4 replies to this topic

[Staffan]

In all the videos and screenshots (I think), the hud graphics for damage indication (both your own and the targeted enemy) shows the same mech model, regardless of what mech it actually is. I think there is a huge difference between a Stalker, a Jenner, a Catapult etc. They don't have the same build. And it would be even more extreme for a Linebacker for instance, because it's built in a completely different way (no torso twisting axis).

I really hope that you have planned to changes this, so that the hud reflects the actual look and build of the mechs you are piloting and targeting! Think even Mechwarrior 2 had this feature ...

Btw, the game looks fantastic, can't wait to play!

Regards / SL

[theblackdeath]

All battlemechs essentially have the same components right? Arms, Legs, Torso, and etc. I think it's easy for a pilot to look and go "Oh the arm is heavily damaged, I'm going to take it out" over having to learn the complete lay out of every battlemech on the field of play.

K.I.S.S. or Keep It Simply Stupid, an acronym we use it the military, just my 2 cents.

[Coaxill]

It seems like it wouldn't be too hard to implement the simple shapes of the mechs into the HUD, and they may intend to do this regardless.

Edited by Coaxill, 29 August 2012 - 05:25 PM.

[Baked]

I wondered this also, I thought at first that all the screen shots were of the same mech... although an inordinate amount of them do seem to be the Atlas but that's beside the point.

I would think that having the damage indicator be specific to the mech you are piloting would be beneficial to the pilot as it would serve to remind you exactly what mech you are in and help with immersion into the game.

It may not be a problem NOW ( yeah you can tell the difference betwee being in a Hunchback and a Jenner while piloting it) but later on down the road as they add more "Mechs that have only slight variations in how they move but vastly different looking chassis...

I for one would probably like to have two mechs of similar manuverability ( a Mosqutio and a Jenner perhaps?) but with different loadouts for different purposes. The damage indicator would act as I said and be a reminder exactly which mech I am in so I know what role I should be in the battle according to the loadout I provide each chassis.

But hey... that's just me.

Also of note if we want to bring up immersion: Wouldn't a "Mech Pilot have 'his baby' that he uses most often... I mean he bought it he probably uses that particular chasis for most of his career. These aren't (nesecarily) troops that use whatever chassis they are commanded to use, but pilots that would probably have their favorite. I would think that they'd have diagnostic screens that better represent "their baby"...

Edited by Baked, 30 August 2012 - 11:56 AM.

[MrPlow254]

theblackdeath, on 29 August 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

All battlemechs essentially have the same components right? Arms, Legs, Torso, and etc. I think it's easy for a pilot to look and go "Oh the arm is heavily damaged, I'm going to take it out" over having to learn the complete lay out of every battlemech on the field of play.

K.I.S.S. or Keep It Simply Stupid, an acronym we use it the military, just my 2 cents.

Coming from an engineer, it really is up to how gready the corp. making the object for the millitary is. Things could be made to be user friendly and cheap if the time is put into it.

Example: some parts used on US aircrafts are made of plastic and break... They are also very hard to get to. Why would someone make it like this. It is not K.I.S.S. it is cash.