Backward cam

[TwinkleToes]

It's been a very long time since I have come up against a BA that I considered more than a bother, and they have been very far from fearsome for quite some time now.
 
A fully kitted out dedicated BA with a mPPC and a microHL and the terrain on their side might do some reasonable damage, but it's not like they are taking out 'Mechs and vehicles with abandon.  Most BA tip over in a stiff breeze.

  There are plenty of players who can go 20-1 something as dedicated BA killing many mechs 1v1.  Granted, doing this in TC mode is dumb and not helping the team.  Either way, I'm definitely a fan of a fixed cam that we have now.  If anything, planes could use a little extra view range but I can name 100 other things I'd rather have before a special camera for any asset.

[Knightcrawler]

Twink, I'm not even sure if Erro can manage 20-1. :-P 1-on-1 isn't usually the problem. Probably most of my deaths as BA I'm doing okay against what I am attacking, then a buddy or two swoops in and helps out. Choosing another target isn't usually an option because it might take 2 minutes to walk there, and the battle will have changed by then.

Kit, you know that's not how multiple views would be used. Most players would tap the button to look behind them for half a second while camping or while waiting for their weapons to recharge, then quickly tap back. It's irrelevant that the player can't shoot while looking behind them, because they'd be able to do it between the recycling times of even Small Beam Lasers. Really, I see another large problem with this: it can be abused for intel while turning your torso away from an opponent. Good players will turn their torso against enemy salvos and wait for a good time to unleash their own weapons. By looking behind them, they'll know exactly when an enemy is vulnerable. This might lead to brawls where opponents are constantly turned away from each other, waiting for the opponent to turn. I guess it's probably not too much of a problem, just being devil's advocate.

I'd recommend a down-time between switching views where there is nothing by static. Changing views might take 0.5-1 seconds each way. Taking a PPC shot to the back will temporarily disable the camera, and the back being destroyed would destroy it permanently.

[(TLL) Heretic]

Even if we abandon the idea of a backwards Cam I'd still take the FPS hit to have the right MFD (the painted map radar) switchable to a limited FoV, grainy (low res)Forward-Cam.

The number of times I've been killed or had my aim totally screwed because my tank has got stuck on terrain while fighting ASF/VTOLs probably equals the number of ASF runway bug deaths that the pilots all complain about 

A forward cam would allow me to keep moving (essential when you have NoE bombers around) andFiring.  Right now with AA it's move or fire, as even a little rock will waste your entire efforts for that bombing run, and often the tank will get stuck easily on scenery...and then you are dead.

[TwinkleToes]

Errodien and I have both done it.  So has that guy Str1ker.  Depends mostly on the map.

[noisefloor]

Ok, so with a toggleable view (is this correct english), we don't get performance issures.

So i want to explain my Idea a little more:

The Backward-cam should be something only to navigate your mech.
So the player can not fire any weapon in this mode. He just can see whats going on behind him.
To help BA in this situation, let's think about a crappy cam with grainy view and just monochrome. Something like the night-view.
This way, a mech is not able to shoot back in a fight and the bad image helps to hide a BA a little more.
But: We can see mechs behind us or even terrain structures.

I think this would be a huge help in mech-movement.

[OldWateley]

I think the reverse cam in a Thanny or Vulture would be great.  You could run at full speed with your torso twisted 180 degrees and still be able to see where you are going   

[General_Armchair]

Kit, you know that's not how multiple views would be used. Most players would tap the button to look behind them for half a second while camping or while waiting for their weapons to recharge, then quickly tap back.

I really don't see how that's all that different than running passive 24/7 except for the 1/8th second they go active.  I agree with the camera delay and "fragile" camera.  I don't know about completely destroying the camera, but at least knock the camera out when night vision is out.

This is what I'd like to see in the rear view camera.

*weapons disabled while in alternate view.
*Low resolution, grainy, greyscale image.
*noticeable delay between swapping views (I'd also like to see such a delay between active and passive radar).  You should be able to toggle the cameras occasionally in a 360 mech when running one way and engaging a target behind you....but the delay should cost you a volley.  It should be VERY infeasible to toggle between every volley.
*Rear view camera temporarily disabled by PPC fire.  The alternate camera should be disabled long enough for a single BA to keep the alternate view disabled indefinitely.

If we get alternate cam views, I think Heretic's tank forward view is a great idea...although forward view might not need to be grainy/delayed/easily disabled.

edit:  Lets add narrow FOV to the list of downsides to alternate camera.  I'd REALLY like to have some form of alternate camera, and if one of the major things holding it back is balancing vs. BA, then lets make these camera's as impractical for spotting BA as possible.....can we just make BA invisible to the rear camera?

[benben10]

Kit, you know that's not how multiple views would be used. Most players would tap the button to look behind them for half a second while camping or while waiting for their weapons to recharge, then quickly tap back. It's irrelevant that the player can't shoot while looking behind them, because they'd be able to do it between the recycling times of even Small Beam Lasers. Really, I see another large problem with this: it can be abused for intel while turning your torso away from an opponent. Good players will turn their torso against enemy salvos and wait for a good time to unleash their own weapons. By looking behind them, they'll know exactly when an enemy is vulnerable. This might lead to brawls where opponents are constantly turned away from each other, waiting for the opponent to turn. I guess it's probably not too much of a problem, just being devil's advocate.

um, brawlers ALREADY do not face each other for most of the fight. if you have a slow reload weapon like a lbx20 or a ppc you should be looking away to protect your vulnerable parts. i know i already turn my back to the enemy in brawls. rear torso armor is pretty thick on many mechs and is a good place to put damage if your front is messed up.

[=CJW=YalK]

I wrote a long post but the forum said "f*** you, no posts for you" so this'll be short....

I like it the way we have it....I think multiple views would take some of the skill out of the game and what it means to be an effective Mechwarrior....

....keeping your opponent from getting behind you, avoiding and getting out of ambushes, fighting BA....

The way it is now you have to think and be aware somewhat, not just "hurrrr, look behind me, look left, look right...oh there is an enemy, durrrrr pew pew".....

You have remember your surroundings, remember and guess what your opponents are doing....Strategize and plan....

[Knightcrawler]

Benben, you'll see I said they already did that. What I said the difference would be is that it'd set some people into a waiting game:
Player 1: I won't turn until he turns and exposes ____.
Player 2: I won't turn until he turns and exposes ____.

[Freeborn_Toad]

I'm highly doubtful that a rear view cam, at a smaller size, seriously impact performance.

[KingLeerUK]

I'm highly doubtful that a rear view cam, at a smaller size, seriously impact performance.

Q: "does the additional view require a separate logical viewport for the game to render?"
A: "yes it does"
 
Q: "does CryEngine2 use the same amount of resources to render a small viewport for a scene as it does a large one?"
A: "yes it does"
 
Q: "so rendering a small viewport of a 2nd scene is like asking CryEngine2 to completely render 2 independent scenes simultaneously?"
A: "yes, and it takes nearly 2x the resources to do it"

[Freeborn_Toad]

Put it in 0.5.5 and I'll test it.