Jump to content

Unlocking torso from waste


74 replies to this topic

#21 somnia

    Rookie

  • 7 posts

Posted 28 November 2012 - 04:34 PM

lol i think this is just asking to make it easier to pilot them currently it takes skill to navigate terrain and stay on target this is just asking for it to not take skill so anyone can do it

#22 PHAROSMJD

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 63 posts
  • LocationArgentina

Posted 28 November 2012 - 04:42 PM

Since there isn't even support for analog turning yet, i'd say horizontal torso stabilization is unlikely to happen any time soon.

#23 Tycandus

    Rookie

  • 1 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 10:29 AM

I just look at it this way. The mech is mostly analogous to a human. If you were running at someone an arm raised and swiveled your hips to run to the side it would take effort to keep your torso turned to continue facing that person. The natural reaction, and natural state is for the torso to match back up to center. The mouse movement to keep facing in that direction is minimal, and to me is a natural reaction to what I want to do anyway.

#24 Chief 117

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 479 posts
  • LocationCzech Republic

Posted 29 November 2012 - 10:40 AM

+1

#25 DrVulcan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:44 AM

I think that there is a simple missunderstanding, please consider:

Tanks have a turret that rotates faster than they can turn their base, thus turret independent tracking is possible.

Mechs have a "turret/top" that can turn slower than the base can turn so the top could never keep up with the motion.
You dont notice this much ingame as your perspective when making that motion makes sence in your head.

Another aspect is jump turning. ie: on my jenner I often hit jump jets to do very fast turns, this would be very hard to handle with the proposed independent model as do you want the top to move with respect to the ground, your base, or your view, as all three are actually different points in this case.

Therefore, it would be impossible to implement independent tirning, as there are several cases where it would be unable to keep up and you would have a slowly shifting view, ... Only useful for non jump mechs that have a "turret/top" turning radius that exceeds their max base turning speed.

Hope that helps!!!

Edited by DrVulcan, 30 November 2012 - 10:47 AM.


#26 zhajin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 560 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:55 AM

yeah all you are really asking for is a system that automatically compensates for lower body movement. it has nothing to with "unlocking". when your lower body moves your upper body is going to move also, this is just physics. now its possible for a computer system to automaticaly compensate for the movement of the lower body, by moving the upper body equally in the opposite direction. i suspect most modern tanks have computer systems that do just that, so the operators do not have to compensate manually. however most modern tanks also have system that compensate for range, balitics drops and other things we do not have in game.

In the end its a quesiton of how easy do you want it to be to hit something in the game. If we are going on reality here we might as well just turn this into a tab targeted "fps", because computer systems could technically compensate for everything when firing the weapons...

Edited by zhajin, 30 November 2012 - 10:55 AM.


#27 PapaKilo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 774 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:49 PM

Yeah. This request really is auto-aim.

1. Lock onto target.
2. Aim point moves with target no matter what your 'Mech movement is.
3. ???
4. Profit.

Removes skill from aiming. That would only be acceptable if weapon fire was randomly rolled, like in the tabletop game.

#28 JVH1982

    Rookie

  • 1 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:48 PM

I believe the technical term relevant here is a "gyroscopically stabilized" torso. The human body analogy that I would use here would actually be the ability to independently track a point with your head while the rest of your body can make course adjustments, with rotational limits obviously.

I wouldn't suggest that there is any sort of target lock-on involved, just that the torso's heading remains unaffected by the legs' changes in direction up to the rotation limits.

#29 PapaKilo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 774 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 04:49 PM

Maybe I'm over-thinking this or something, but I just don't get how it works. I know that I can look at a lamp in the corner of the room, and keep looking at that lamp while moving all around the room. But how do you do that in game? How do you tell the game what you actually want to look at? The only answer that I can come up with is: You look at the target you have locked.

And with your viewpoint automatically tracking the target like that, aiming becomes so much easier it's not even funny.

The only downside is you get an extreme case of tunnel vision because you are directly tracking one target. And that's nowhere near enough to offset the aiming advantage.

#30 Scraper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 104 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 07:47 PM

Isn't this what left ctrl does?

#31 machinech

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 76 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:17 PM

View PostPapaKilo, on 30 November 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Yeah. This request really is auto-aim.

1. Lock onto target.
2. Aim point moves with target no matter what your 'Mech movement is.
3. ???
4. Profit.

Removes skill from aiming. That would only be acceptable if weapon fire was randomly rolled, like in the tabletop game.



Wow...just wow. It would be JUST like auto aim except...there is NO auto aim built into the game in ANY form. So no it would NOT be like auto aim. It would simply remain pointing where you point it until you've reached the max torso twist. This has been available in nearly every incarnation of the MW franchise. Including the old VirtualWorld software. Such a feature would not be a cheat, auto aim, or remotely "unfair". If we can do it in tanks this century, I'd be baffled to figure, logically, how such a simple thing could be lost technologically in the MW universe. I'm hoping it simply hasn't been dealt with as a feature since they're leaving control optimization low on the priority list.

** The in-game solution is to simply isolate control input for torso and legs seperately in some fashion. Example: If mouse controls torso, torso does not take input from leg controls until/unless max torso twist has been reached. If max torso twist is reached the the torso must follow legs as they take turn input to avoid unfair 360 degree aiming.

Edited by machinech, 12 December 2012 - 02:22 PM.


#32 Kalidar

    Member

  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:52 PM

View PostPapaKilo, on 30 November 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Yeah. This request really is auto-aim.


*facepalm* If you don't understand the request, please don't try to hijack with a troll post. There's no target involved in this discussion. There's no mention of weapons, firing or 'lock on'. It's about the mechanics of leg and torso rotation and how they interact with each other.

Re-read the thread, including the very patient explanations, including another one by machinech as folks have repeated where posts appear that don't understand what is being requested.

This is a basic concept that requires a little thought to comprehend and shouldn't be hard to implement, nor should it raise any overblown, baseless fears. Seriously.

Edited by Kalidar, 12 December 2012 - 04:53 PM.


#33 Apothegm

    Rookie

  • 6 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 08:52 AM

Once or twice, I've joined a game where my controls were glitched in such a way that this exact 'feature' was present. So... just cross your fingers? The battlegrid was also broken, but I guess you take the good with the bad...

#34 Taranchio

    Member

  • Pip
  • 13 posts

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:06 AM

Analogue leg movement might make this request a little less valid, since it will be much easier to match leg movement to the opposite torso movement.

I use a dual stick setup with pedals and turning torso to counter leg movement is something I am kind of proud of when I get it right :-). I dont think I have actually experienced this as an option in any other mech sim either, but do agree that it will make the experience a lot smoother.

Being able to easily hold on target while changing movement direction to throw off aim will definitely help. Especially with fast turning and twisting light mechs that need pinpoint shots to really do much damage.

As to the posters that complain about relation between leg and torso speed... again this is an analogue leg movement problem. If the legs could be adjusted slightly, smoothly there would be no problem. This is where they are eventually headed.

However that might just render this option obsolete in any case.

#35 Volez

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 07:51 AM

Implenting this feature will increase gameplay and skillcap.., which is something that IGN doesnt like at all so i dont think it will ever happen.

#36 TopHatt

    Member

  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 08:26 AM

I think it would be nice to have a stabilization feature for the torso of the mech. The crosshairs would stay pointed at roughly the same point even as turning is done with legs. The stabilization would break loose when the torso can no longer move anymore to hold view direction. This ability should be able to be turned on or off. Just like stabilization in a tank. Just a thought :lol:

#37 Loqgar

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 78 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 10:40 AM

I would also like to see this as an option. I know it was in at least one previous Mechwarrior game.

#38 Justin416

    Rookie

  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 2 posts
  • LocationRedford, MI 48239

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:01 PM

This! I can't believe there isn't an option for this yet. I love how self proclaimed wannabe elitist jerks act like controller nazis, let people decide what they like best for them. Give us the choice to aim freely while maintaining torso rotation reach limitations without it being effected by turning. I may be speaking for myself here, but I dought it when I say that limited controls like these are a deterrent to players that could ultimately spend their hard earned money playing something they enjoy. But, with this being beta some of us can hope that a wider variety of functions and options that hold true to the functionality of the legendary legacy that is Mechwarrior combat, without limiting player skill.

Just my two cents, sorry for the short wall of text >.<

#39 Gregore

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 452 posts
  • LocationToronto

Posted 28 December 2012 - 01:29 PM

Just an FYI, this would make circle strafing much more difficult, not make it easier as some of the persons above stated.

Circle strafing is easy now because your torso turns with your legs, so it keeps it pointed in pretty much the same spot when you circle.

Picture it like this, you are circling someone, you are south of them, aiming north, as you turn your legs you continue to aim north as your torso is not turning with the legs. Now you are east of them, but you are still aiming north, unless you move your cursor with the mouse.

the current way is much better. most of you in this thread are confusing a free torso/leg movement with a target lock. Meaning your cursor will stay on the target regardless of which way you turn. This is also commonly referred to as an aimbot.

Edited by Gregore, 28 December 2012 - 01:30 PM.


#40 Taizan

    Com Guard

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,692 posts
  • LocationGalatea (NRW)

Posted 31 December 2012 - 04:51 AM

Wasn't there in one of the MW games the option to lock / unlock torso from hip? I don't remember which game it was, but I'm fairly sure something like this used to exist.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users