Jump to content

Atlas Cockpit Systems Overview


188 replies to this topic

#81 CeeKay Boques

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 3,371 posts
  • LocationYes

Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:19 PM

2... crosshairs... for arms and torso...

I'm kind of falling in love with you guys right now... I think maybe we should take a break, because this might be forever and I really want talk to my wife first, I think I owe her that.

#82 Karyudo ds

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,706 posts
  • LocationChaos March

Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:41 PM

That's an interesting point Orzorn. I agree arm control in MW4 wasn't set up to be easy to use and was rarely more convenient then torso twisting. In MW3 you had arm OR torso control which were unwieldy to mix. However on Battletech arm mounted made a huge difference. Only way I could see this work on a standard PC would be if the arms could auto track targets within their arc...that would be awesome and explain why MW games even have arms.

#83 FinnMcKool

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,600 posts
  • Locationunknown

Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:47 PM

There are two reticules - arms and torso.

this must mean that the arms can point in a different direction and why? "Melee combat?"

#84 CeeKay Boques

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 3,371 posts
  • LocationYes

Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:54 PM

View PostFinnMcKool, on 01 March 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

There are two reticules - arms and torso.

this must mean that the arms can point in a different direction and why? "Melee combat?"



Um... I don't know about you, but I would love to shoot the light punk in front of me, (looking at him with my TrackIR) while simultaneously putting a gauss slug in the missile boat 30 degrees to his left and in the distance.

Yes, it will be hard, but I hope after a few years I can pull it off regularly. :)

Surely this is a moment you would embrace, not scoff at right?

Posted Image

#85 Aegis Kleais

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,003 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:57 PM

View PostFinnMcKool, on 01 March 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

There are two reticules - arms and torso.

this must mean that the arms can point in a different direction and why? "Melee combat?"

Like a Tank having a "Fixed Hull Turret", some weapons do not allow you to pivot it independently of the facing direction of the chassis. A weapon on the Mech's Torso must face the direction the Mech chassis is, but ones on the arms sit on pivotable joints that can be more freely aimed in wider directions.

#86 Orzorn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,327 posts
  • LocationComanche, Texas

Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:59 PM

View PostKaryudo-ds, on 01 March 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

Only way I could see this work on a standard PC

Well, like I said, Assault Tech 1: Battletech shows the concept nicely. You have a free floating reticule that points the weapons on your arms. Weapons on your torso are represented by a stationary grey reticule. You torso twist, and the center reticule moves. You move your mouse, and the floating reticule moves.

#87 Semyon Drakon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 260 posts
  • LocationCanberra, Australia

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:02 PM

One thing that is giving lie to the idea of rearward firing weapons is that the HUG isn't the 360 degree circle vision strip depicted in canon. remember mech HUD's were a holographic image that concentrated the entire 360 view into a 180 degree strip in front of the mechwarrior. this doesn't appear to be the case here. Otherwise when the mechwarrior turned his head the vision strip would have shown the scene to the right and down of the mech.

I think unless there are more wonderful trailers coming, that we'll be firing forwwards and possibly sideways but not with dedicated rearward mounted weapons.

Semyon

p.s This makes me sad, I love the idea of flipping arms over on a rifleman or timber wolf and blasting some light mech with delusions of grandeur.

#88 Semyon Drakon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 260 posts
  • LocationCanberra, Australia

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:05 PM

View PostTsen Shang, on 01 March 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:


The Inner Sphere used duels because technology was scarce and neither side could afford losing the mech AND the engagement/planet. The loser was allowed to bow out and concede defeat, but go home with their mech after paying a ransom.

Clans used 'duels' as a one on one test of strength, but the loser was still killed/mech destroyed and the pilot claimed because technology was not scarce. This is certainly not 'noble' in spirit as there was no quarter given or received.

The Inner Sphere practice of dueling is the only 'noble' version, and it stopped once the clans invaded due to no quarter. Clan 'honor' isn't noble.

If we were playing the succession wars then we could talk about how Battletech is about honorable duels between gentleman Mechwarriors, but we aren't, so it's not.


I tell you what Stravag, come find a world I have just taken, bring 11 Capellan friends and we shall bid the defence of the world. I will agree to bid only 2/3 of your force strength in terms of tonnage or BV, depending on what is implemented as a force value indicator system.

Then we can duel to your rules if you wish. Aegis will you join me in this?

Semyon

#89 FinnMcKool

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,600 posts
  • Locationunknown

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:07 PM

It will make it harder for light mechs to dance around the big boys (sometimes I liked it some time I thought it went to far)

, but I would like to see Melee .in some shape or form. ??

#90 Aegis Kleais

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,003 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:09 PM

View PostSemyon Drakon, on 01 March 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:


I tell you what Stravag, come find a world I have just taken, bring 11 Capellan friends and we shall bid the defence of the world. I will agree to bid only 2/3 of your force strength in terms of tonnage or BV, depending on what is implemented as a force value indicator system.

Then we can duel to your rules if you wish. Aegis will you join me in this?

Semyon

Agreed, as long as we suspend any form of Hegira for these vermin, quiaff?

#91 ilikain

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 67 posts
  • LocationSacramento, Ca.

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:11 PM

View PostFinnMcKool, on 01 March 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

It will make it harder for light mechs to dance around the big boys (sometimes I liked it some time I thought it went to far)

, but I would like to see Melee .in some shape or form. ??

a lot of the latest fluff stories that have given us a hint as to how they are handling Melee (I.e., don't get close to an Atlas), go read up! Especially the Story about Cripes.

#92 Grave

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 34 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:15 PM

View PostTsen Shang, on 01 March 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:


The Inner Sphere used duels because technology was scarce and neither side could afford losing the mech AND the engagement/planet. The loser was allowed to bow out and concede defeat, but go home with their mech after paying a ransom.


Uhm, maybe post 3rd Succession War...but the history of the Inner Sphere displayed huge wars that destroyed advanced technology. Really, the idea of "duelist" Inner Sphere tactics is an outgrowth of two things: one, the early BattleTech novels such as the original Grey Death legion stories like Decision at Thunder Rift and the anecdotal evidence of things like the family heirloom Panther; however, in terms of what actually happens as we're made aware of it (events covered by canonical BattleTech fiction and games) this is a relatively small period of time. Either you're in Succession war apocalypse mode, or you're in 3025-3049 Hanse Davion era with an upswing back towards large unit tactics (e.g. Operation Galahad, the rise of mercenary regiments as opposed to companies [see Kell Hounds, Northwind Highlanders, and the Wolf's Dragoons brigade]). Thus the idea that the main thrust of Spheroid 'mech combat as the "limited" combat duel is a myth. The second thing that causes this is Solaris VII, the game world, but that's sport, not war, and comparisons there are by definition less than useful.

Quote

Clans used 'duels' as a one on one test of strength, but the loser was still killed/mech destroyed and the pilot claimed because technology was not scarce. This is certainly not 'noble' in spirit as there was no quarter given or received.


According to whom? Prior to the Clan Invasion of 3050, we have ample evidence that resources were scarce. A brief perusal of any history of the Kerensky Cluster or in specific the Pentagon worlds reveals that Clan society is perpetually short of resources; the illusion that resources are not scarce is a product of the militarization of the society to uphold the warrior aspect above all else, not because they are decadent or resource rich. A casual investigation of the sourcebook Wars of Reaving by Ben Rome also gives great background on just how resource scarce the Clans really are in the Homeworlds.

Additionally, Clans initally were quite willing - in limited circumstances - to be merciful. The invasion of the Inner Sphere made war upon civilian populations very rarely; the orbital bombardment of Edo on Turtle Bay by the Smoke Jaguars was very much the exception, not the rule. Clanners also initially had no problem taking bondsmen, even the Jaguars; the Jags didn't become quite so bloodthirsty until the Spheroids started using tactics specifically designed to undermine the inherent disadvantages of the Clan battle system - namely, batchalls, zellbringen, and Clan conceptual honor rites. This would have been exemplified by the Combine's successes on Wolcott using guerilla tactics and by the reformation of elite Combine units into formations that had no battle history and thus appeared green when compared to the elite Clusters and Galaxies the Jaguars were providing information on during challenge processes.

Quote

The Inner Sphere practice of dueling is the only 'noble' version, and it stopped once the clans invaded due to no quarter. Clan 'honor' isn't noble.


This reads way less like argument and much more like propaganda.

Quote

If we were playing the succession wars then we could talk about how Battletech is about honorable duels between gentleman Mechwarriors, but we aren't, so it's not.


And even the succession wars - the first through the third - had nothing noble about them. You're thinking about the interregenum between them, when the technology base had been pounded into snailsnot.

#93 Grave

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 34 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:21 PM

View Postverybad, on 01 March 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

The clans are idealistic fools. They want to be efficient, and claim zellbrigen, or using the minimal amount of forces is efficent, and yet that's inherently false. A major part of winning wars is based on Generals developing numerical or tactical advantages. It's far more efficient to win with large force advantages as you take fewer losses that way.


Feel whatever way you want to about it, but my post was solely in response to the idea that dueling died with the advent of the Clans, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Quote

This is of course, why the Clans lost their invasive war. They're great individual warriors, they don't know how to fight a real war. If they'd fought as an army, they'd have taken Terra by the end of the 3050s.


Your definition of a real war is scorched earth tactics; had the Clans fought like that they'd have experienced the same problems the Sphere did and never maintained a technological edge, even if that edge ended up failing them in the end.

Quote

I can't wait for them to be introduced into the game, I'm gonna beat them with IS tech, and listen to Clan wannabe's whing about surat, or chreating, or legging, or not standing still in front of their supermechs while they blow me up.

I simply can not wait.


If Clan implementation is anything like balanced, I can't wait to be the one dousing folks like you with an ERPPC or four from the cockpit of my Warhawk :)

#94 Semyon Drakon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 260 posts
  • LocationCanberra, Australia

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:27 PM

View PostAegis Kleais™, on 01 March 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

Agreed, as long as we suspend any form of Hegira for these vermin, quiaff?


Aff trothkin, well bargained and done.

#95 GDL Irishwarrior

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • LocationMinnesota

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:28 PM

View PostSemyon Drakon, on 01 March 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

One thing that is giving lie to the idea of rearward firing weapons is that the HUG isn't the 360 degree circle vision strip depicted in canon. remember mech HUD's were a holographic image that concentrated the entire 360 view into a 180 degree strip in front of the mechwarrior. this doesn't appear to be the case here. Otherwise when the mechwarrior turned his head the vision strip would have shown the scene to the right and down of the mech.

I think unless there are more wonderful trailers coming, that we'll be firing forwwards and possibly sideways but not with dedicated rearward mounted weapons.

Semyon

p.s This makes me sad, I love the idea of flipping arms over on a rifleman or timber wolf and blasting some light mech with delusions of grandeur.


I seem to recall at least MW4 and MW2 implementing rear-facing cameras, accessible at the press of a button. Add a fixed reticle in the center of it (like for forward facing torso weapons) to represent your aiming point for rear-facing weaponry, and you're set. Not sure about flipping the arms to fire in the rear arc, though... Obviously, it would implement the same targeting system as using the arms while facing forward, I just don't know if it'd be a good (or easy) thing to implement.

#96 ilikain

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 67 posts
  • LocationSacramento, Ca.

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:36 PM

View PostSemyon Drakon, on 01 March 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

Aff trothkin, well bargained and done.

Freakin' Clanners... I am still hoping clans aren't playable. :)

Yay PvE content! :lol:

#97 CeeKay Boques

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 3,371 posts
  • LocationYes

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:40 PM

Advanced moves like arms might seem "Useless" or "Too hard to implement or use" right now.

But there will be a skill saturation point, and advanced Mechwariroring with opposed arms, Multi-dirctional and rear faced shooting will continue to keep players who have been playing for a year or more challenged, no matter who their opponent. In MW4 we were left with DFAs or shooting out the side window if you wanted to work on advanced stuff. (Although I had a Thor punch me and kill me by spinning his torso fast, that was B.A.) Having these types of options really point to a fully immersive game for a playerbase that seems, at least on CBT and these forums, to require more intellectually than your average shooter.

#98 ilikain

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 67 posts
  • LocationSacramento, Ca.

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:40 PM

View PostAegis Kleais™, on 01 March 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

I'm not sure if that story can be taken literally; it was an homage to a fallen MechWarrior. However, from a tactical standpoint, if you've gotten yourself melee-close to any Assault class, you've suffered from a tactical no-no. Any melee-capable Mech that I see that is prone for hand to hand combat (which is usually only viable as a last resort), I will make tried and true use of legging them to limit their mobility and then just pick them apart from afar.


Yeah, may not be a perfect example, but there were quite a few examples of Melee, I would be surprised if there wasn't something in there that they were referencing. Generally fluff is used to give hints of the features. <shrug> I am content to wait and see. :)

#99 GuntherK

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 451 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:49 PM

View Postilikain, on 01 March 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

Freakin' Clanners... I am still hoping clans aren't playable. :)

Yay PvE content! :lol:


Yeah i allways think of clanners like the clone troopers on star wars movies. They are all born from canister vats and they never met daddy or mommy. And if they live past the age of 40 they are used has cannon fodder... just like clone troopers. :ph34r:

#100 Semyon Drakon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 260 posts
  • LocationCanberra, Australia

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:51 PM

View PostGDL Irishwarrior, on 01 March 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:


I seem to recall at least MW4 and MW2 implementing rear-facing cameras, accessible at the press of a button. Add a fixed reticle in the center of it (like for forward facing torso weapons) to represent your aiming point for rear-facing weaponry, and you're set. Not sure about flipping the arms to fire in the rear arc, though... Obviously, it would implement the same targeting system as using the arms while facing forward, I just don't know if it'd be a good (or easy) thing to implement.


But imagine, just for a moment the way the eyes on the jenners mechjock widen as the twin ER PPC's swing up and over and lock on...

Life becomes so much better with tiny happy moments like that Quiaff?





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users