26 replies to this topic

[Slyck]

Something that always bothered me about the previous MW games is the relatively fixed nature of the reticule in the field of fire. I think this really added to the walking tank feel rather then the robotic war machine that I expect. Something very common on the TT that wasn't possible in the previous video games was to torso twist and swing the weapons in one arm around to target a more mobile enemy that had gotten behind you.

So I think I'd like to see a free floating reticule that will allow weapons in different area areas be capable of firing into different field of fire. Weapons in each arm would be able to float within an appropriate field of fire while torso mounted weapons would have the same fixed nature we're used to I think this would have an interesting effect on game play.

First of all, it would definitely affect weapon grouping. I can see this working in one of two ways;

1. Allow only weapons with the same field of fire to be grouped together. Players would be forced to cycle through groups of weapons in order to engage all their firepower. Not my most favorite option as players generally hate being limited.

2. Restrict the field of fire to the weapons within the current group. If you only group weapons in one arm then full field for that arm, both arms will only give you the are where they overlap and if you include torso weapons then the reticule would be fixed. I like this because it allows for variations in play style and provide a bit of complexity that can be overcome by skill.

Secondly, this will help differentiate the capabilities and game play of different mechs. Mechs without arms actuators will free up space for weapons but find their fields of fire more limited. Mechs with more weapons mounted in the more vulnerable arms will find that they have faster and more flexible target tracking.

[Kenyon Burguess]

i'd love to have control of where the weapons aim thru the mouse. its going to be interesting to see how mech movement and especially torso twisting is handled.

[MaddMaxx]

Perhaps they could add arm mounted gun cameras that you could activate inside the cockpit when your Torso was fully twisted over and then that gun arm gets a special reticule that you could then manipulate in the same fashion as the FPP fixed reticule the game should come with. (note how I slipped that in eh)

Of course the computer would have preset elements that would have to be met before the gun camera could be turned on. Such things as Current Torso rotation = +/- 80-85 degrees (varies by Mech chassis). The arm would have to have full shoulder and elbow articulation and if the wrist is also included you get a greater feild of motion after the gun reticule comes on screen. Some funky Customization options right there as well. Shoulder .5T, Elbow .5T Wrist .5T You get a arm mounted gun you can target with for a mere 1.5T of actuators. LOL

Some ideas any ways. A full floating reticule on the end of a Mouse cursor overtly promotes the dreaded Pin Point weapons of death. It was tried and abandoned (where it belongs) back in the MW3 days iirc.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 12 January 2012 - 04:45 PM.

[Slyck]

I'd like to point out that by lore mechs had upper (shoulder), lower (elbow) and hand actuators as part of their internal structure (which was typicaly paid for with a tenth of the mech's tonnage), just as they had hip, lower leg and foot actuators for their legs. Some mechs would do away with these to either free up space in those areas (or just because the designers thought it looked cool).

Now I wouldn't ask for a floating reticule that tracked right with the mouse pointer, I think that would put too much control into the players hand and break the sense of piloting a big robot. But as long as the tracking speed was fixed, and based on the mechanics of the mech I think it would work.

I don't think you would need a gun cam necessarily, you could allow the pilots view inside the cockpit to pan with the arm. if the aim passes outside the standard field of view.

[MaddMaxx]

Slyck, on 12 January 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

I'd like to point out that by lore mechs had upper (shoulder), lower (elbow) and hand actuators as part of their internal structure (which was typicaly paid for with a tenth of the mech's tonnage), just as they had hip, lower leg and foot actuators for their legs. Some mechs would do away with these to either free up space in those areas (or just because the designers thought it looked cool).

Now I wouldn't ask for a floating reticule that tracked right with the mouse pointer, I think that would put too much control into the players hand and break the sense of piloting a big robot. But as long as the tracking speed was fixed, and based on the mechanics of the mech I think it would work.

I don't think you would need a gun cam necessarily, you could allow the pilots view inside the cockpit to pan with the arm. if the aim passes outside the standard field of view.

So by Lore all Mechs could flip their arms to fire in the rear arc? Damn. i did not know that. Problem solved.

A gun camera would still be cool though.

[Xavier Truscott]

MW3 had the floating reticule, and mainly because of that was my favorite in the series. Being able to swing an arm out to shoot someone trying to trap you in a circle was a huge advantage. Of course, floating reticule didn't mesh too well with someone who used just a joystick i would imagine.

[Slyck]

I was thinking the same thing, but I imagine a number joystick users have moved to a gamepad which is more capable of such a thing.

[Slyck]

@MaddMax Some people imagine mechs like the warhammer and rifleman capable of that. Most others use a human motion twisting to one side and stretching back with the arm on that side.

[Havoc2]

Slyck, on 12 January 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

Something that always bothered me about the previous MW games is the relatively fixed nature of the reticule in the field of fire. I think this really added to the walking tank feel rather then the robotic war machine that I expect. Something very common on the TT that wasn't possible in the previous video games was to torso twist and swing the weapons in one arm around to target a more mobile enemy that had gotten behind you.

Like MW3 and MW4 did?

Slyck, on 12 January 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

So I think I'd like to see a free floating reticule that will allow weapons in different area areas be capable of firing into different field of fire. Weapons in each arm would be able to float within an appropriate field of fire while torso mounted weapons would have the same fixed nature we're used to I think this would have an interesting effect on game play.

Like MW3 did (to an extent)?


Both MW3 and MW4 (IIRC) allowed you to control the left/right arm mounted weapons when you activated your look left/right hat (or button).

MW3 also had an option of allowing "freelook" mode where the movement of the joystick/mouse was unlocked from the torso twist motions and used solely to move the targetting reticle.

I was never a fan of the freelook reticle as it gives a distinct advantage to mouse only users and makes the game feel more like Unreal/Doom/insert FPS here.

MW4 automatically greyed out any weapons not in the left/right arms when you looked in that direction, so if you had 4 LLas, 2 in each arm you could look out your right cockpit screen, see the arm extend straight out and see 2 of your LLas get greyed out and not able fire until you either returned to centre, or looked out the other direction.

[MaddMaxx]

IIRC MW3 had Flook at the outset and it was patched out due to the "mouse advantage" reason. PPA with Mouse as control was brutally effective.

They did leave the float in for the arm mounts which were a pain to use anyways without alot of practise.

[Slyck]

This is definitely along the lines that I was thinking. I guess they'd just need to figure how to flesh it out to be more available and balanced.

Edited by Slyck, 13 January 2012 - 11:56 AM.

[statler]

Slyck, on 12 January 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

Something that always bothered me about the previous MW games is the relatively fixed nature of the reticule in the field of fire. I think this really added to the walking tank feel rather then the robotic war machine that I expect. Something very common on the TT that wasn't possible in the previous video games was to torso twist and swing the weapons in one arm around to target a more mobile enemy that had gotten behind you.

So I think I'd like to see a free floating reticule that will allow weapons in different area areas be capable of firing into different field of fire. Weapons in each arm would be able to float within an appropriate field of fire while torso mounted weapons would have the same fixed nature we're used to I think this would have an interesting effect on game play.

First of all, it would definitely affect weapon grouping. I can see this working in one of two ways;

1. Allow only weapons with the same field of fire to be grouped together. Players would be forced to cycle through groups of weapons in order to engage all their firepower. Not my most favorite option as players generally hate being limited.

2. Restrict the field of fire to the weapons within the current group. If you only group weapons in one arm then full field for that arm, both arms will only give you the are where they overlap and if you include torso weapons then the reticule would be fixed. I like this because it allows for variations in play style and provide a bit of complexity that can be overcome by skill.

Secondly, this will help differentiate the capabilities and game play of different mechs. Mechs without arms actuators will free up space for weapons but find their fields of fire more limited. Mechs with more weapons mounted in the more vulnerable arms will find that they have faster and more flexible target tracking.

this always bothered me too, and good point to bring it up.

on the grouping, id say let the grouping be however the pilot sets it up, and have a separate reticule break off to follow the arm when torso/arm are in different positions. the view should follow the reticule in the direction of motion (like if you are rotating left it follows your left arm reticule until you start rotating back to center, then it tracks the right arm). if a grouping fires weaps in both places...than fire goes off in both directions. if the player wants to separate the grouping so that doesnt happen, than sure.

the arms should also break away from the torso imediately when you start rotating, and not wait for the torso to limit out its rotation. this allows for quicker reaction from the arms right away when needed, and if you can wait for the torso to catch up for the full assault, you didnt loose anything by having the arms get there first.

it would have three drastic effects on gameplay that i can see:

1. as originally intended, mech builds would have to make a conscious choice to put weapons on quicker rotating arms at the cost protecting the weapons better on the torso, or vise versa. in the old games it was put the most critical stuff to the center and work outward because there was no good reason to put something on the arms first.

2. arms twisting faster than the torso, and to wider rotation angels, will (as you said) hurt the smaller mechs chances. the arms wont have the full heavies impact, and its just the more realistic way it should be, so im good with that as a primarily smaller mech pilot.

3. arm mobility on different mechs would have to be defined, and would add some more uniqueness to mechs. is the wieght trade off for lack of actuators on some designs currently in the rules? i dont recall that, but it might be a welcome tweak.

Edited by statler, 13 January 2012 - 09:22 PM.

[Burned_Follower]

I am personally worried whether or not if there is going to be a free redicle. I have almost always used just a keyboard and mouse when piloting mechs. I've only really played MW4 games and MWLL and in both despite me experimenting with joystick/throddle kits i've always ended up comming back to keyboard and mouse.

I actually sought out and tried to play MW3 but i couldn't figure out how to both pilot the mech and manage the free redicle at the same time. I know that Apache helicopter pilots have an equivilant of a free redicle but they manage thiers by an eyepiece attached to their helmets and they now have motion sensors built into their cockpits. In RL that is how a free redicle is managed.

But in a MW sim, without that special eyepiece mounted to a helmet, how have you MW3 veterans managed to operate that redicle? I would love to figure it out so that i can play MW3 better and possibly MWO if they bring that free redicle back.

Edited by XxDRxDEATHxX, 14 January 2012 - 11:46 AM.

[Xavier Truscott]

XxDRxDEATHxX, on 14 January 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

I am personally worried whether or not if there is going to be a free redicle. I have almost always used just a keyboard and mouse when piloting mechs. I've only really played MW4 games and MWLL and in both despite me experimenting with joystick/throddle kits i've always ended up comming back to keyboard and mouse.

I actually sought out and tried to play MW3 but i couldn't figure out how to both pilot the mech and manage the free redicle at the same time. I know that Apache helicopter pilots have an equivilant of a free redicle but they manage thiers by an eyepiece attached to their helmets and they now have motion sensors built into their cockpits. In RL that is how a free redicle is managed.

But in a MW sim, without that special eyepiece mounted to a helmet, how have you MW3 veterans managed to operate that redicle? I would love to figure it out so that i can play MW3 better and possibly MWO if they bring that free redicle back.

The setup i used in MW3 was basically numpad controls for all movement, and mouse for reticule, weapon selection and chain/group fire. I had the jump jet controls set to the arrows, and some targeting controls set to extra mouse buttons i had at the time. Takes a little getting used to, but worked for me.

[plodder]

I just downloaded mw4merc, mektek. NO freelook, ticked me off. So I look to see what was talked about, are you serious, why block it out?!?!?!! It is such more realistic, I use mouse, but was going to setup joystick the same way. REAL MECHS WOULD AUTOMATICALLY HAVE FREE LOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!And TWO RETICLES Thanks uncle danno

Edited by plodder, 24 January 2012 - 08:06 PM.

[Graphite]

Slyck, on 12 January 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

Something that always bothered me about the previous MW games is the relatively fixed nature of the reticule in the field of fire. I think this really added to the walking tank feel rather then the robotic war machine that I expect. Something very common on the TT that wasn't possible in the previous video games was to torso twist and swing the weapons in one arm around to target a more mobile enemy that had gotten behind you.

So I think I'd like to see a free floating reticule that will allow weapons in different area areas be capable of firing into different field of fire. Weapons in each arm would be able to float within an appropriate field of fire while torso mounted weapons would have the same fixed nature we're used to I think this would have an interesting effect on game play.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but aren't you asking for the floating reticle from MW3?

[Maximilian Thorn]

Maybe a floating reticle is cool for strictly keyboard-and-mouse users, but for a joystick user, it is annoyingly tricky. When playing MW4 (and its expansions), I used a programmable Joystick. I plan to use a newer joystick-and-throttle setup for MWO. It really gives an immersive sense of being an actual Mech pilot. While I did use the keyboard-and-mouse for a few things (i.e. the mechbay loadout), during combat, I exclusively used the joystick. As MWO will not be designed for PS3 or Xbox (at least, not at this time), a gamepad would be too cumbersome for me. I can't control a Mech with just one hand using a gamepad (need both hands for use), but I can use a joystick one handed. In fact, I don't really need a separate throttle...I can control all the Mech's motions, actions and weapons using just the joystick. I only decided to incorporate the throttle for the immersion value.

In short, I like the MW4 fixed reticle...it fit my playstyle.

Edited by Maximilian Thorn, 22 January 2012 - 04:32 PM.

[plodder]

Graphite, on 22 January 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but aren't you asking for the floating reticle from MW3?

Yes, like MW3, it is more realistic,locked reticle is not comprehensive.I now have a joystick, and am configuring it for freelook capabilities with targeting. anyone that says that having a floating(freelook) reticle is unfair to joystick users, has not looked into using a joystick effectively. I will make an effective/inexpensive system that anyone can use, that anyone can put together,and the x box contingency should be able to use a hand controller and foot pedals, and a freelook reticle would be surpassing effective with that set up. Please let me know if this does not make sense to anyone.
thanks uncle danno

P.S. Sorry Thorn, I did not read your post, this was not directed at you. I edited this in.

P.S. P.S. I am experimenting with double joystick, joystick with mouse, joystick with race car controllers, all these with keyboard options as well...

Edited by plodder, 24 January 2012 - 08:20 PM.

[Longinus Leichenberg]

My former chain of thought over here.

EDIT: Limit grouping? Limit field of fire? Seriously, why should the game care for that? You're the pilot, and if you're a complete jackass, you simply fail at life and die (in game, of course). Seriously, this "consumer-friendly" mentality sickens me!

Edited by Longinus Leichenberg, 25 January 2012 - 01:16 PM.

[Dlardrageth]

Longinus Leichenberg, on 25 January 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

My former chain of thought over here.

EDIT: Limit grouping? Limit field of fire? Seriously, why should the game care for that? You're the pilot, and if you're a complete jackass, you simply fail at life and die (in game, of course). Seriously, this "consumer-friendly" mentality sickens me!

Well, having as many optional features/control schemes available could be seen as "consumer friendly". As could be having more than just one Mech model in game. So on the one hand you cannot really want it to be not at all consumer-freindly unless you also argue for having only one Mech type in the whole game.

Limiting of too many options could be debatable if it allows for tackling possible lag issues. I could imagine a completely unlimited field of fire and grouping could lead to people trying to fire at 5 targets at the same time or something. Could cause some lag issues prolly in the match... which I'd rather not have.