in a game that has no CoF and no Recoil. This IS a mechanic change. From every MW game. No.

[thehiddenedge]

Romeo Deluxe, on 10 April 2016 - 03:26 PM, said:

This has nothing to do with keeping the mouse on target. See reply above.

It really does though. If I don't have to compensate my mouse movement for my legs turning, it is much easier to keep the crosshair fixed on the target.

Pretty simple concept.

[Romeo Deluxe]

Afuldan McKronik, on 10 April 2016 - 03:34 PM, said:

No, you want easier aiming in a game that has no CoF and no Recoil. This IS a mechanic change. From every MW game. No.

This has nothing to do with easier aiming. You clearly do no understand the difference between the current system, the OP's request, and Target Aim Locking.

[Afuldan McKronik]

No your version DOESN'T make you compensate. Read the post again carefully.


"...when you change your direction your aim will stay and not change with your torso."

From OP. Again.

Let me use small sentences here because I dont think YOU understand what that means.

You put crosshair on target.

When you turn, you dont compensate for turning.

[Tristan Winter]

Romeo Deluxe, on 10 April 2016 - 03:33 PM, said:

You as well are not clearly understanding what is being suggested. There is no major change to core mechanics or adding in Target Aim Locking. This is a request for the turning behavior to be changed. The current system and the suggested one can exist side by side. They are equal in skill but different.
Unless you are talking about Target Aim Locking, that is a different can of worms.

I understand perfectly what is being suggested. That should be fairly obvious by just reading my posts.

[Afuldan McKronik]

Next suggestion will be "Lock on- Why it Should Lock My Crosshair to a Mech Automatically."

[Romeo Deluxe]

thehiddenedge, on 10 April 2016 - 03:38 PM, said:

It really does though. If I don't have to compensate my mouse movement for my legs turning, it is much easier to keep the crosshair fixed on the target.

Pretty simple concept.

I said this above already, but I'll repeat it just for you. Yes it is simple, but you don't get it. With either turning behavior:

If I'm stationary and my target moves, I have to actively adjust my targetting reticule.
If I'm moving and my target is stationary, I have to actively adjust my targetting reticule.
If I'm moving and my target is moving, I have to actively adjust my targetting reticule.

The only situation that even comes close to what you are saying is ....
If I'm stationary and my target is stationary, but I turn my legs a few degrees, I don't have to adjust my aim.

However, the biggest benefit to someone like the OP who wants the change is eye comfort. Right now if you turn your vision gets jolted as well. Which is unnatural to how human bodies work. The change would make it so that moving your legs doesn't make your vision jerk around so much. It would make movement more natural or fluid(as someone else mentioned above), but has nothing to do with making aiming easier. Aiming on an opponent is still an active process.

Afuldan McKronik, on 10 April 2016 - 03:39 PM, said:

No your version DOESN'T make you compensate. Read the post again carefully.


"...when you change your direction your aim will stay and not change with your torso."

From OP. Again.

Let me use small sentences here because I dont think YOU understand what that means.

You put crosshair on target.

When you turn, you dont compensate for turning.

If I'm stationary and my target moves, I have to actively adjust my targetting reticule.
If I'm moving and my target is stationary, I have to actively adjust my targetting reticule.
If I'm moving and my target is moving, I have to actively adjust my targetting reticule.

[Afuldan McKronik]

Grab a gun, go to the range, aim and turn your legs. You HAVE TO COMPENSATE YOUR TORSO. It doesnt just magically keep on target.

Same concept here.

Edited by Afuldan McKronik, 10 April 2016 - 03:52 PM.

[thehiddenedge]

Romeo Deluxe, on 10 April 2016 - 03:51 PM, said:

If I'm stationary and my target moves, I have to actively adjust my targetting reticule.
If I'm moving and my target is stationary, I have to actively adjust my targetting reticule.
If I'm moving and my target is moving, I have to actively adjust my targetting reticule.

Yeah we got that. We never said that wasn't the case.

We only said that it would be EASIER to make those adjustments.

One method includes moving the mouse to track a target. The other is the same, but includes compensating for your leg's movement.

One of them requires less effort.

That's all we said.

Now can we have an actual discussion on the matter, or are you going to keep claiming we don't understand something which we clearly do?

Edited by thehiddenedge, 10 April 2016 - 04:05 PM.

[Afuldan McKronik]

I think the solution is run a faster mech with lower sensitivity. You get used to it REALLY fast.

[Romeo Deluxe]

Afuldan McKronik, on 10 April 2016 - 03:51 PM, said:

Grab a gun, go to the range, aim and turn your legs. You HAVE TO COMPENSATE YOUR TORSO. It doesnt just magically keep on target.

Same concept here.

Exactly, that is how peoples bodies work, you can do both at the same time in one fluid motion because you send a signal to your legs to turn and a signal to your torso to turn as well at the same time. Your vision remains steady in the direction you want to shoot. It is NOT target aim locking because you don't have some magical target locking that forces your aim to never waver. You are actively aiming at the target.

However, you can keep actively aiming at the target, and also adjust your stance, leg orientation, even height. You can even walk and continue to actively aim at the target. There might be slight jittering but you can still make these motions and continue with the aiming.

Mechwarrior is different because you can't send the signal to your torso to stay in the same orientation while changing the orientation of your legs. You do, because you have learned to use the current turning behavior. However, you have to deal with the jerkiness of the vision that is forced on you because of the way the torso is dragged by the change in orientation of the legs.

This is why the change suggested would make the turning more fluid for some people. Like I said, some people will take to it, but some would not. Thus it should be an option. This has nothing to do with making aiming easier like in a fantasy MMO.

[Mister Blastman]

Tristan Winter, on 10 April 2016 - 03:10 PM, said:

This is all academic, because the chances of PGI tinkering with core mechanics at this point are about as likely as the chances of Aerotech being included in the game.

Here's my counter-argument: having manual controls doesn't necessarily mean you're making the game a "thinking man's shooter".

Ever played QWOP? You have to manually manipulate your hip joints and knee joints to make the guy run forward. In MWO we don't have to do that, but the game hasn't been "dumbed down". In fact, not having to spend all our mental capacity on moving our legs means that we're able to think about more advanced things, like tactics and strategy on an individual and team level.

I do think multi-tasking is an important element in MWO and all Mechwarrior games, but I prefer the multitasking to be more about operating weapons, targeting system, sensors / radar, ECM, etc. If we had to operate passive / active radar, if we had different targeting buttons, if we had a command wheel (I know it's coming), if we had the ability to adjust night vision and heat vision, then the game would still have a lot of multitasking. But it would be the right sort of multitasking, in my opinion. Not QWOP multitasking.

Look, holding your torso steady while you turn doesn't require much mental capacity. It's easy stuff. MWO is pretty darn simple, tactically speaking, unless you're playing in a league--because in the PUG queues, tactics consist of...

go there
kill poo
win

Removing torso movement wouldn't lead to players being better or more thoughtful or more tactical. Do you know what it would lead to? Nothing. They'd still hide behind rocks, they'd still run from danger and some folks would die over and over with less than one hundred damage. The folks that don't "get" MWO aren't going to be saved by this torso twist thing. It isn't going to help them! They have bigger problems with the game that this won't solve.

In a nutshell, I think you're grasping at straws to justify something that doesn't need to happen.

[Hit the Deck]

Afuldan McKronik, on 10 April 2016 - 03:48 PM, said:

Next suggestion will be "Lock on- Why it Should Lock My Crosshair to a Mech Automatically."

Exactly, or aiming with eye tracking when PGI are finally able to integrate VR (headsets) into MWO.

[Afuldan McKronik]

It does though. You are trying to make it easier. In a game where someone who is used to it knows what direction their mech is heading exactly by the mechanic you dont like.

WoT and WoWS screw with my sense of direction because they DONT have this mechanic.