43 replies to this topic

[Axxon]

Remember the old DOS-based game Mechwarrior2 ?
In that game, the controls were perfect. There were the mouse + keyboard. And when you moved the mouse, so moved the mech. The target reticule, and with it, the mech torso. INSTANTLY.

I dont know what those microsoft morons were doing in Mechwarrior4, and MW4 mercenaries... But the MOUSE CONTROL EFFECT (torso twisting/pitching) OCCURRED IN A LATENCY to the actual mouse movement. IE, I have moved the mouse, and the mech (game) reacted in some .5 or maybe even in a 1 whole second latency!

Which IS the death of any simulation. Needless to say targeting was VERY difficult in MW4. Despite the nice graphics the game had, it was rendered a useless annoying P.O.F.S.

Please do not make the same mistake with your game. Instantaneous controlling will be needed.

[Stahlseele]

MW3 Targeting! < = that one was perfect!

[Corsair114]

Targeting in MW4:Mercs was handled the way it was for two specific reasons.

1. To provide yet another way to differentiate 'mechs.

-and-

2. A way to reduce the ability of assault 'mechs to quickly address anything entering their FoV with quick, 'mech-gibbing reflex shots.

[Axxon]

@2
i never had the privilege to play MW3..

@3
The formidable warmachine, the battlemech, which just *cant* take out swiftly the targets which *just entered the pilots FOV*
Dont you find this ridiculous?

All that technology, 31st century combat, and the vehicle is still clumsy.

To the balancing of joint-smoking impossibly-fast nervestretching onlineFPS computer-imbecile *aces* shooting your mech down in 2 sec COULD be that any mech torso ACTUALLY reacts to hits taken. That is: every hit taken renders the meantime targeting impossible..But the game itself should not inhibit realtime target tracking with the mouse. Nevertheless: TACTICS COME INTO PLAY!

If you use good battle tactics, no ace can beat you because of their superior reflexes. Because your approachvector gained you an edge. Or team tactics. Or equipment. Whatever.

Still, if you are that bad, with your cannons cant even hit a mammoth in front of you, then you deserve to get beaten! But this is where REAL-TIME, and FAST target tracking IS needed. How the hell to track a fastmoving target what do you think? There is simply no point in playing the game at all, if the manual target tracking will be messed up, like in MW4.

In reality, always those idiots die first, who rush into battle. A good simulator should consider this..

Those games lie.. quake, unreal torment, CoD, and all the stupid sh.t.... because in case a living organism takes a GSW hit there is immediately a disruption of abilities. IE it wont run that fast, wont aim that well, and will eventually bleed to death... but its not like that in those games. 1% health idiots run around and win the match. All conscious, no blackout, no loss of sight, and aiming ability 100% intact! All nonsense!!

[John Clavell]

Microsoft was the publisher and owner. FASA Interactive designed, and built the engine for MW4 as an independent studio at Microsoft Games. I can assure you Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer had nothing to do with the targeting choices made within the game.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Larger slower mechs having slower torso movement etc is necessary to enable small fast mechs to have a chance to exist. If you can instantneously target and hit anything in your field of view the you will only have the mechs with the heaviest armour played. ie it becomes an assault only game.

[Axxon]

@6
Maybe you are right.

Lets discuss that! An atlas or a daishy, a warhawk/marauder, and so on HEAVY mech should NOT run that fast. So shouldnt they accelerate/decelerate that fast. When knocked down (rare occasions) they should not get up soo fast back on their feet. Yea, thats MOVEMENT. But the torso movement...? ITS OWN PARTS.........?

Heres some mitigations:
1. Could make it upgradeable. At the costs of equipment mass. But that is still stupid! How bad if you CANT AIM with a 31st century war-machine..? What is that, going to battle riding a 100 tons durasteel toilet?
2. Maybe the super-heavies CAN move the torso slower. But then i only ask AT LEAST dont f. up the medium-ones, like the thor/loki, and maddog, timberwolf, warhammer.. and the smaller ones..
3. Make the realtime torso-movement the privilege of the ASSAULT type mechs only, amongst the heavies. But I dont know whether the battletech universe allows this. But this restriction is still stupid!!

And Mechwarrior IS an assault type game. What were you willing to do in a game like that? Scout mission? Even scouts need to fire.
And eliminating targets does rather require a warhawk than a jenner.

I think scouting sucks. If a heavy locks a missile salvo ON TO THE LEGS of the scout, a well placed salvo can cripple the little one and thats it for its speed. !

BTW QUESTION: missiles always go following their own mind, or after a lock, which part of the enemy mech i point, they fly towards there...? 2nd option favorable!

You CAN roam around in a cougar in a city... But the moment theres no more buildings to hide behind.. or you get outside an open field.. you are done for!

What i am saying, methinks for the 3rd time now.. is: let the constraints of hitting or not hitting a target / battle survivability of a pilot be:
the environment, and how the pilot is maneuvering, hiding behind cover
battle tactics, IE: from where it did come from, and with what equipment, and with what battlegroup it is being escorted
and the loadout.. projectile or energy? the ever mistery of equipping your mech.. but that again IS "tactics"

and NOT the "good" old EQUIPMENT-FAILURE.

Let me inform you, that in MW4, and even in MW4 mercenaries, ALL mechs were clumsy. I can only speak for myself, but if only the smaller ones will be reacting torso movements quick enough, then i will quit playing Mechwarrior Reboot BEFORE i even would have started playing it.

i wanna ride a thor. at least i wont play with a tiny a$$ jenner. that soo sucks..

Oh, i almost forgot, the torso angle of movement (YAW). Some (thor+loki) can do a 0-360 degrees turn. yaw=HORIZONTALLY. Others can only a 0-180 (timberwolf? not sure). Isnt that enough a restriction?

I think RANK should allow ppl to pilot the more advanced mechs. For example fire/hit ratio (accuracy%), missions accomplished, teamwork (the hardest AI to program is that which watches this), evaluation by other players at the end of each mission.. IF in a clan.
If freelancing, then MONEY! What you can buy, you can pilot.

[Liam]

I playing at the moment MW3 PM and all I can say Torso twist targeting coupling is horrible compared to MW4.
Off cause you can aim with weapon mounts and arms but then you need to control torso twist separately.

[Red Beard]

Video games have come a VERY long way in terms of interface and controls since MW2 and 3. Both of those games, IMO, were horrible and borderline unplayable due to horrific controls and terrible latency. Not to mention ancient graphics.

I have no doubt that this game will not suffer from those plagues.

[WerewolfX]

Red Beard, on 29 January 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

Video games have come a VERY long way in terms of interface and controls since MW2 and 3. Both of those games, IMO, were horrible and borderline unplayable due to horrific controls and terrible latency. Not to mention ancient graphics.

I have no doubt that this game will not suffer from those plagues.

I'm sorry did we play the same Mw2 and 3? At the time (1994 and 1999) both of those were cutting edge and better than anything else out at the time. In addition to those "Terrible controls" which allow me to control my mech as needed and which I had no problem using along with many others and in fact MW4 had the same controls as the other three plus or minus a few additions or subtractions. In addition to them being a "Horrible" and "Unplayable" which would explain why they consistently make the top 100 PC games in one form or another. Granted the multi-player I will agree with you on due to the latency which even then was better than everything else. Basing it on current industry standards yeah it's pretty bad in terms of graphics. Still for immersion MW2 and MW3 can do that in spades MW4 was like playing Micro Machines : Battletech edition. Though to be honest without those "horrible and borderline unplayable games." You wouldn't be seeing MW:O if the franchise didn't have a profitability margin worth going for.

[Red Beard]

I guess I have a higher standard than you do in terms of good game play.

[WerewolfX]

Red Beard, on 29 January 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

I guess I have a higher standard than you do in terms of good game play.

Do tell.

[Dihm]

Personally I'm not a fan of 1:1 mouse:reticule movement. This isn't your standard FPS where you're representing an actual breathing person, where their movements are mimicing yours. This is a game where your movements are mimic'd by your virtual pilot, which then gets fed through a machine which takes time to react and twist. It isn't instantanious, there are moving parts that have to be taken in to account. There is a lot of mass that needs to be moved to the proper positions. Having the delay adds to the simulation feel of the game. You aren't the mech, you are the pilot IN the mech.

The input lag is an important balancing factor not just between Assault mechs and Light mechs, but between keyboard/mouse and keyboard/joystick or HOTAS users. Granted that latter bit is bias on my part, since I'm a dedicated HOTAS user for Mech games.

[Axxon]

@13
okay, i will ask the developers for some input lag for you

[Aegis Kleais]

For clarification, are you saying that you want the ability to use a Mouse's pin-point precision ability to INSTANTLY turn Mech torsos to accommodate to where you are pointing on screen?

If so, I'm VERY against this. A varying aspect of mechs, even in the same weight class, is how fast their torso twist speed is, but none of them, even lights, had INSTANTANEOUS twisting. I mean, I'd be fine that if you brought the cursor to the side of the screen that it would then begin the rotation of the torso, but it shouldn't be instant; this gives players an input-unfair advantage over others.

If I didn't get what you meant, please feel free to explain further.

[Aaron DeChavilier]

assault mechs torso rotation rates should be slower, with a slide scale down to light, where light mech torso can turn faster.
However, an assault mech should still be able to target anything quickly within it's FoV, remember though that FoV will
be limited by torso rotation - like ww2 heavy tank turrets.
I do hope they put this in, would actually allow flank attacks to be viable, and mediums could finally act as a screen for
the heavy and assault groups.

[Aegis Kleais]

Yeah, targeting in the FOV should be similar to any Mech, independent of its weight class.

But once you have to rotate that behemoth of tonnage, it will take time to acquire the target back into its FOV.

Of course, there are ways to maneuver a larger Mech so that you can "turn" your FOV quicker than just a torso twist.

For example, from a dead stop, you can move in reverse while pulling your direction of yaw inward as you rotate the torso. This would swing you around faster than if you just stood there and attempted to use the torso twist to acquire the target. Besides, not all Mechs (in fact most don't) are capable of having a 360 degree twist, so you have to be mindful of just how far your chassis can twist in addition to how quickly it does.

[Axxon]

@15
OK, i ll explain.

I am a fan of INERTIA. That is, things should have mass, and that is also, that they
1. do not reach "v" velocity instantaneously, IE acceleration needs "t" time, and "t" is NOT equal to 0.
2. once in motion, the bigger the mass, the harder to stop -any- bodies. that again means, the longer time it takes. and the stronger servos it needs

But in MW4 all the movement WAS clumsy. I moved the cursor and there was a serious delay before the mechanoid would have reacted! FAULT! The ******* MW4 mechanoid even translated the mouse movement WITH A LATENCY!!
When i move the mouse, the torso is TO immediately start moving. And I am fine with that if it has restrictions of maximum acceleration/deceleration and maximum turning speed. Just shall begin moving when i poke the mouse. So i can see it is alive.


And another... in MW4 there could not have been an accurate shot made. FAULT nr2! Because if i moved a tiny bit on the mouse, the mechanoid did not react! And when i poked a little bit stronger on my mouse to the targets direction, i overshot the target with the reticule! -Fine- targeting was impossible in that game.

I felt so pissed over that. Otherwise it was / could have been a fine piece of software.

What i expect of MWO, it that the torso movement should begin instantaneously. There can be a some .2 maybe a .3 seconds or somewhat discriminating "lag" between me moving the target reticule, and the actual torso being pointed that way. But play MW4 and see it for yourself..

And what i expect nr2, is that: eliminating the possibility that the coarse torso-movement inhibits fine targeting. IE dont be that the issue, that you cannot take the shot, because you cannot place the mouse cursor on the specific part of the enemy mech...

There was some prank, called "slippery mouse".. Its a windows desktop "utility", if you run it, you cannot target anything ever more with your mouse... I felt like so in MW4.

So say, i am even sympathetic to the idea that a long twist of the torso could pull the reticule to somewhat to the side. So, if you pull a fast one to the right, half of the screen would be filled up by the mechs right arm... For a little while. Dynamism.

Lets just say you have 2 reticules. Normal position: both MIDDLE of the screen. You move the mouse, you instantly move the NAV reticule. Indicating where you actually are willing to look. This NAV reticule you could pull to the sides, even top/bottom. And the torso is sooner-or-later (hopefully sooner) being set to the direction which been indicated with the NAV reticule, - Not instantly.
And there is the FIRE reticule, which is always in the middle, and indicates, that your center is pointed that way. And youll be firing that way.

This way, for example it is solved that a player can instantaneously set the NAV reticule. onto -any- target on the screen. And the faster you moved your mouse, the more outer to the side the target reticule would be pulled out. Or top/bottom-wards. But only as fast as the servos could compensate, the FIRE reticule would be only set onto the NAV reticule, with somewhat a delay.

Of course, an algorithm would be needed to calculate torso movement acceleration/deceleration based on current NAV reticule location. IE The farer it is from the center, the more acceleration could the torso need achieve. But suddenly, if you move your NAV ret to the other side, the torso needs to update the situation AND THATS IMMEDIATELY and decelerate.. and accelerate to the opposite direction.

One more, IMPORTANT. Do not make the torso movement to be a constant speed movement. MAX speed, yea, is a constant, but otherwise it constantly needs to accelerate/decelerate for the FIRE reticule to chase the NAV one! And the game to be dynamic enough.

Edited by Axxon, 30 January 2012 - 09:32 AM.

[Axxon]

so just for clarity:
NAV = the HUD, and the virtual target reticule...
FIRE = the round mercedes-mark on the front side of your vehicle..

[Aegis Kleais]

Axxon, on 30 January 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

@15
OK, i ll explain.

I am a fan of INERTIA. That is, things should have mass, and that is also, that they
1. do not reach "v" velocity instantaneously, IE acceleration needs "t" time, and "t" is NOT equal to 0.
2. once in motion, the bigger the mass, the harder to stop -any- bodies. that again means, the longer time it takes. and the stronger servos it needs

But in MW4 all the movement WAS clumsy. I moved the cursor and there was a serious delay before the mechanoid would have reacted! FAULT! The ******* MW4 mechanoid even translated the mouse movement WITH A LATENCY!!
When i move the mouse, the torso is TO immediately start moving. And I am fine with that if it has restrictions of maximum acceleration/deceleration and maximum turning speed. Just shall begin moving when i poke the mouse. So i can see it is alive.


And another... in MW4 there could not have been an accurate shot made. FAULT nr2! Because if i moved a tiny bit on the mouse, the mechanoid did not react! And when i poked a little bit stronger on my mouse to the targets direction, i overshot the target with the reticule! -Fine- targeting was impossible in that game.

I felt so pissed over that. Otherwise it was / could have been a fine piece of software.

What i expect of MWO, it that the torso movement should begin instantaneously. There can be a some .2 maybe a .3 seconds or somewhat discriminating "lag" between me moving the target reticule, and the actual torso being pointed that way. But play MW4 and see it for yourself..

And what i expect nr2, is that: eliminating the possibility that the coarse torso-movement inhibits fine targeting. IE dont be that the issue, that you cannot take the shot, because you cannot place the mouse cursor on the specific part of the enemy mech...

There was some prank, called "slippery mouse".. Its a windows desktop "utility", if you run it, you cannot target anything ever more with your mouse... I felt like so in MW4.

So say, i am even sympathetic to the idea that a long twist of the torso could pull the reticule to somewhat to the side. So, if you pull a fast one to the right, half of the screen would be filled up by the mechs right arm... For a little while. Dynamism.

Lets just say you have 2 reticules. Normal position: both MIDDLE of the screen. You move the mouse, you instantly move the NAV reticule. Indicating where you actually are willing to look. This NAV reticule you could pull to the sides, even top/bottom. And the torso is sooner-or-later (hopefully sooner) being set to the direction which been indicated with the NAV reticule, - Not instantly.
And there is the FIRE reticule, which is always in the middle, and indicates, that your center is pointed that way. And youll be firing that way.

This way, for example it is solved that a player can instantaneously set the NAV reticule. onto -any- target on the screen. And the faster you moved your mouse, the more outer to the side the target reticule would be pulled out. Or top/bottom-wards. But only as fast as the servos could compensate, the FIRE reticule would be only set onto the NAV reticule, with somewhat a delay.

Of course, an algorithm would be needed to calculate torso movement acceleration/deceleration based on current NAV reticule location. IE The farer it is from the center, the more acceleration could the torso need achieve. But suddenly, if you move your NAV ret to the other side, the torso needs to update the situation AND THATS IMMEDIATELY and decelerate.. and accelerate to the opposite direction.

One more, IMPORTANT. Do not make the torso movement to be a constant speed movement. MAX speed, yea, is a constant, but otherwise it constantly needs to accelerate/decelerate for the FIRE reticule to chase the NAV one! And the game to be dynamic enough.

Oh, OK, then it sounds like we're on the same page then. Appreciate the clarification.