144 replies to this topic

[Subdivision]

D20Face, on December 05 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

My argument is that yes, I would be.

I know.

Nobody has argued this point so rationally before and I accept your position. As I don't play at quite that level and it hasn't been made before I hadn't considered it in that way. In fairness to its utility for very high level play I concede it is more useful than I thought.

I'm wondering what angle is cut out specifically but only turning one way. You face forward and the FOV covers 60/70/80 degrees_ and then you turn 180 one way so you are missing 120/110/100 degrees overall. Anyone know what the FOV angle is_ I read it ages ago and can't remember now.

D20Face, on December 05 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

My comment was more directed at the thread as a whole. The thread is essentially forum pubstomping.

Fine, I don't like being painted by someone else's brush is all

D20Face, on December 05 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

Actually there is, it's not even secret since we've discussed it on streams.

I didn't know this. I stand by what I said in that I haven't been a part of it through any intention of my own

[cH_aos]

lol this thread

[Sylhiri]

Now everyone learns that talking to a wall is far more productive.

The time and money (yes, you have to pay programmers) it takes to make this suggestion a reality is not worth it for the 0.1% of people who can use it.

Edited by Sylhiri, December 05 2012 - 11:00 AM.

[OdinTheWise]

who cares what direction you spin, its always gona get you the same place in the same time

[Maoman]

Sylhiri, on December 05 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

The time and money it takes to make this suggestion a reality is not worth it for the 0.1% of people who can use it.

Above all else, all other points aside, I agree with this wholeheartedly. It may or may not be useful to some players and it may or may not be significant, but what it always boils down to is will all the time and effort it will take to implement this idea be worth it to a significant fraction of Hawken's players in the end_ I vote a flat out No, and any other "extremely subtle" changes or changes only for "pro" players that are suggested ought to receive a similar blatant dismissal.

[Beemann]

I'd like to know if this turn can actually be processed properly by a human being to the degree where it CAN actually provide an advantage
I'd also like to know why these ocular ubermenschen can't position themselves to get the most out of the currentt 180 spin anyway

[rdKNIGHTMAREZ]

the 'time and effort' required is less than the amount you guys have put in shooting it down.

and since it doesn't adversely effect the 99%, but does effect the 1 %, it should be put in.

[OdinTheWise]

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on December 05 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

the 'time and effort' required is less than the amount you guys have put in shooting it down.

and since it doesn't adversely effect the 99%, but does effect the 1 %, it should be put in.

This is the dumbest fuzzy bunny response I had read to date. In this case, the good of the few do not out weigh the many. This is capitalism, giveing the 1% somthing is not very profitable. You would make the worst business man ever. The customer is always rite, but when 1% doesn't like what you offer, you can afford to tell them to go fuzzy bunny them selfs

[Gagzila]

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on December 04 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

Quote

Essentially your idea is based on your opinion...opinions are like arseholes - everyone has one and it's

That is an attitude that i do not share.

It's not an attitude, it's a statement of fact (and a common saying)...or are you saying you don't have an arsehole_

Your idea is your opinion that through your experience in playing Hawken, a choice on 180 turn direction would improve gameplay. Other people's opinions are that it either would not or would not be a significant enough change to bother with it, hence the argument...since working on a seemingly pointless feature takes more focus away from more important matters such as fixing actual bugs, adding new content, getting ready for open beta and just support in general.

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on December 04 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

you demanding that i have the same philosophical attitude towards sentience, human or otherwise, is, if you take a step back and think about it, a form of arrogance. its not that i don't understand you, it's just not a philosophical game i agree to play.

What are you referring to here and what philosophical game_

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on December 04 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

you argue for the sake of arguing, and this thread is a shiny example of that. its obviously better to have a more fluid control system.

I argue for the sake of "I don't agree with your argument, leave this part of Hawken as it is". There is nothing at all obviously wrong with Hawken's control system...it's an FPS and operates just fine in what you would expect to control in an arcade FPS with a mech flavour. I don't know what fluidity has to do with this discussion, all the controls are efficient and precise and the response is tuned perfectly to what you would expect when piloting a mech. Are you referring to animation fluidity_ (of which is a different matter and there is no issue here as far as I can see)

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on December 04 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

demanding that i respect your ideas when from day one you haven't shown me any is a form of bullying. and the fact i enrage you trolls with my logic amuses me

Ignoring mine and others posts almost completely and effectively hammering the same mantra over and over that your form of "evidence" "obviously" makes you correct and everyone else wrong is not showing any respect for other people's opinions and you lost my respect quite a while ago in the way you go about "suggesting" an idea.

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on December 04 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

5 pages of txt_ yeah well...thats just me being thorougher and you lot wanting the last word.....cause you arn't here to make the game better...that's one reason, . It's my main one.

If there wasn't an absurd claim by yourself to rebut, then I and others wouldn't need to reply. I am most definitely here as a beta tester to help AG and ME improve the game by providing constructive feedback and criticism...part of that is arguing against what I deem to be bad ideas or a waste of resources.

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on December 04 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

I genuinely think you lot disagreeing had FAR more to do with it being made by the guy with the name knightmarez than the thought itself.

and that, in my book....is a real insult.

Granted I see a thread by you and think "here we go again..." but I still thoroughly read the OP and take it on it's own merits irrespective of who the poster is, this is evident by my posting in agreement and liking your OP for the Positivity and Love thread.

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on December 05 2012 - 04:38 AM, said:

despite the fact that it mathematically proves a clear situation where one would need to see left.

Despite the fact you cannot actually see anything of use during the 180 turn, therefore there is no situation that benefits from turning one way or the other. You ASCI examples only helped to make clear the point you were trying to make (though most already understood and opinions were unchanged after said graphic examples), they in no way lent any weight to your argument.

SamSlade, on December 05 2012 - 05:32 AM, said:

Good idea, would help with situation awareness. +1

I beg to differ...if you did not have good situational awareness before the turn, what you see in the turn (if anything at all of any help) is not going to help one bit. If you are properly situational aware before the turn, it will not matter what happens in the split second the turn occurs as you already have your next move planned.

Some argue you might be able to see an enemy mech on your side as you spin, how does this change your move after you spin_ You're still going to boost straight ahead out of there as fast as you can as you are now not only retreating but outnumbered as well. The fact is, you will not notice anything during the spin, if you are properly situational aware, you will know what is around you and if another enemy enters the scene while spinning, you are FAR more likely to hear them before seeing them during the spin.

D20Face, on December 05 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

and was both surprised at the idea being decent as well as the general reaction.

There's nothing really wrong with the idea in principal, its just that it won't make any discernible difference to gameplay and only makes the controls unnecessarily more complex in nature (not complex -> more complex )...therefore it's pretty pointless. That's all it's really been about from the start, it's just that rdK's arguments and supposed evidence have become more silly as the thread goes on and is mainly what frustrates people to reply in an exasperated / annoyed manner and he is not above personal attacks and highly sarcastic replies as seen in many of his own responses whenever his arguments are contested.

To be continued...

Edited by Gagzila, December 05 2012 - 06:51 PM.

[Gagzila]

...continued from previous post.

D20Face, on December 05 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

Even if you can't process the data, the HUD can still highlight players towards the end for you. The reason I like the idea, and this should be a mind blower for you folks, is that if I'm turning before I shift+s, it continues to turn me in the same direction. It's all around more fluid.

"towards the end" is near enough, makes no difference the direction you would be facing anyway after the 180 spin, therefore they will be highlight and already in your FOV.

Your other point doesn't make sense...the game doesn't know where you intend to 180 turn to and therefore compensate if you're already turning...it will still spin you 180 from your current facing and direction of spin makes no difference.

D20Face, on December 05 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

As far as "you wouldn't be able to tell" is concerned, eventually I will know exactly how the maps look and even the slightest discrepancy will be picked up.

D20Face, on December 05 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

Give good players half a year with a map and they'll know exactly what that spin is supposed to look like even before it happens.

Both of those comments pretty far fetched and the amount of players capable of this would be well under the 1% of all players, therefore the gain / profit would never equal the effort required to develop, test and implement. I am a "good" player and do not think I could get to that level without spending all day, every day playing which will not happen since like most other players, I have other commitments and responsibilities such as a job, house, wife, children (not yet for me), etc. just to tick a few major ones.

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on December 05 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

and since it doesn't adversely effect the 99%, but does effect the 1 %, it should be put in.

Addressed above.

Cheers,

Gagzila

Edited by Gagzila, December 05 2012 - 06:46 PM.

[D20Face]

Beemann, on December 05 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

I'd like to know if this turn can actually be processed properly by a human being to the degree where it CAN actually provide an advantage
I'd also like to know why these ocular ubermenschen can't position themselves to get the most out of the currentt 180 spin anyway

Nobody has spent enough time with the maps yet. It took a month of prophunt(a detail oriented game mode) for me to learn every nook and cranny of the maps on rotation. But I'll be damned if I didn't do it.

It's something that takes time but will happen. Without prophunt it'll take longer, but it'll happen.

Gagzila, on December 05 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

"towards the end" is near enough, makes no difference the direction you would be facing anyway after the 180 spin, therefore they will be highlight and already in your FOV.

No, it's not. FOV is capped at 90. You see 90 front, 90 after you're turned, and there's 90 degrees you scan quickly that are only seen during the spin. If the enemy is in the 90 degrees on the other spin end, you'll never see them and they'll never be highlighted.

Gagzila, on December 05 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

Your other point doesn't make sense...the game doesn't know where you intend to 180 turn to and therefore compensate if you're already turning...it will still spin you 180 from your current facing and direction of spin makes no difference.

The spin is just that, a spin. Say I'm already turning left to normally look at *insert important game feature here* then I find I'm being attacked from behind. Does it make more sense to continue going in the direction I'm already turning or to shift to the other direction because why the heck not.

The direction of the spin makes no difference for end location. The direction of a spin does make a difference from a continuity standpoint.

When you move left, what is a left boost_ An exaggerated leftward body movement.
When you do a 180 it's an exaggerated torso movement(movement controlled via the mouse). It would make sense to have mouse inputs effect the result.

The idea isn't complicated. It's extremely easy to implement. It actually simplifies and streamlines the turn mechanic. AND it has absolutely zero downsides.

Even if all the tactical reasons are too far fetched to ever be attained, it would add to immersion the same way certain lighting effects and shadows do. So slight it's only noticeable when you think about it, but when you think about it you realize it's had an impact.

[SunshineSloth]

Quote

the 'time and effort' required is less than the amount you guys have put in shooting it down.

Edited Post: Removed inappropriate language.

[EMEUTIER]

Just a small question... dunno if it has already been suggested, don't really want to re-read all the post to attempt to find out.

Doesn't the radar give you better/more useful info than what a fleeting glance as you turn would_

Of-course turrets don't show on the radar but I'm sure you can figure out where one is placed by the visual HUD indication when it is hitting you...

[OdinTheWise]

i say drop it once and for all, it will never happen any way so for fuzzy bunny sake just let it go

btw turrets do show up on radar when a radar is deployed

Edited by OdinTheWise, December 05 2012 - 09:10 PM.

[Adreni]

[Continuous screaming is heard] I THOUGHT I KILLED THIS THREAD'S POINTLESS ARGUMENT!!!

WHAT does it matter how much of an "advantage" the mechanic's idea would give people_! It's a nicety that SHOULD be implemented and would be EASY to implement! There is no reason NOT to do it and there IS a chance that it MAY give high FPS, high reaction players an edge.

And if you need citations, *I* can make things out at that speed rolling 60 FPS. That's not a question, that's not a theory. It's a fact. That first Youtube video that was posted was proof enough.

Can I make use of it_
I can't reach a 120 APM on StarCraft.


!!!SOMEONE CAN!!!

[Gagzila]

D20Face, on December 05 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

Nobody has spent enough time with the maps yet. It took a month of prophunt(a detail oriented game mode) for me to learn every nook and cranny of the maps on rotation. But I'll be damned if I didn't do it.

It's something that takes time but will happen. Without prophunt it'll take longer, but it'll happen.

What is this "prophunt" you speak off_

D20Face, on December 05 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

No, it's not. FOV is capped at 90. You see 90 front, 90 after you're turned, and there's 90 degrees you scan quickly that are only seen during the spin. If the enemy is in the 90 degrees on the other spin end, you'll never see them and they'll never be highlighted.

He said "towards the end", indicating the 180 spin had been initiated and was nearing the end of the spin, hence whatever you saw in this particular time (IMHO you wouldn't see anything useful in the time it takes to complete the full 180, let alone a fraction of that at the end) would still be seen once the spin was complete anyway. You misunderstood both of our responses.

D20Face, on December 05 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

The spin is just that, a spin. Say I'm already turning left to normally look at *insert important game feature here* then I find I'm being attacked from behind. Does it make more sense to continue going in the direction I'm already turning or to shift to the other direction because why the heck not.

The direction of the spin makes no difference for end location. The direction of a spin does make a difference from a continuity standpoint.

Yes from an logical continuity of motion point of view it makes sense but gameplay wise it makes no difference and I really do not care which way it turns as the sole purpose of the mechanic is to turn you 180 as quickly as possible for whatever purpose you put that mechanic to.

D20Face, on December 05 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

1. The idea isn't complicated. 2. It's extremely easy to implement. 3. It actually simplifies and streamlines the turn mechanic. 4. AND it has absolutely zero downsides.

1. No one said it was.
2. How do you know this_ Are you a Hawken dev in secret_
3. Adding extra steps to a mechanic is the opposite of simplification or streamlining.
4. Downsides = steeper learning curve for noobs, more to think about in the heat of battle (it is an FPS, not a Sim) and it makes the mechanic longer to execute. Don't give me rdK's nonsense of your mouse is always moving 1 pixel left or right, my mouse can remain completely stationary if I so wish and means I have to initiate a mouse move at the same time as pressing Shift + S for the 180 to execute.

D20Face, on December 05 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

Even if all the tactical reasons are too far fetched to ever be attained, it would add to immersion the same way certain lighting effects and shadows do. So slight it's only noticeable when you think about it, but when you think about it you realize it's had an impact.

It might be neat to incorporate in a game like MWO (and useful with their turning speed), it's definitely not necessary in any regards to Hawken.

Cheers,

Gagzila

[Gagzila]

Adreni, on December 05 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

[Continuous screaming is heard] I THOUGHT I KILLED THIS THREAD'S POINTLESS ARGUMENT!!!

You should get some sleep if you're hearing things

Argument is not pointless if it is addressing an issue that can still be argued. This idea is not a given by any means.

Adreni, on December 05 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

WHAT does it matter how much of an "advantage" the mechanic's idea would give people_! It's a nicety that SHOULD be implemented and would be EASY to implement! There is no reason NOT to do it and there IS a chance that it MAY give high FPS, high reaction players an edge.

What kind of justification is that!_ It should just be implemented because you say so and because YOU can't come up with a reason not...

I listed a few reasons above.

Cheers,

Gagzila

[D20Face]

Adreni, on December 05 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

[Continuous screaming is heard] I THOUGHT I KILLED THIS THREAD'S POINTLESS ARGUMENT!!!

Sadly you haven't, and that's why I'm making an attempt.

Gagzila, on December 05 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

What is this "prophunt" you speak off_

It's a game mode where everybody on one team is skinned as a world prop and the other team has to find and kill them.

In TF2(the game I played with it, Gmod maps are too featureless) that means tires, control points, trees, barrels, every prop the game has at it's disposal, you could become. It also means that any of those tires could be a person you're looking for. Firing your weapon drains your health, so you have to be at least suspicious to begin with.

You will never learn a map so well as you will when Hide and Seek is a primary game mode.

Gagzila, on December 05 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

Yes from an logical continuity of motion point of view it makes sense but gameplay wise it makes no difference and I really do not care which way it turns as the sole purpose of the mechanic is to turn you 180 as quickly as possible for whatever purpose you put that mechanic to.

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that immersion and aesthetics have been a focus of Hawken.

Gagzila, on December 05 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

1. No one said it was.
2. How do you know this_ Are you a Hawken dev in secret_
3. Adding extra steps to a mechanic is the opposite of simplification or streamlining.
4. Downsides = steeper learning curve for noobs, more to think about in the heat of battle (it is an FPS, not a Sim) and it makes the mechanic longer to execute. Don't give me rdK's nonsense of your mouse is always moving 1 pixel left or right, my mouse can remain completely stationary if I so wish and means I have to initiate a mouse move at the same time as pressing Shift + S for the 180 to execute.

1. You said it extends the number of commands you need to input to achieve a result.
2. I plan on getting into game development and have a small amount of experience with UE3. I'm pretty sure I could map that to a key within an hour, and the devs could do so within 5 minutes because they wouldn't need to look up every command involved.
3. It's not adding steps. It's adding possible steps.
4. Have a default value set for no movement. That way it only changes the way it works if your input denotes otherwise.

[Gagzila]

D20Face, on December 05 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

It's a game mode where everybody on one team is skinned as a world prop and the other team has to find and kill them.

In TF2(the game I played with it, Gmod maps are too featureless) that means tires, control points, trees, barrels, every prop the game has at it's disposal, you could become. It also means that any of those tires could be a person you're looking for. Firing your weapon drains your health, so you have to be at least suspicious to begin with.

You will never learn a map so well as you will when Hide and Seek is a primary game mode.

Yes well that is TF2 and doesn't exactly correlate with Hawken, therefore such detailed study of every "prop" in Hawken is not required. Kudos for being able to memorise it all, I doubt it would be as possible with how busy Hawken maps are in design nor necessary since you can't see the map in that kind of detail during a 180 spin anyway.

D20Face, on December 05 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that immersion and aesthetics have been a focus of Hawken.

Correct to a point...this makes near no difference to the overall big picture. I've made the immersion argument myself before but it's not the be all, end all especially in an FPS where after your initial "WOW" you don't tend to notice such details most of the time as you're to caught up in the action to notice or care.

D20Face, on December 05 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

1. You said it extends the number of commands you need to input to achieve a result.
2. I plan on getting into game development and have a small amount of experience with UE3. I'm pretty sure I could map that to a key within an hour, and the devs could do so within 5 minutes because they wouldn't need to look up every command involved.
3. It's not adding steps. It's adding possible steps.
4. Have a default value set for no movement. That way it only changes the way it works if your input denotes otherwise.

You said "The idea isn't complicated" which it's not and is different from me saying it makes the mechanic more complex. See how I'm highlighting the word "more" . It's just an expression to indicate more steps in a process that is already efficient in how it accomplishes it's goal, it does not mean I am saying the process itself is complex. Therefore adding more steps makes it unnecessarily more complex because you do not gain anything above the normal efficient mechanic. I could also just say the extra steps make the process inefficient to the end goal.

Thanks for quantifying your actual experience in something (unlike some others)...if that's the actual case, then that's cool but I still don't want the change for other said reasons. Also I do not believe it would still be a 5 minute job for AG...maybe 5 minutes of coding yes, but coding is only one small part of what such a process would entail to include the feature (as an educated guess about what kind of process such decisions would undergo in that multi-million dollar game development environment).

Your reasoning on control schemes / automation make sense but I still do not see the point of implementing this feature. You want to 180, you do a 180...you've done a 180 and the battle goes on.

Cheers,

Gagzila

[Spiderz]

Gagzila, on November 29 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on November 29 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

to say otherwise is absurd.

Most of your ideas and statements to back them are absurd...the shift + S mechanic is there solely to 180 you and aid in whatever movement tactic you are trying to employ. If you want to scan the battlefield, move your fuzzy bunny mouse left or right and scan it!

Stop posting up all these left field ideas, most that would be fundamentally gameplay changing to what we know as Hawken and just LTP the game.

Cheers,

Gagzila

haha "L2P, cheers" yo cheers man