144 replies to this topic

[Zeshi]

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on December 03 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

looking forward to seeing it implemented at the next patch XD

Anyone who makes posts like this is clearly someone not worth arguing with (because he will not actually process any argument you make).

Please stop feeding the troll and let his threads die.

[Subdivision]

Adreni, on December 03 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

What am I, chopped liver_ Forget him, this thread is about the CONCEPT, not the almighty OP, and the lot of you treating it otherwise only means the devs have to wade through all this FLOTSAM to get real, workable opinions on the mechanic itself. That means if they DO wade through it, they've taken time out of their busy day that could be better allocated to something PRODUCTIVE. If they DON'T wade through it then you've probably just stolen any potential for implementation that an idea that was probably GOOD may have had.

Read my previous post and THEN say it hasn't been explained.

I hadn't noticed you'd edited your post after my last reply. I'll apologise. I've only been trying to get an answer that has made some proper sense. Until that point nobody had appear to do so. My focus on the OP was merely due to the fact he appeared to be the only person in favour of the suggestion and was defending it. I was hoping to get a better debate going with more focus and deeper thought but it never happened. I find its easy to get side tracked a bit when these things drag on for 3/4+ pages.

Adreni, on December 03 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

As for vouching for the complexity of the code itself, it's frankly just counting logical processes. There's already a series of logical processes set in place to quickly turn the mech 180 degrees in one direction. That in itself can't be but so complicated. It's just:

|| [Variable-BOOST] + [Variable-Backwards] executes [Function-Quickturn] ||

|| [Function-Quickturn] = Rotate body [180 degrees] @ [TurningSpeed] ||

All you have to do is add a code that fetches the Return from the pre-existing function ( [FunctionTurnMech] ) and have a simple If/Then/Else statement return the rotational degrees to the Quickturn function.

|| [QuickTurnLeft] = Rotate Body [-180 Degrees]
|| [QuickTurnRight] = Rotate Body [180 Degrees]

|| If [MouseMovingLeft] Then [QuickTurnLeft] Else [QuickTurnRight]

---

It's more complicated than that, I'll admit, but not by much. And that took me less than a minute to write.

I didn't realise code worked so simply. I had a weird illusion I guess of lots of file references and numbers and mathematical equations and processes. Thanks for the info

[rdKNIGHTMAREZ]

different different problem. Im showing this thread to a friend right now, the argumentation with obviously good ideas is absurd

"they should get better things to do with their life, what (knightmarez) is suggesting isn't going to make it worse....*smirk*.. its just ,....."

[Gagzila]

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on December 04 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

different different problem.

What is_ Please elaborate, I don't know who you are responding to let alone what you are making reference to.

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on December 04 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

Im showing this thread to a friend right now, the argumentation with obviously good ideas is absurd

"they should get better things to do with their life, what (knightmarez) is suggesting isn't going to make it worse....*smirk*.. its just ,....."

Does your friend play Hawken_

You also haven't seemed to grasp that what you think is a good idea is not necessarily what other people think of it and it is for AG and ME to make that final, definitive decision, with Hawken being their game and all. Even an idea that is in fact good and recognised by everyone else (including the devs) that it is good, does not necessarily mean it will or can be implemented based on many different factors.

Essentially your idea is based on your opinion...opinions are like arseholes - everyone has one and it's a rare occurrence when even one lines up exactly with your own so of course there is going to be debate on any new ideas brought to a game where generally most people already like the way it is.

But I know you won't take in anything I have just said, so carry on my wayward son...your arguments lack any weight or decent backing from other forum members so I see no need to continually try and make you see sense...I'll just pop in every now and then to post up pictorial responses  



Cheers,

Gagzila

[Subdivision]

Amen!

[AsianJoyKiller]

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on December 04 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

different different problem. Im showing this thread to a friend right now, the argumentation with obviously good ideas is absurd

"they should get better things to do with their life, what (knightmarez) is suggesting isn't going to make it worse....*smirk*.. its just ,....."

I've got my friend here, and he has this to say: "That nightmarez guy shouldn't make up imaginary friends and quote them as if they exist. I mean, that's so stupid. What is he_ Five years old_"

Edited by AsianJoyKiller, December 04 2012 - 05:31 PM.

[rdKNIGHTMAREZ]

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. 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.

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.

This whole thread shouldn't be this long....but it is.

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

shift spin is a fine way to design the game, but they messed it up slightly by making it 1 way only. my tiny fix makes it both ways. Simple really.

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.

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.

Edited by rdKNIGHTMAREZ, December 04 2012 - 05:56 PM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

I'm constantly in wonder of how one individual can be so wrong and so hypocritical on such a regular basis.

[rdKNIGHTMAREZ]

thats pretty fresh from someone who failed to be positive on the positivity and love thread, oh wait, im becoming like you

Back on topic.

what specifically am i wrong about when ti comes to the 180 degree turn_

[AsianJoyKiller]

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on December 04 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

what specifically am i wrong about when ti comes to the 180 degree turn_

I'd restate what's been said, but it would just turn into another 5 pages of you claiming your opinion as fact, claiming to stand for the majority (when evidence shows otherwise) and just plain ignoring any points made.

EDIT:
Oh yeah.
And you'd probably make some stupid little text diagram that's impossible to decipher.

Edited by AsianJoyKiller, December 04 2012 - 06:16 PM.

[Beemann]

TBH it wasn't impossible to decipher, it was just not really evidence
Timing yourself via forum posts is silly, and using one instance of waiting for someone else to join (which, depending on the gamemode, can get incredibly painful) really isn't enough data to make a statement for OR against the idea

[UnionofJack]

[Deleted, it's not worth it]

Edited by UnionofJack, December 05 2012 - 12:19 AM.

[rdKNIGHTMAREZ]

Quote

TBH it wasn't impossible to decipher, it was just not really evidence

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

[SamSlade]

Good idea, would help with situation awareness. +1

[LordAzurite]

I'd rather they removed the Shift + S function and let you boost backwards and turn 180 degrees manually.

[D20Face]

I will openly admit to skipping this thread previously because whatsisname started it and he's full of bad ideas. Saw it linked in another thread, followed said link, and was both surprised at the idea being decent as well as the general reaction.

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.

Edited by D20Face, December 05 2012 - 07:29 AM.

[Subdivision]

Ok, if you are turning one way and it can be made so you continue turning in that direction when you spin, that is fine. I still don't think anyone can gather the required information over what the radar gives you in that situation. You'd have to distinguish mech class, type, health and position before it can properly influence any decision you make. The fact you are turning means you have already made a decision to reposition at the least and aren't in a strong enough position to take a moment to look around. I've never denied the benefits of the suggestion except the supposed information gathering capability some think you could gain from it. I'm not keen on the OP's suggestion for integrating an additional control input to execute the manoeuvre and don't think the benefit is all that necessary.

[D20Face]

Subdivision, on December 05 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

I'm not keen on the OP's suggestion for integrating an additional control input to execute the manoeuvre

It can be made to default one direction and only shift if you're moving the other way. No additional input required.

And all this "you wouldn't gain more than what you can get from radar" is bullcrap. If the person isn't shooting or boosting they can still be well within sight.
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. Don't believe me_ Let's play some tee eff too prophunt.

You guys are just bandwagoning against whatsisface because you don't like him.

[Subdivision]

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

Subdivision, on December 05 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

I'm not keen on the OP's suggestion for integrating an additional control input to execute the manoeuvre

It can be made to default one direction and only shift if you're moving the other way. No additional input required.

That's fine.

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

And all this "you wouldn't gain more than what you can get from radar" is bullcrap. If the person isn't shooting or boosting they can still be well within sight.
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. Don't believe me_ Let's play some tee eff too prophunt.

In that instance you aren't gathering the information while spinning. That isn't my issue with what was put forward.

That's mighty impressive and good for you. I don't doubt your abilities man. No need to get so aggravated. What I mean is you'll know that something is there. To me you're more likely to understand what is coming from other means than the info you get from that instant of doing the 180 turn. Knowing mech load outs and capabilities will tell you what you're dealing with roughly. Knowing what types you are against, good team communication. All the other stuff people use. If you don't agree I'm fine with that.

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

You guys are just bandwagoning against whatsisface because you don't like him.

I'm not discussing any personal issues with the guy. I'm not insulting or attacking him. I'm defending my opinion. If he replies to me that I'm wrong with insufficient proof I'm going to reply with more feedback and constructive criticism as much  as possible. If anything, I tried to get him to do the same which was a waste of time. If my post genuinely give that impression I apologise as that has never been my intent. I thought or at least I have tried to express express myself clearly as much as possible. These comments on what people think others are trying to do with posts are ruining the focus of these threads. If I've made a mistake, I'm happy to take it back.

Please also understand if he is one of the only, if not the only person defending his side, it's hard to not become about what he is saying. If a large number of us are on one side and him on the other, that's just the consensus of those of us posting on the topic at hand, there's no secret underground vendetta against the guy.

Edited by Subdivision, December 05 2012 - 09:12 AM.

[D20Face]

Subdivision, on December 05 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

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

And all this "you wouldn't gain more than what you can get from radar" is bullcrap. If the person isn't shooting or boosting they can still be well within sight.
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. Don't believe me_ Let's play some tee eff too prophunt.

In that instance you aren't gathering the information while spinning. That isn't my issue with what was put forward.

My argument is that yes, I would be.

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. If something is wrong, they'll know something is wrong and readjust to accommodate that and gather more info.

Just like how radar doesn't give you all the details, neither will spinning. Doesn't make it not useful.

Subdivision, on December 05 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

If my post genuinely give that impression I apologise as that has never been my intent.

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

Subdivision, on December 05 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

there's no secret underground vendetta against the guy.

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