Lock-On Compromise?

#21psychobrew(Topic Creator)Posted 6/18/2010 7:56:14 PM
"The difference with the old system is that the new one does not keep them in the center of your screen, therefore you need to move the cursor to bring your crosshairs on the enemy. It also seems like, from the video, to acquire a lock you have to aim before you hit the lock button."

Maybe it was my settings, but I remember using lock-on in the original and it did not always center your opponent. But even then, once I had my recticle on the opponent, all I had to do was keep the trigger pulled no matter where the other guy tried to move. That's the problem. Once aimed in and locked on, no skill is needed. This is one reason I beleive there were so many "dual" deaths. If there was some way of breaking loick-on, that would really improve the strategy for multiplayer.
#22MC_Brian1Posted 6/18/2010 7:58:20 PM
I know what you're saying. You didn't have to move the cursor once it was on them. But now you do. The little lock box thing moves away from the center of the screen, so you have to move the cursor now.
---
no wonder fox's father died... dumbass was wearing shades in space - gameheadache
#23DarkZV2BetaPosted 6/18/2010 9:14:36 PM
Actually...
My idea wouldn't. It doesn't follow them at all, You have to follow them. If you don't follow them, and keep your reticule in the dead zone, they can run around behind you and stab you in the back.


That's still following the target. It just doesn't force you to, making it slightly less annoying when you lock the wrong target. You still have an easier time centering your target, making it worlds easier to get accurate shots.
Flanking someone has been one of the oldest FPS tactics since the original Quake. This basically negates it completely in an age when it's actually starting to hit it's prime. Same with jumping over someone.

What it does is make it less likely that you will turn too far, Especially if it is an Up and in your Face scenario, which are horrible in just about every FPS I've played. due, largly in part to the fact that games rarely have an FOV over 90* where as you naturally have around 190*.

You don't have that large of an FOV at any given time, and The Conduit was tooled to feel more like you have the ability to glance to your sides with the Human scheme. It felt very natural. The only problem remaining was overturning by pointing the wiimote offscreen, which was an issue with the player, and has been fixed with WiiM+. Lock on no longer has any sort of excuse to be in the game besides making it more friendly to nublets.
---
2% of GameFAQs users have this in their signature. If you're one of the 98% that doesn't, copy and paste this into your signature.
#24CHAINMAILLEKIDPosted 6/19/2010 12:13:59 AM
You don't have that large of an FOV at any given time.
You can have over 180* at any one time....


Lock on no longer has any sort of excuse to be in the game besides making it more friendly to nublets.
Exactly.
#25The_ShaderPosted 6/19/2010 12:24:02 AM
Theres a video showing a guy locked on and nearly runs right off the screen. ffs, it doesn't follow targets AT ALL (unless it does, but in which case its very unnoticeable.)

People said before that lock-on takes away competitive gameplay because it practically auto-aims for you. Regardless if thats considered true or not, Lock-on no longer follows targets! How the **** is this still an issue???
---
Sparkster returns after 16 years in..... "Rocket Knight"
My Alias for Conduit= "Shader" Monster Hunter Tri= "Deimos"
#26DarkZV2BetaPosted 6/19/2010 1:05:11 AM
There are videos showing it following targets. Lock-on is a bit of a mystery right now. But, considering Tony said that they're looking into modes without lock/radar, I'm assuming it still follows targets.
---
2% of GameFAQs users have this in their signature. If you're one of the 98% that doesn't, copy and paste this into your signature.
#27Sudsy86_Posted 6/19/2010 9:53:34 AM

psychobrew posted...

Lock-on is going to be included. We know this. We don't know the exact mechanics at this time though.

Since I think the main point of lock-on is so newer players who are not used to playing with the Wiimote can keep their opponent on screen, what if lock-on were tied to a bounding box whos size is set by HVS? This way, you wouldn't lose your opponent, but it would force the shooter to aim by allowing the opponent to dodge bullets by moving out of the line of fire. The effect could also be feathered (transition period at the edge of the bounding box between no turning and full speed turning) so aiming doesn't become automatic in a dance of death.



I'd have to disagree with the "main-point" of lock-on. After playing Tcon1 a lot, I don't think its inclusion had anything to do with "giving the weak players a chance". Rather, they liked their game mechanics/ physics enough to not want to have their gameplay be so chaotic and sloppy, BECAUSE the mechanics/ physics are a bit extreme. Though lock-on could sense targets you weren't even facing, I think the intention was more about cleaner gameplay and making the logistics of it work with the mechanics/ physics.

I think just making lock-on less sensitive would be fine. Just because a bad player can kill me a little quicker when I'm not in a good situation doesn't make lock-on game-breaking. Bad players still lose, the skilled/ smart still win, and everyone in between aren't smart enough anyways. It's not game-breaking.